ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

No travel for SJWs

China unveils the next step in Big Social:
China said it will begin applying its so-called social credit system to flights and trains and stop people who have committed misdeeds from taking such transport for up to a year.

People who would be put on the restricted lists included those found to have committed acts like spreading false information about terrorism and causing trouble on flights, as well as those who used expired tickets or smoked on trains, according to two statements issued on the National Development and Reform Commission’s website on Friday.

Those found to have committed financial wrongdoings, such as employers who failed to pay social insurance or people who have failed to pay fines, would also face these restrictions, said the statements which were dated 2 March.

The move is in line with President’s Xi Jinping’s plan to construct a social credit system based on the principle of “once untrustworthy, always restricted,” said one of the notices which was signed by eight ministries, including the country’s aviation regulator and the Supreme People’s Court.

China has flagged plans to roll out a system that will allow government bodies to share information on its citizens’ trustworthiness and issue penalties based on a so-called social credit score.
This is a brilliant application of what Big Social is doing, only instead of allowing the hand-picked SJWs of the Twitter Trust and Safety Council or the Facebook-endorsed SPLC to do the restricting, the Chinese government will do it. And why not? The basic principle has been established and broadly accepted, from Twitter to the Her Majesty's Government. As Q said, "why are trips allowed?"

Imagine if the God-Emperor and his Grand Inquisitor were to launch a similar program in the United States. After all, who has proven themselves more untrustworthy than Facebook? How could the SJWs legitimately complain if Mark Zuckerberg and his executives found themselves placed under permanent restriction? This principle of "once untrustworthy, always restricted" is merely an adaptation of Facebook's own approach to banning thoughtcrime and legally controlling the public discourse, and it represents a welcome return to pre-Enlightenment philosophy on the part of a people who were always rightly dubious about it being genuine. There can be no "freedom of speech" in any non-Western, non-Christian, non-American society, because the concept doesn't even make sense in any other context.

If you wanted to keep what passed for free speech in America, then you shouldn't have permitted entry to Catholics and Jews, followed by wave after wave of various peoples whose beliefs and cultural traditions are entirely antithetical to the concept. And given those waves of immigration, you can't be surprised that it's no longer even possible to publicly state that a man is not a woman without negative legal and social and employment and financial consequences.

The devil, of course, is in the definitions. But the devil is out. Let's not shed too many tears for the SJWs once they discover the difference between "influence" and "power", for as another Chinese leader once said, "power comes from the barrel of a gun".  It does not come from control of a momentarily popular software application.

Labels: ,

122 Comments:

Blogger Aeoli March 20, 2018 6:17 AM  

I'll play foil here.

And why not? The basic principle has been established and broadly accepted, from Twitter to the Her Majesty's Government.

It's different when international corporations restrict speech. If a country like the UK restricts speech and you don't like it you should move to a different country.

Blogger VD March 20, 2018 6:25 AM  

It's different when international corporations restrict speech. If a country like the UK restricts speech and you don't like it you should move to a different country.

There is no difference because many, if not most, governments and government agencies are international corporations.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 20, 2018 6:27 AM  

I thought Viktor Suvorov had a good point when he said if you think the people own the trains you should try traveling on one without a ticket.

But I doubt the PRC President Xi ever buys a ticket when he travels.

Untrustworthy but unrestricted.

"Governments are made of people - notably ungoverned."

Blogger Moritz Krämer March 20, 2018 6:27 AM  

What's the deal with Catholics? Why are they anti-free speech? Always thought this puritanism was a mark of certain protestant denominations.

Blogger Michael Maier March 20, 2018 6:28 AM  

Wow. This is brilliant; both the Chinese and your comments.

There can be no "freedom of speech" in any non-Western, non-Christian, non-American society, because the concept doesn't even make sense in any other context.

Which is amusing because
1: the left has not the capacity to rationally disagree (either possessing historical knowledge or being able to think at all)

and

2: the left already despises free speech so they don't even disagree with China's policy. As you've pointed out before, Vox: look how they shut down all public comments on websites ASAP.

Blogger Rocklea Marina March 20, 2018 6:40 AM  

The Ministry of Sin, or MinSin for short, sees all. The multi-platform, multi-national sin counter. Tick "I accept and understand these terms and conditions."

Blogger Aeoli March 20, 2018 6:41 AM  

look how they shut down all public comments on websites ASAP.

If anyone sees a leftist article critical of speech, please direct Alt-Right posters to it. I'd love to see a screencap of "Comments have been disabled" right under the title.

Blogger Aeoli March 20, 2018 6:41 AM  

critical of speech policing

Blogger Michael Maier March 20, 2018 6:43 AM  

Aeoli wrote:look how they shut down all public comments on websites ASAP.

If anyone sees a leftist article critical of speech, please direct Alt-Right posters to it. I'd love to see a screencap of "Comments have been disabled" right under the title.


Now you're just evil.......

I like it.

Blogger Aeoli March 20, 2018 6:44 AM  

What's the deal with Catholics? Why are they anti-free speech?

Catholics value solidarity and authority and authoritative things, Prots value independence and individual accomplishment. It's primarily a racial difference, imo.

Anonymous Anonymous March 20, 2018 6:45 AM  

The left loves free speech ... as long as the speech in question supports the narrative. After all, "hate speech" is just evil and not really speech at all; and they get to define "hate speech".

I also note that if a small restaurant were to refuse service to a class of people they would be in deep dodo. But if Twitter banes Vox Day for being "far right" then that is OK.

Hypocrisy? Not in their reality.

Blogger Aeoli March 20, 2018 6:47 AM  

There is no difference because many, if not most, governments and government agencies are international corporations.

How dare you!

Honestly I have no idea what a leftist would say here. Suppose we'll find out soon.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 20, 2018 6:52 AM  

they would chant "conspiracy theory!" while accusing you of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to defraud their favoured candidate.

As Mark Stoval noted, they would do it without a hint of self-awareness, irony, or intelligence.

Blogger Phillip George March 20, 2018 7:06 AM  

No travel for SJW.s
Vox, you might get a smile out of this. I'd call that in as a subliminal commentary on the Rapture.
It's about 5 hours right now from the Vernal Equinox.

Some, many, are supposing that 6000 years of Man ticks over in 5 hours. [An outlier is End of May.]

storm indeed

Blogger SemiSpook37 March 20, 2018 7:08 AM  

@4

Seeing as how there were Catholic supporters of the American Revolution (Charles Carroll of Carrollton), and there was a small but significant bloc of Irish and English Catholic colonials, I, too, am confused by this statement. I’d say that Vox’s jab is aimed more at the Italians and Irish who came later on, but remember, the original Catholics here wanted the same type of freedom as the Puritans did. The British monarchy and Parliament was still very antagonistic to Catholics at the time of the Revolution. It would only make sense for them to be supportive of free speech as intended, regardless of the edicts of the Pontiff.

Of course, the Vatican was right to suppress the Jesuits around the same time, because they knew that such an idea of free speech could be potentially detrimental to the Faith if allowed to be left unchecked. Which is why we have that genius Jorge now in charge and acolytes like James Martin running around openly mocking Truth.

I think most here understand the whole “not free from consequences” caveat as it applies to free speech. Oddly enough, in the priest’s homily at the TLM I attended this week, in his discussion on “Thou shalt not bear false witness”, he said that being quiet was a perfectly good means to not to get caught up in error. This in no way meant we shouldn’t speak up against evil, which is a legitimate use of free speech, and what I assume is the basis for support of it here, but it is something to consider when ignoring that consequences caveat.

Blogger VD March 20, 2018 7:15 AM  

Seeing as how there were Catholic supporters of the American Revolution (Charles Carroll of Carrollton), and there was a small but significant bloc of Irish and English Catholic colonials, I, too, am confused by this statement.

Either you're playing disingenuous or you're not very intelligent. The exception of a few Catholics who tactically supported "religious freedom" because the British crown was suppressing Catholicism hardly outweighs the centuries of strict repression of free speech and free thought by the Roman Catholic Church as well as Catholic monarchies.

Those Catholics were playing the same game that women, Jews, Communists, and gays played in 20th century America, the same game that Muslims are playing now. They believed in free speech when they were out of power, and repressing free speech when they had it.

Now, I am not saying that the Catholic Church was not correct to repress free speech over the centuries, I am merely pointing out that Catholicism is historically and intrinsically opposed to it, and Catholic immigrants had neither an understanding of it nor a cultural connection to it, so it's hardly surprising that they did not defend it in the USA when it came under assault, but rather, tended to support the assailants instead.

Blogger SemiSpook37 March 20, 2018 7:18 AM  

I think in the past 50 years, many Traditionalists would challenge that statement. Sure, there’s something to be said for solidarity and authority, but what good is it if it’s to be used as a cudgel to obscure Truth? That’s what Modernism has wrought on much of the Church in that regard.

I’d go so far as to say Catholics also value independence and individual accomplishments, as well. Until recently, how else could you explain the canonization process for saints? Many of those people had quite the independent streak within them, and had no problems telling their contemporaries they were in error, including the Curia.

Anonymous Anonymous March 20, 2018 7:19 AM  

> “once untrustworthy, always restricted,

It is interesting, that on Russian there is almost identical proverb: "once you lie – and never be trustworthy" ("единожды солгавши – кто тебе поверит")

> who has proven themselves more untrustworthy than Facebook

WaPo, NYT, CNN etc ("enemies of people")

> Chinese leader once said, "power comes from the barrel of a gun"

He also have said: world is contradiction, life is struggle

Blogger VD March 20, 2018 7:23 AM  

What's the deal with Catholics? Why are they anti-free speech?

Look up the long history of blasphemy and heresy laws. They have always been against free speech. And, considering where the Enlightenment and various Supreme Court decisions have led us, they may have been right to hold that position.

Blogger VFM #7634 March 20, 2018 7:26 AM  

"What's the deal with Catholics? Why are they anti-free speech?"

Whenever a Catholic loses the Faith, he becomes a Marxist for some odd reason. (And yes, liberal Catholics have lost the Faith, possibly more than conservative Protestants; they just are in denial about it.)

This applies particularly to ethnic Catholics with no founding American ancestry. Aeoli's point about the differences between Catholics and Protestants applies here.

Also, the Papacy disapproved of free speech on the grounds that it gave legitimacy to bad ideas... like Marxism. But that was criticism from the right, not the left.

Blogger Dave March 20, 2018 7:26 AM  

People who would be put on the restricted lists

For convenience and to facilitate the identification of the people on the list, they should have some kind of mark.

Blogger SemiSpook37 March 20, 2018 7:38 AM  

@VD

And that’s a fair assessment. I mean, look at the uproar in the Curia today on the document addressing Communion for divorcees and remarried members. A handful of cardinals and bishops speaking out for the Truth are being denigrated because they had the audacity to speak up.

Old habits die hard, as they say.

I will admit ignorance in my earlier statement, as you’re correct on the cultural disconnect. All I’m saying is there are a few of us willing to learn and correctly apply the principle in spite of the history we have.

Blogger Robert Browning March 20, 2018 7:41 AM  

The Social Credit system is mostly about people who won't pay back money borrowed and owed. It is public shaming. On a public video screen, your picture, your name and the amount you refused to repay will be shown to everybody.

Blogger tz March 20, 2018 7:45 AM  

John Adams, the second President passed the Aliens and Sedition Act, which wasn't exactly free-speech friendly.

The strange thing about the Protestant founders is that they theologically rejected "Natural Law" but practically adopted it as part of the foundation

Hence Milo's publishing Timothy Gordon's book on the subject. Contemporary protestant pastor, Chuck Baldwin as well as Wallbuilders and others point to the Natural Law.

As to the Catholics that were let in, lets just say they weren't quite Aquinas or Duns Scotus.

Yet to clarify, free speech is about using reason and evidence, or even high rhetoric. Pointing and screeching and yelling are Incitements targeting the base emotions. So is pornography which no one thought banning was incompatible with free speech until a (((few))) took it to the Supreme Court.

But speaking of Courts, James Edward lost at the Michigan Court of Appeals THE TEXTBOOK defamation "Saying you are a member of the KKK" - yes in the textbooks. On The Political Cesspool, he has interviewed David Duke, but the court said "you are known by the company you keep so the Detroit News reporter didn't defame you by calling you a member of the KKK".

My point with the above is social media has links with friends and followers so everyone who uses them has a social graph. Maybe anyone who ever "liked" Hillary or her campaign, or their friends and followers shouldn't have guns or be able to fly.

And as a side note, Uber was denying the people going to Unite the Right access to their service. What happens when all the "taxis" are self-driving Ubers?

Blogger VD March 20, 2018 7:49 AM  

All I’m saying is there are a few of us willing to learn and correctly apply the principle in spite of the history we have.

There are always exceptions and outliers. So what? If the decline and fall of America has taught us anything, it is to ignore the exceptions and make policy based on the larger trends and tendencies.

An astonishing proportion of America's problems have stemmed from treating outliers as evidence of general capability.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 20, 2018 7:54 AM  

"Whenever a Catholic loses the Faith, he becomes a Marxist for some odd reason."

Vox noted earlier that certain people are advocates of free speech when they're ruled, but lose the fervour for it when they become rulers.

Early ex-believers sold their unbelief on the basis that it provided the same (or even better?) ethical mores but just without God - you know, a minor detail really, that whole God thing. Why would someone who knows God created every material thing be at all concerned at trying to do without Him?

Anyway, now they think they're in the ascendant, their commitment to those ethical standards has been shown to be, well, less than total and less than totally forthright.

But they still crave, inside themselves, the respectability that goes with professing public belief in a strong and enduring set of behavioural standards.

Marxism, as noted, was an attempt to formalise a previously instinctive craving; to provide social respectability by virtue of strict adherence to moral standard while being an infidel. In other words, to justify Christian ethics without resort to God.

As JudgyBitch observes, it hasn't really worked:

"Men are capable of the worst, most atrocious violence against other men, against women, against children, but the significant, horrific difference between men and women, I think, is that women kill their own babies."

But it was never meant to. Merely to sucker enough people into joining the rush to destruction.

That's why ex-believers becomes Marxists.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 20, 2018 7:56 AM  

P.S. This is the same reason why theistic evolutionists exist: they crave both piety and the intellectual respect of their enemies.

Like those who trade freedom for security, they will have neither.

The Conservatives, as Vox has often noted, are the political equivalent, trading victory for civility.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 20, 2018 8:04 AM  

"I’d go so far as to say Catholics also value independence and individual accomplishments"

"Catholics".

What does catholic mean anyway? It doesn't mean independence.

"Whenever a Catholic loses the Faith, he becomes a Marxist for some odd reason."

Probably that internal drive to belong to the single, monolithic hierarchy. If it's not the hierarchy of good, it'll be the biggest evil hierarchy they can find.

For my part, I agree with the Catholic blasphemy laws.

I also agree with the catholic concept.

I do not, however, agree that the Catholic church embodies these.

God will judge the spirit, and perhaps eventually the spirit will breathe as life back into the physical body. When it does, I expect it to be quite obvious to everyone.

Blogger Nate March 20, 2018 8:10 AM  

"And given those waves of immigration, you can't be surprised that it's no longer even possible to publicly state that a man is not a woman without negative legal and social and employment and financial consequences."

I think this is one of those times when not being in America makes it harder to see the real situation. As Tucker Carlson says on air almost every night, "There are only about 9 people in America who actually believe this crap."

if it were as bad as media portrays it... Tucker couldn't say that.

Blogger Avalanche March 20, 2018 8:12 AM  

" social credit system based on the principle of “once untrustworthy, always restricted,” "

WOW! What a GREAT way to get the state to punish folks you don't like!! (Scary.)

Blogger VD March 20, 2018 8:16 AM  

I think this is one of those times when not being in America makes it harder to see the real situation. As Tucker Carlson says on air almost every night, "There are only about 9 people in America who actually believe this crap."

That particular crap, yes. But if you add up all the people who believe in restricting unalienable rights for one reason or another, it is considerably north of 65 percent now.

The situation is no longer tenable. You can't govern jackals using rules written for tigers. It simply will not work.

Blogger Avalanche March 20, 2018 8:16 AM  

@11 "I also note that if a small restaurant were to refuse service to a class of people they would be in deep dodo. But if Twitter bans Vox Day for being "far right" then that is OK.
Hypocrisy? Not in their reality. "

Perfect examples of Who-Whom.

Blogger Avalanche March 20, 2018 8:25 AM  

@23 "The Social Credit system is mostly about people who won't pay back money borrowed and owed. It is public shaming. On a public video screen, your picture, your name and the amount you refused to repay will be shown to everybody."

Hey! Bet THAT would have prevented that "weird" "unexpected" "we never saw THAT coming" real estate crash of a few years ago -- show the 'bad credit risks' to everyone BEFORE (pressuring the banks into) giving them all insanely generous mortgages the banks knew they'd never pay!

Bet we could expand it to show all the rapists, murderers, drug runners, child abusers.... and then, because there would be no time left for showing ANY other programming on TV; everyone would end up 'cutting the cable.'

Fix two, maybe three, problems at once? (The third being the absolute BLINDNESS to the actual 'committers' of violent crimes...)

Blogger Avalanche March 20, 2018 8:27 AM  

@25 "who ever "liked" Hillary or her campaign, or their friends and followers shouldn't have guns or be able to fly.

I LIKE that! Anyone who voted for Hillary (or 'liked' her) goes straight onto the no-fly, no buy list! It's THEIR list, after all! (Oh, and the Bernie-bros too -- Bernie was WAY less successful at (being criminal) but just as slimy!)

Blogger Avalanche March 20, 2018 8:29 AM  

(That was to @24.)

and:
And as a side note, Uber was denying the people going to Unite the Right access to their service. What happens when all the "taxis" are self-driving Ubers?

Same thing that happens when all money is credit cards! Total control!

Blogger Avalanche March 20, 2018 8:33 AM  

@31 Vox: "You can't govern jackals using rules written for tigers."

Yeah, I want THAT on a tee shirt!

Blogger Looking Glass March 20, 2018 9:11 AM  

@28 Azure Amaranthine

The problem with the RCC, which really drove much of the Reformation, is that they want to act as an "Empire of God". The Jesuits have only made it worse over the years, and now they want to actually rule the world.

As an organization, the RCC failed 1000 years ago. The Leadership is too easily captured & corrupted by the whims of the days, and, even if that passes, they can never truly fix the problems because that would require cutting off "control" of certain regions. The RCC is 1 Corinthians writ large: constantly quarreling about what teacher to follow & utterly incapable of ejecting those drenched in deep immorality.

The end result is the RCC acts like a "Globalist Tribe", which is exactly how they respond to people outside of it.

Blogger Mr. B.A.D. March 20, 2018 9:12 AM  

You can't be too hard on Catholics Vox, especially when European Protestants were just as intolerant of "free" speech during the heighth of the Reformation. And even in the "free" colonies, Protestants tried to make their own little denominations the law of the land, sometimes outlawing Catholicism.

Blogger Hen March 20, 2018 9:15 AM  

Best. Column. Ever.

Well, today...lots of best columns from you, VD. Helps to laugh at the shackles.

Blogger VD March 20, 2018 9:30 AM  

You can't be too hard on Catholics Vox

That's true, you can't. They helped destroy the United States of America. The Know-Nothings were proven right in the end.

The world is not binary. The fact that there are others who are culpable does not exonerate guilty parties of their responsibility.

The story of America increasingly appears to be the fatal naivete of optimistic idealism. One hopes that the same weakness will not take the West with it.

Blogger Uncle John's Band March 20, 2018 9:44 AM  

"Whenever a Catholic loses the Faith, he becomes a Marxist for some odd reason."

Secular transcendence. The lost Catholic has rejected the metaphysics but still craves the authoritarian certainty and moralistic world view. The fact that secular transcendence is self-contradictory is of little consequence to human cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous Anonymous March 20, 2018 9:45 AM  

Old: Segregation

Modern: That's unfair!

Postmodern: Civil Rights

Futuristic: Social credit, heh

Timeless: Segregation

Blogger Peaceful Poster March 20, 2018 9:53 AM  

Segregation is good.
Segregation is natural.
Segregation is the way.

Blogger Mr. B.A.D. March 20, 2018 9:53 AM  

When talking about Western Civilization, give credit where it's due. 1500 years of Catholic unity conquering the world vs Protestant lesbian bishops and Creflo Dollar.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) March 20, 2018 9:57 AM  

When talking about Western Civilization, give credit where it's due. 1500 years of Catholic unity conquering the world vs Protestant lesbian bishops and Creflo Dollar.

How much of the world was conquered in 1500 vs 1900?

Blogger Looking Glass March 20, 2018 9:57 AM  

On the issue of "Free Speech", we can see how the concept was actually changed by simply changing the population. The "Free Speech Movement" was just the final nail in the coffin of complete convergence of the Ideal into an Orwellian Inverse.

What did in much of the Bill of Rights was overt Idealism rather than hard-headed prevention of certain aspects of the Government. Notably the 3rd Amendment (no quartering of Soldiers) is the one that's held up the best. This is probably a good basis upon which the next round of "Bills of Rights" should learn from.

On Speech, directly, we should probably classify Heresy in with Sedition. They're fundamentally the same thing: working from within a nation to destroy the current power structure. The difference is one is earthly while the other is about the divine. This is also why, traditionally, Heresy Laws were really being applied as "Sedition against the current Church Leadership".

Blogger Aeoli March 20, 2018 9:58 AM  

The problem with the RCC, which really drove much of the Reformation, is that they want to act as an "Empire of God".

The problem with Catholics is they tend to worship group sovereignty instead of God. The problem with Protestants is they tend to worship individual sovereignty instead of God.

Blogger Mr. B.A.D. March 20, 2018 9:59 AM  

Like 75% or something

Blogger Aeoli March 20, 2018 10:00 AM  

The problem with Eastern Orthodox is I don't know anything about them, but give me a minute and I'll come up with something.

Blogger Demonic Professor El March 20, 2018 10:02 AM  

The difference between the Catholics in the early United States and the immigration waves were pretty large, especially in their attitude towards governance and economics.

The Catholics in the US pre-1840s were largely from central/eastern Europe and came through alliances that the British held (Austria, Prussia, etc.) who had seen firsthand what Catholic Imperialism held in regards to speech and religious tolerance. They liked Protestant nations in general and often assimilated into the larger population.

Post-1840s Catholics tended to be more authoritarian and looked to the Pope/Church as a political organization which is not just what the Founding Fathers feared, but also many Americans. When you mix apostate Catholicism with Marxism (and many of the American socialists came from these immigrants), they weren't incorrect.

As for European history and the Catholics' feelings about "free speech," just look at the union of the Church to imperial politics via the Spanish Empire and the Austrians in 16th and 17th centuries.

Blogger Nate March 20, 2018 10:02 AM  

easy homie. dishonest is not the right word here.

Blogger Markku March 20, 2018 10:04 AM  

Plz not to be banning the Orthodox guy yet. He's black. They have a temper.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) March 20, 2018 10:05 AM  

Like 75% or something

North America, Africa, India, Indochina, Australia, and the East Indies were all conquered after 1500.

Before 1500 catholic conquests were limited to Europe and Latin America.

Blogger Nate March 20, 2018 10:09 AM  

" They have a temper."

that's not the preferred nomenclature sir. We prefer to call them excitable.

Blogger VD March 20, 2018 10:14 AM  

Don't even THINK about accusing me of dishonesty here without laying out your specific case, complete with evidence, Mr. B.A.D.

I'll cut you some slack since you are apparently emotionally incontinent, but if you do it again, I will ban and spam you.

I did not say anything that was not honest and I can certainly back up my case with copious evidence. You do not appear to even begin to understand what I am saying. So either get yourself under control or shut the fuck up.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 20, 2018 10:16 AM  

The SJW would happily ban one another once the "common enemy" is out of the way.

Blogger Demonic Professor El March 20, 2018 10:21 AM  

As per Eastern Orthodoxy, the Byzantines and later the Russians had the emperor/tsar as the official head of the Church, largely in order to avoid an independent bloc of political Church adherents.

This did create other problems, however, but largely due to inept rulers and invasions. Autokracy tends to be the name of the game in Orthodox countries for better or worse.

Blogger Mr. B.A.D. March 20, 2018 10:23 AM  

Semantics.

Blogger Looking Glass March 20, 2018 10:30 AM  

@49 Aeoli

Orthodox end up bound to their nations and it killed Evangelism for a very, very long time.

Christian Evangelism tends to happen during the periods after the collapse of a previous "Religious Order". "Evangelism via Empire" also failed horrifically, but that's what ends up happening when you completely bind the Church and the State.

Blogger Nate March 20, 2018 10:33 AM  

'Hell, it's like you've never seen Footloose. '

***gasp***

now you've gone to far.

Blogger Jack Amok March 20, 2018 10:49 AM  

I think this is one of those times when not being in America makes it harder to see the real situation. As Tucker Carlson says on air almost every night, "There are only about 9 people in America who actually believe this crap."

But those 9 people are Taleb's intolerant minority that he writes about in Skin In The Game and they create enough problems with their tantrums.

I think perhaps part of America's problem - part of the "fatal naivete of optimistic idealism" - stems from lack of experience with intolerant minorities. New England Puritans were as close as they had, and those people were generally okay with having their own town. Cross-breeding them with Italians and Irish was probably a bad idea.

Blogger VD March 20, 2018 10:59 AM  

You're done here, Mr. B.A.D. Don't comment here again.

I was not being dishonest. I was not being intellectually dishonest either. And you're now banned and spammed.

Blogger Pale Male March 20, 2018 10:59 AM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:This is the same reason why theistic evolutionists exist: they crave both piety and the intellectual respect of their enemies.
Way off the mark.  Try "intellectual self-respect".  Charles Darwin didn't invent the notion of evolution; it came out of the divide between naïve readings of Genesis and the world itself.  Where in Genesis is an era where the seas were dominated by things like ammonites and there wasn't a bony fish to be found?  If you are looking for the God of all creation, you have to suck these things up and go with them no matter how uncomfortable they make you (your feelz don't matter, same as with the biological realities of race and sex).  Denying the clear proof literally set in stone in the world is tantamount to blasphemy.

You can't go with "it's planted by Satan as a test of faith" without granting Satan some very impressive powers of creation, which people claim he doesn't have.  The only alternative is "it's real, and failing to bend our minds around it won't make it go away.  Deal with it."

Blogger Looking Glass March 20, 2018 11:06 AM  

@63 Pale Male

I was going to respond, but I still can't figure out what your actual point.

Blogger jdgalt March 20, 2018 11:21 AM  

The Chinese government is much more like SJWs than its foes are.

But I hope you are being sarcastic, because just like other regulatory regimes that SJWs favor, this one will only be "good" as seen by any faction so long as that faction controls the regulating agency.

Blogger Duke Norfolk March 20, 2018 11:21 AM  

tz wrote:but the court said "you are known by the company you keep so the Detroit News reporter didn't defame you by calling you a member of the KKK".

Small correction: he was actually called the leader of the KKK. Making the judgement against him even more ridiculous.

Blogger justaguy March 20, 2018 11:23 AM  

How is what the Chinese doing any different than Big Brother in 1984. Okay in 1944 Orwell didn't see the technology of today, but the ideas are the same-- intrusive spying and the subjects have to think correctly or there is punishment. Somehow every liberal in the West has read the book in school and doesn't think it is happening as they place the rat cages over the heads of others.

Blogger Rashadjin March 20, 2018 11:25 AM  

@49 Aeoli - The problem with Eastern Orthodox is I don't know anything about them, but give me a minute and I'll come up with something.

I've thought that exact line. And while Russian Eastern Orthodox very much appears to be adjunct to the State by way of national social unity, I've come up with a slightly different complaint. They depict themselves as ascetics, and with some of the Russian art I've seen, I believe it. The Russian soul looks wirey and lean, almost gaunt from a life of harsh contrasts. They're malnourished, and I blame a lot of that on Eastern Orthodox.

But that needs to be placed in context of another truth. All the real Christian denominations contain and exalt some small nugget of truth, but are horribly warped for lacking the whole. It seems like you need to wander through every one, extracting that little bit of truth from each to be assembled into the missing whole, in order to become a Christian worth a damn.

Blogger Duke Norfolk March 20, 2018 11:28 AM  

Peaceful Poster wrote:Segregation is good.

Segregation is natural.

Segregation is the way.


Amen

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella March 20, 2018 11:46 AM  

The original Puritans debated one with another, from church to church, to find the truth. You could consider each congregation a study group, if that helps you. They each tended to work on different aspects of a problem, all from slightly different perspective.

The pastor would take his studies, and the studies within his congregation, and correspond with other congregations' pastors. They debated, quite sharply, amongst themselves, as equals.

The classic Baptist church structure, with its emphasis on Sunday School classes tackling the big think stuff without a bishop shutting down discussion, is in this model. It's part of why I find confederations of mega-churches- sort of unnerving. They don't have the rumbustiousness of a fully present congregation of saints.

Because each congregation has different concerns within itself, it never quite lives up to an outsider's interests.

The church prefers Athanasius- holding onto the truth as he sees it- rather than Arius, who worked from intimidation and group tactics of character assassination, smearing and calumny.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 20, 2018 11:50 AM  

Pale Male wrote:Where in Genesis is an era where the seas were dominated by things like ammonites and there wasn't a bony fish to be found? ... Denying the clear proof literally set in stone in the world is tantamount to blasphemy.

Your understanding is totally driven by your assumptions. Assume God gave us an eyewitness account of Creation and the fossil record makes perfect sense, and Origin of Species becomes total nonsense.


No one argues with the fossil record. If you start with Genesis rather than with Darwin, you wind up with a very different interpretation of that fossil record.

Blogger Jack Amok March 20, 2018 12:38 PM  

But I hope you are being sarcastic, because just like other regulatory regimes that SJWs favor, this one will only be "good" as seen by any faction so long as that faction controls the regulating agency.

The message is, control or be controlled. We thought we had a nice, high-trust society full of responsible Alphas, hard-working Betas, and women who loved and respected them. A society that is self-regulating.

But the truth is our society is riddled with low-trust foreigners and feminists throwing non-stop shit-tests at everyone. It's not self-regulating at all - it's running off the rails in every direction at once.

We invited a whole bunch of the wrong people to have a seat at the table running society. We need to dis-invite them, and if we don't, they will continue to dis-invite us at every opportunity.

Time to break the ratchet.

Blogger Moritz Krämer March 20, 2018 12:45 PM  

Thx for the replies ppl. Should of thought of blasphemy laws. Although these don't seem to be a Catholic phenomenon. Everyone likes them. All you gotta do is look up its secular synonym: hate speech.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) March 20, 2018 12:47 PM  

The message is, control or be controlled. We thought we had a nice, high-trust society full of responsible Alphas, hard-working Betas, and women who loved and respected them. A society that is self-regulating.

I don't think that society existed for much of American history.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 20, 2018 12:49 PM  

@4 "What's the deal with Catholics? Why are they anti-free speech? Always thought this puritanism was a mark of certain protestant denominations."

Your kerfluffle is based on the idea that free speech is a good and wholesome thing that Catholics and all men ought to be celebrating in the first place.

@5 VD said: "There can be no "freedom of speech" in any non-Western, non-Christian, non-American society, because the concept doesn't even make sense in any other context."

There is no such thing as free speech in the first place, not even for Western Protestant society. John Locke's theory about such a natural right contradicts itself, and even John Milton did not truly believe in free speech. The Puritains certainly did not believe in free speech for the Catholics they imprisoned and hanged, and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson certainly did not believe in free speech for the Tories who were tarred and feahered. In fact, these two founders believed that Americans were to swear loyalty oaths.

@15 SemiSpook37 said: "there was a small but significant bloc of Irish and English Catholic colonials"

I have to agree with Vox's suspicion when he says "Either you're playing disingenuous or you're not very intelligent."

Their thinking is what has defined American Catholicisim ever since. The Irish and English Catholics who were here failed on many levels in implementing both evangelism as well as their own Catholicism. In the end, they failed to preserve Maryland, they failed to preserve Oregon country, they failed to preserve California, and they failed to retain their distinct Catholicism when the Irish culturally beat out the Germans to steer American Catholicism towards a more compromising, Americanist, flaccid "catholicism" that evolved into what we have today. For Catholics, America is a series of missed opportunities. The Catholics here have sold out, sacrificing their salt (evangalism and preservation of their culture) in exchange for a piece of the American pie. Ever since, it has been "As long as I get mine, I don't care."

Blogger Jon Mollison March 20, 2018 12:51 PM  

The presence of New World Catholics says nothing about the wisdom of allowing massive waves of Old World Catholics. (I say that as a man with ancestors in both camps.)

Therr are a billion Cayholics in yhe world. Outside of a very few narrow religious rites, they are hardly a monolithic, unified political bloc. Take a breath, Catholics, and consider that all too many of our coreligionists are opposed to the existence of the US and act accordingly.

Blogger DonReynolds March 20, 2018 12:51 PM  

Social credit?
That is nonsense, since there is no credit.
It is not even social merit.
No one must do anything good or social to EARN the ability to travel by mass transit.
This is not even a social tax or social penalty.
Once those are paid, the state would be satisfied.

What they have done is make a FELONY out of anti-social behavior. They have criminalized rudeness. And just like in the West (yes, even Canada and the USA), the offenders are not sent to prison...but they are marked for life and pay for their misdeeds forever, through loss of privileges and status.

Not conforming to the Liberal Agenda could quickly resort to loss of employment, a ban on future employment, financial ruin and loss of property/home/pension. In China, they put you on a No-Fly List and deny you the ability to ride the city bus.

Just off, I would say the Chinese are less vindictive than the Leftist Liberals at the NYTimes.

Blogger Looking Glass March 20, 2018 12:57 PM  

@72 Jack Amok

Self-rule is hard and, clearly now, beyond most humans to undertake. Was great while it lasted, and the only way to protect our rights is going to be on the blood of tyrants. Unenjoayble thoughts, but that's the reality.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 20, 2018 1:01 PM  

@16 Vox, you confuse me sometimes. In the main post, you cynically applaud China's censorship, and you imagine Donald Trump exercising a similar censorship program.

But then in your main OP, you say there can't be "freedom of speech" in non-Western society, and that to preserve it, America shouldn't have allowed over Catholics and Jews. And when you state this, it somehow makes me think that you wish freedom of speech could exist and be preserved, and that it's the fault of Catholics and Jews for not allowing it, and this makes you mad.

But then, you say: "The exception of a few Catholics who tactically supported "religious freedom" because the British crown was suppressing Catholicism hardly outweighs the centuries of strict repression of free speech and free thought by the Roman Catholic Church as well as Catholic monarchies." And this puzzles me a lot, because that era you speak of is Christendom--which you have often said is something we need to return to.

And yet then, you state: "Now, I am not saying that the Catholic Church was not correct to repress free speech over the centuries" And this makes me thin that you agree on the idea of repression of speech--as I do. You hint at the possibility that a certain level of censorship is "correct."

I suppose in all of this, I am trying to determine your complete opinion and desire when it comes to free speech. To speak plainly for myself, I don't think it exists at all, that it's not a natural right, that censorship is actually a good thing, and that the Founders were mistaken to "claim it" for America. In fact, to borrow your terminology, "freedom of speech" seems more like a rhetorical flourish that turned into a severe error later on in our country's development, causing a lot of our modern day problems.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 20, 2018 1:04 PM  

(I've only just now been able to read past comment 19.)

Blogger Eze Garcés March 20, 2018 1:29 PM  

Those weren't plantes by Satan,but a:
1)-fossiles were bones of animales of the present time and some secular consensus of scientist decides that they were "gorillion of years old" just to support the theory that Earth and al it's habitants were created by nobody from nothing and just evolved by a combinación of the grace of the "power of the will" and the concepto of natural selection that resemble a lot of what pagans call "mother nature"
2)-Some where hoaxes,either mistook by people of deliverately planted by some rich assholes who wanted to compete with another rich asshole and/or make their own little "freak show" and stole people money and/or they wanted to undermine the influence of christianity

Blogger Eze Garcés March 20, 2018 1:31 PM  

P.D. sorry for the typos,my keyboard isn't configurated to write in english

Blogger Ray Mota March 20, 2018 1:32 PM  

Taken at face value, I will cash this one in and go buy a "Snickers" bar. Nyuk! To the Moon Alice, to the MOON! (Where we taint nvr bin). Thanks Vox.

Blogger Eze Garcés March 20, 2018 1:40 PM  

"But that needs to be placed in context of another truth. All the real Christian denominations contain and exalt some small nugget of truth, but are horribly warped for lacking the whole. It seems like you need to wander through every one, extracting that little bit of truth from each to be assembled into the missing whole, in order to become a Christian worth a damn."
I can't believe I found somebody who thinks the same that I think

Blogger Rashadjin March 20, 2018 2:32 PM  

Oh fine. I'll drop the other idea I've been holding onto.

The basis of civilization is Discipline and Trust - the discipline to master difficult things and the trust that you will do what is expected of you. In this paradigm, blasphemy laws ensure trust (because consequences for stepping out of line).

In order to get an advanced civilization with spiffy toys like nukes and interwebs, Discipline needs to be transmuted into Truth and Trust needs to be transmuted into Character (usually via true Christianity). Truth as highest ideal and absolute defense guides to the mastery of all. Character ensures you do the correct thing even in moments and positions and matters where the law cannot touch you. In this paradigm, freedom of speech is a corrolary of Truth as absolute.

If you do not have Truth and Character, then freedom of speech devolves into a power game of control over the useful idiots. You also don't have an advanced civilization anymore, and you're back in the paradigm where blasphemy laws can be a useful, possibly necessary tool to ensure a nation doesn't slip all the way back to total barbarism.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 20, 2018 2:39 PM  

@19 VD said: "And, considering where the Enlightenment and various Supreme Court decisions have led us, [Catholics] may have been right to hold that [anti-free speech] position."

Vox, YOU ARE AMAZING. Your position on this matter is more Catholic than John C. Wright, a convert. I wish you'd consider joining us.

@25 VD said: "If the decline and fall of America has taught us anything, it is to ignore the exceptions and make policy based on the larger trends and tendencies. An astonishing proportion of America's problems have stemmed from treating outliers as evidence of general capability."

And what is America if not one, big, outlier compared to the rest of the main world? We try to believe in this thing called "American exceptionalism," as if we were different from everyone else. We're not. America may have been sold as an outlier at first, but as Vox is saying, it is folly to treat outlier behavior as something good and workable for the general public.

@31 VD said: "The situation is no longer tenable. You can't govern jackals using rules written for tigers. It simply will not work." Brilliant. Yes. America is an empire now. It has outgrown its former mode of government. We need something new.

@40 VD said: "They helped destroy the United States of America. The Know-Nothings were proven right in the end"

The United States was doomed from the beginning. Factors from the very form of government to the un-thought ideals were a poisoned pill from the outset. It lasted a good long while thanks to its natural barriers: the oceans on either side of us. Even Thomas Jefferson admitted we wouldn't endure forever:

"I think that our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural: and this will be as long as there are vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another as in the large cities of Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."

Thomas Jefferson's solution was for this continent to be populated by rural Unitarian locusts, spreading across the fruited plain until there was no space left. Yet, even he recognized that there was an expiration date on the United States. In terms of dealing with society, given our expansive territory, social management has been very much like the harsh, vast, land-stripping farming practices that led to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Again...locusts. We have refused to handle our society like an organic, responsible, cultivated, centuries-old family farm.

Again, from its inception with the colonies, the people in and coming to North America has been mishandled from the beginning.

Blogger Pale Male March 20, 2018 3:19 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:No one argues with the fossil record. If you start with Genesis rather than with Darwin, you wind up with a very different interpretation of that fossil record.
You have this backwards.  The original groundbreaking work on paleontology was largely done by clergymen generations before Darwin.  (Ditto genetics; Gregor Mendel was a monk, ferpetessake.)  They started with Genesis, and found so much more in the real world that they could not reconcile it.  They were arguing about this and refuting the facile arguments about "watchmakers" and such in the first decade of the 19th century.

It's depressing that some are still arguing the same refuted nonsense 200+ years later.

Assume God gave us an eyewitness account of Creation and the fossil record makes perfect sense, and Origin of Species becomes total nonsense.
This has nothing to do with OTOOS.  "Natural philosophy" problems with a literal reading of Genesis were known generations before ol' Chuck was born.  They have nothing to do with anything anyone has set to paper, save the Bible itself.  The problem is between the Earth as it is, and what some people claim about it.  Using the Earth itself as a test of the claims, you can prove lots of them wrong.  That is why someone would be a theistic evolutionist:  so you aren't stuck in the cognitive dissonance of holding faith in something you've seen refuted by creation itself.  One way you can look at it is that the written book only contains a primer and the whole can only be understood by study of the physical subject.  (It's kind of a warning, too:  "You can read this book and wind up a long way from the truth.  Check your assumptions and conclusions along the way.")

Of course, if you aren't bright enough to understand the evidence and what it means, you can believe whatever and not have that headache eating away at you.  What's that word... oh, yeah.  Midwits.

Your understanding is totally driven by your assumptions.
That the Earth itself wasn't constructed to tell a bunch of lies?  That's ONE assumption.  And a damn important one, because the alternative is life-long paranoia.  I pity the likes of William Jennings Bryan and his followers, I really do.  But I can't help them if they won't help themselves, and they believe that's the way to perdition.

Blogger Pale Male March 20, 2018 3:22 PM  

Looking Glass wrote:I still can't figure out what your actual point.
Seriously?  I explain precisely WHY someone would be a theistic evolutionist that has nothing to do with being respected by anyone save himself, with quotes and links to the source, and it's not clear to you?

Also, you left the final verb out of your sentence.  I think this is when I say "you aren't tall enough for this ride".

Blogger Pale Male March 20, 2018 3:23 PM  

Laramie Hirsch wrote:Thomas Jefferson's solution was for this continent to be populated by rural Unitarian locusts, spreading across the fruited plain until there was no space left. Yet, even he recognized that there was an expiration date on the United States.
Holy crap, you just found the argument for colonization of space in the writings of Jefferson.  Well done, sir.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 20, 2018 3:36 PM  

@90 No problem sir. Big fan of space exploration myself. To Mars!

Blogger Rashadjin March 20, 2018 4:00 PM  

@Pale Male

The way I see it, the Genesis account of creation was crafted to explain the why. The how was glossed over and suborned to clarity of understanding the why. Hence, Creationists tend to overreach and make silly mistakes when using Genesis as a basis to understand the how.

But on the other hand, Evolutionists are doing the same thing. The evidence presented suggests that each animal family, roughly, is an archipelago of potential broken up by environmental limitations. So while a lizard may become a raptor or crocodile, there's no compelling support for the idea that lizard became rodent. To that, putting a humanish ape next to an apish human is just as fascile as putting a feline-ish dog next to a canine-ish cat and declaring one arose from the other. Nevermind there is basically no evidence for the idea that life arose from non-life.

Beyond the archipelago of potential, it's basically a mystery for how critters came about per the evidence that is scientifically valid and compellingly points to any given theory.

Blogger Blastman March 20, 2018 4:08 PM  

The problem with the RCC, which really drove much of the Reformation, is that they want to act as an "Empire of God". … … … The Leadership is too easily captured & corrupted by the whims of the days,

And then you have the curious case of King Henry VIII. Have the King declare himself supreme head of the church over a divorce and remarriage and behead Thomas More and John Fischer over their public refusal to go along with this treachery. So much for free speech for Catholics. And then you have Henry's Dissolution of the Monasteries. Sort of like trying to build up Christianity by having a thug take over authority of the church and destroying most of its foundation.

" … by which Henry VIII disbanded Roman Catholic monasteries, priories, convents and friaries in England and Wales and Ireland, appropriated their income, disposed of their assets, and provided for their former personnel and functions. Although the policy was originally envisaged as increasing the regular income of the Crown, much former monastic property was sold off to fund Henry's military campaigns in the 1540s.

And speaking of "whims of the day". Protestant Church's in the early 1900's were largely in line with much of the Catholic moral teachings on contraception, abortion, female ministers, sodomy and even divorce remarriage to some extent. But look how many mainline Protestant churches have slid with the "whims of the day" and changed their teachings in these areas in the last 100 years. Yup, lets have a pro-abortion lesbian (Katharine Jefferts Schori) head the Episcopalian church and see how that goes.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 20, 2018 4:17 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Looking Glass March 20, 2018 4:31 PM  

@93 Blastman

The other problem with Catholics is they tend to act utterly tribal, resulting in airing grievances of centuries past while ignoring objective realities they've been unwilling to deal with for nearly a millennia.

I want to go with "you're not tall enough for this ride", but that's not the issue. The issue is some RCC member *always* does this. It's not reflecting on history or even understanding it. It's "my tribe is attacked, I will defend!" levels of foolishness. I didn't attack the RCC; I stated what's been true for 1000 years. The current Pope is a heretic and the only way to even unscrew the recent problems with the RCC is a world-wide campaign of extermination of the Jesuits.

As for the old "mainline" American Protestant churches, they are dead. The lamps are gone and ruin is all that is to come to them. They've already withered and died, and all you see now is the desiccated husk.

But, there's this little thing about American Christianity: Christians walk out and find a place that isn't dying. It's already rebuilt itself several times, and we're on to another era of Revival when the Fire starts.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 20, 2018 4:36 PM  

@92 Yup. King Henry VIII's multi-generational national disaster is all based on his whims. That's what happens when you don't base your political and sociological nature on a foundational rock. The past 500 years have been in flux. Before that, we had Christendom--which was static.

Blogger Looking Glass March 20, 2018 4:48 PM  

@91 Rashadjin

Given when the arguments started about Creation, in the modern era, it's probably better to say that certain groups used Narrative tactics to pigeonhole specific "this is the Christian view". The 6k Year Earth was the pigeonhole because you have to take a specific, and questionable, read of several passages to shoehorn that in.

Pslams 90 & 2 Peter 3 cast a very specific light on Genesis 1, as the actual answer is "we can't know". Much like much of the Apocalyptic stuff that always comes up, the Bible is pretty clear that no but God knows when it all ends.

But that circles back to the Narrative Traps. They set out that "Science!" is Truth, then, foolishly in response, some intelligent Christians accepted the framing and attempted to argue Physics, Chemistry & Biology out from the Bible. Leftists using dishonest framing and foolish Christians falling for it. Where have I heard that before?

Blogger Looking Glass March 20, 2018 5:05 PM  

Pale Male wrote:Looking Glass wrote:I still can't figure out what your actual point.

Seriously?  I explain precisely WHY someone would be a theistic evolutionist that has nothing to do with being respected by anyone save himself, with quotes and links to the source, and it's not clear to you?

Also, you left the final verb out of your sentence.  I think this is when I say "you aren't tall enough for this ride".


I missed the 's on "what's" in typing.

As for my response, your reply to Resident Moron™ wasn't on the thread's topic and most of it was attacking a strawman. You seem triggered about theistic evolutionists. Is there something to want to talk about?

Because, if we want to go for a ride, I really like apples. Wonderful fruit & food source. Got this lovely thing called fructose in it. The body's ability to absorb fructose is quite interesting.

Blogger SirHamster March 20, 2018 5:24 PM  

Pale Male wrote:This has nothing to do with OTOOS.  "Natural philosophy" problems with a literal reading of Genesis were known generations before ol' Chuck was born.  They have nothing to do with anything anyone has set to paper, save the Bible itself.  The problem is between the Earth as it is, and what some people claim about it.  Using the Earth itself as a test of the claims, you can prove lots of them wrong. 

The belief that you can reverse engineer billions of years of history with a snapshot from the present is unproven and impossible.

Taleb has a great example of the difficulty of understanding the past from the present: Go find the shape of an ice cube from the puddle it left behind.

Anonymous Anonymous March 20, 2018 5:37 PM  

Medieval Catholics understood something else: some people can only understand rhetoric whilst a smaller elite can go beyond this to dialectic. And they built structures around this insight.

So, they had laws against heresy. Very serious laws, with very serious punishments. There was certainly no right to speak in anyway that you wanted. Why would there be in a society that by instinct knew what later in the 19th century would be made explicit in the statement: "error has no rights".

But then you could put forth nearly any idea or argue any point in certain limited circumstances, such as at certain debates in the universities. Obviously, you still had to claim to not accept, but reject some heresy you brought up and defended, but bring it up and defend it you could.

Likewise, Abelard created a whole book showing apparently contradictory theological statements that were both believed to be true. But this book was for the instruction of that elite who were to work through the book showing that the contradiction were illusory. And so he was able to publish what could have been seen as an attempt to embarras the faith and disconcert and confuse the faithful (and if commoners could access it and read it perhaps there would have been more concern).

And the reason things were done this way is that the Church believed that too many of the commoners would be swayed, enthused, confused and all together muddled by rhetoric. As many now have been led astray to believe all manner of nonsense ("#LegalizeGays", "Dreamers", etcetera).

So, for the public there was restriction to prevent the wild fires of rhetoric burning through the land, whilst the scholars were given more intellectual space as they were not expected to be hoodwinked and cajoled by such simplistic methods.

It was not a perfect system. Nothing on this earth is. But it was an interesting approach.

-------
SAK

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 20, 2018 5:49 PM  

Pale Male wrote:You have this backwards.  The original groundbreaking work on paleontology was largely done by clergymen generations before Darwin.  (Ditto genetics; Gregor Mendel was a monk, ferpetessake.)  They started with Genesis, and found so much more in the real world that they could not reconcile it. 

Clergy is not the same as Christian.

Go back to what I said: if you begin with the assumption that Genesis is an eyewitness account, you find that the fossil record bears it out. If you begin with a big bang billions of years in the past, you find that the fossil record bears it out. Assumptions always drive the analysis.

Blogger VFM #7634 March 20, 2018 6:10 PM  

Therr are a billion Cayholics in yhe world. Outside of a very few narrow religious rites, they are hardly a monolithic, unified political bloc.

@76 John Mollison
Ain't that the truth. I insist that Catholics are less monolithic and unified than most Protestant denominations. Reason being, of course, that anyone can be a Catholic. So you have white Catholics descended at least partly from the original American stock, like myself, who advocate for the interests of the original American stock, at complete loggerheads with the Latinos and white Catholic ethnics who vote for the Democrats.

Blogger VFM #7634 March 20, 2018 6:12 PM  

Their thinking is what has defined American Catholicisim ever since. The Irish and English Catholics who were here failed on many levels in implementing both evangelism as well as their own Catholicism. In the end, they failed to preserve Maryland, they failed to preserve Oregon country, they failed to preserve California, and they failed to retain their distinct Catholicism when the Irish culturally beat out the Germans to steer American Catholicism towards a more compromising, Americanist, flaccid "catholicism" that evolved into what we have today.

@75 Laramie Hirsch
The main problem was that these colonial Catholics were too... cuckservative. As with cucks today with SJWs, they tried to deal with their enemies as if they were going to be treated fairly, and got backstabbed every single time.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 20, 2018 6:24 PM  

@23

"The Social Credit system is mostly about people who won't pay back money borrowed and owed. It is public shaming. On a public video screen, your picture, your name and the amount you refused to repay will be shown to everybody."

Sounds like a plotline from the TV show "The Orville"
Only the demerits are for any anti-social act
and penalties range all the way up to capital punishment.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 20, 2018 6:30 PM  

@25

"An astonishing proportion of America's problems have stemmed from treating outliers as evidence of general capability."

"What-aboutism" turned into public policy and law.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 20, 2018 6:33 PM  

@26

"Marxism, as noted, was an attempt to formalise a previously instinctive craving; to provide social respectability by virtue of strict adherence to moral standard while being an infidel. In other words, to justify Jewish ethics without resort to God."

There, fixed it for you.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 20, 2018 6:41 PM  

@102 VFM #7634 said:

"The main problem was that these colonial Catholics were too... cuckservative. As with cucks today with SJWs, they tried to deal with their enemies as if they were going to be treated fairly, and got backstabbed every single time."

Precisely. They utterly failed, thinking that they could let outsiders into their power structures. Their power structures got co-opted, overrun, and then they were defeated. Simple as that.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 20, 2018 6:42 PM  

@49

"The problem with Eastern Orthodox is I don't know anything about them, but give me a minute and I'll come up with something."

They worship ritual.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 20, 2018 6:51 PM  

@65

"The Chinese government is much more like SJWs than its foes are."


Which is not in the slightest bit surprising, considering that

1. the Chinese Government IS a bunch of commies,
2. they ALREADY foisted the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution on their populace once, both of which commentators on the left and right have said the SJWs strongly resemble....

Blogger Dirk Manly March 20, 2018 7:00 PM  

@68

"I've thought that exact line. And while Russian Eastern Orthodox very much appears to be adjunct to the State by way of national social unity, I've come up with a slightly different complaint. They depict themselves as ascetics, and with some of the Russian art I've seen, I believe it. The Russian soul looks wirey and lean, almost gaunt from a life of harsh contrasts. They're malnourished, and I blame a lot of that on Eastern Orthodox."


Read some Russian history. That's not it at all.
The Russians have been invaded, from both the east and west, and even the south repeatedly, and almost continuously. When the Huns attacked Central and Western Europe... they were stymied by the castle-defense system.
The Huns came from Asia.... before they got to Poland, they had to barrel right on through Russia. When they left... they attacked through Russia again.

Russian life has always been precarious. This history is full of sudden large-scale disasters (usually wars due to foreign invasion).

Most Russians refuse to use a vegetable peeler -- even though they can buy them -- instead, they use a paring knife -- which is a more difficult skill. Why?

"If I stop using a knife, and start using a peeler, what will I do when the day comes that I don't have a peeler? Better to just keep on using a knife."

Now, to someone who has grown up in the United States, that sort of reasoning sounds extremely paranoid. To somoene who has grown up in Russia, it's plain common sense.

Russians tolerate tyrannical leaders for the following reason -- "If he is hard on us, he will be even harder on our enemies." To someone living in Russia, that's not an idle musing, that's cold logic.

Anonymous Anonymous March 20, 2018 7:05 PM  

@49 - "They worship ritual."

Since it's manifestly the case that God cannot be good, all-powerful, and all-knowing (because the world would be a very different place if that were true), every theist must deny one of the three.

Theists whose god is not all-powerful wind up with a well-meaning deity who would really like to help, but, well, it isn't really possible for him to actually do anything. Examples: Anglicanism.

Theists whose god is not all-knowing spend a great deal of effort attempting to attract his attention. Candles, rituals, bright colours, petitioning intermediary saints. Examples: orthodox.

Theists whose god is not good simply relish the fact that he will be sending most everyone to burn in hell, and avidly anticipate the end of the world where all the infidels will get what's coming to them. Examples: Islam, American-style fundamentalism.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 20, 2018 7:06 PM  

@75

"The Puritains certainly did not believe in free speech for the Catholics they imprisoned and hanged,"

That's because they were where they didn't belong (Massachusetts) instead of being where they DID belong -- namely, the Catholic colony of Maryland.

Blogger Blastman March 20, 2018 7:31 PM  

The current Pope is a heretic and the only way to even unscrew the recent problems with the RCC is a world-wide campaign of extermination of the Jesuits.

I agree. It's not like many Catholics (especially the traditionalists) these days don't know the Catholic Church has a huge crisis on its hands. I'd say the RCC has the biggest mess and crisis on its hands since its beginnings 2000 years ago. The RCC is currently full of Communists, Freemasons, and homosexuals who want to destroy the Church from within.

The Jesuits are corrupt and Pope Francis is not only a heretic, he is an Anti-pope. Benedict XVI is still actually the Pope. Benedict XVI didn't resign the papal office (he pretended to) and is holding the Seat of Peter hostage while the pretender to the papal office "Pope" Francis is free to spew his heresies and wreak havoc in the church. I don't expect God will tolerate this mess much longer, but the solution at this point is going to be like pulling teeth.

Blogger Jack March 20, 2018 8:34 PM  

One example of Catholic opposition to free speech in the U.S. was the Legion of Decency, which promoted film censorship. They were quite powerful for a time, then lost their influence in the 60s. If you've ever wondered how films went from It's A Wonderful Life to Easy Rider, that's part of the reason why.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 20, 2018 8:43 PM  

@110 Paul Murray

I don't think you understand my statement about the orthodox worshipping ritual.

There was a HUGE schism in Russia. People were put to death. What was it about?

Whether one should make a "sign of the cross" with 2 fingers extended (the Old Believers) or the new-fangled method using 3.

See the painting of the famous (in Russia) painting of a nobleman's wife Boyarynya Feodosia Morozova for defying the edict of Patriarch Nikon to switch from 2 fingers to 3. In the painting, she holds up 2 fingers, to show her continued faith in adhering to the original ritual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feodosia_Morozova#/media/File:Vasily_Surikov_-_%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg


"The disagreement was over seemingly minor points: how to spell the name of Jesus, how many times to repeat alleluia, or how many fingers to use in making the sign of the cross. As one of the writers noted, this was a movement of simple people “whose whole faith was in those two fingers.”

The official church was trying to bring its books and rituals into conformity with Greek originals, while Old Believers adhered to the native Orthodoxy of their forefathers. They suffered persecutions, exile, and
death. Entire Old Believer communities, when approached by government troops, would lock themselves up in wooden dwellings and set them alight.

But the persecutions did not destroy the movement; the number of dissenters continued to increase during the subsequent centuries. Vigilantly seeing to the preservation of ancient customs and rituals for more than two hundred years, they were regarded by some as the bearers of pure, untarnished Russian culture. Because of their adherence to the past, to the old books, and to old Russian orders, they were called Old Believers, Old Ritualists or Schicmatics (Raskol’niki)"

"Until the 1860s, one could hardly meet a Raskolnik in Russian literature. During the reign of Nicholas I, using this word in print was prohibited."

https://churchhistcan.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/1999-11-krevsky-article.pdf



See also Tolstoy's short story The Three Hermits.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 20, 2018 10:38 PM  

Aeoli wrote:Catholics value solidarity and authority and authoritative things, Prots value independence and individual accomplishment. It's primarily a racial difference, imo.
You are not wrong. Freedom of speech is for those who are temperate in their speech and action, which leaves out the Irish and the Italians.

SemiSpook37 wrote:but remember, the original Catholics here wanted the same type of freedom as the Puritans did.
Being descended from them, I would argue that this is a false statement of almost chemical purity. The Puritans wanted to build up an entirely new society, founded on their own principles, and were not at all shy about using government power to force compliance and silence from any dissenters. Irish Catholics who came here were largely trying to avoid the totalitarianism and grinding poverty Britain was imposing on Ireland. English Catholics who came here were largely middle- and upper-middle class, and were looking to escape the anti-Catholic laws. The German Catholics who came here were looking for free land.

paulmurray wrote:Since it's manifestly the case that God cannot be good, all-powerful, and all-knowing (because the world would be a very different place if that were true), every theist must deny one of the three.
So, did it hurt much when you fell out the window as a child? Did you get a bad scar? I mean, the brain damage is obvious, I just hope that that's as far as the severe damage went.

Blogger Jack Amok March 20, 2018 10:44 PM  

I don't think that society existed for much of American history.

I keep thinking about that video clip, "Who's bitch is this?" You know the one I'm talking about, right?

We have a lot of bitches, male and female, that can't control themselves and aren't being controlled by any functional men, so they wreak havoc. We used to do more to keep them in line.

So... I think we did have a self-regulating society, but respectable men did the regulating on behalf of each other.

Blogger Rashadjin March 20, 2018 11:25 PM  

@109 Dirk Manly

Oh, you don't have to convince me of the poverty mindset. I've lived it. That said, it's entirely possible that the history of warfare and conflict in Russia giving rise to their poverty mindset along with Eastern Orthodox ascetic practices both have a role to play in the malnourished nature of the Russian soul. I'd even say it's more than likely that the two have reinforced each other in creating this state of affairs.

@110 Paul Murray - ...every theist must deny one of the three.

Not even close to true. Humans have this funny ability to impose limits and rules on themselves that they abide by for one reason or another. When people play sports, for example, they follow whatever silly rules of the game that limit themselves to the field of play and the actions allowed upon the field of play. To imply that an all powerful God cannot self-impose limits is to imply that an all powerful God is necessarily less capable than humans.

-

But I should touch on the whole blasphemy laws topic a little more.

Blasphemy laws are worse than a double-edged sword. Not only will the powerful abuse them, they lock a culture into the incomplete and ignorant understanding of the past to whatever degree and in whatever areas that blasphemy laws are enacted. Mistakes will be made, and the laws will have a degenerative effect on the culture over time. That degenerative effect must be weighed against the current state of a nation.

So while it may have been true that Western societies were better off with blasphemy laws once upon a time, it may no longer be true now.

Particularly in the now where the powerful are utterly corrupt. The left are enacting blasphemy laws precisely for the reason that they are in a position to abuse them more ruthlessly and have more to lose in a true state of free speech. See federal judges blocking Trump's executive actions.

In regard to the masses being particularly vulnerable to rhetoric, the left has worked very hard to make that so in the modern age. A true liberal arts education would teach people the ways of rhetoric and immunize them to its abuses, but instead, the marxists and worse have weaponized modern education to create people who are defiantly ignorant, emotional narcissists that literally cannot reason beyond the pale imitation of sophistry enslaved to the ideology consuming their minds. The zombie apocalypse is real, and the zombies are liberal arts grads.

If the West developed a process of true education, that sharpened and tempered the mind to the discipline of reason in both dialectic and rhetorical modes, then blasphemy laws would be seen as the quaint relics of the past that they should be. Well, that and the restoration of Character which is also utterly lacking.

If things get bad enough, there will be temporary space for stricter sedition laws as fallen Western societies try to reform themselves from the mess. But to return to ascendancy, those laws will largely have to be left behind. And never forget that unspoken ideas and thoughts have inordinate power over the people that contain them. Better the public mocking of fools than the surprise insurrection of secretive cults built around forbidden knowledge.

That said, Truth and the freedom of speech derived from Truth as absolute never protect lies. A pure state of free expression was never ideal or desired as some like to pretend. More, pretending that free expression is an ultimate ideal in itself is part of undermining the ethical practice of it.

Blogger Damaris Tighe March 21, 2018 8:12 PM  

lock him up

Blogger Pale Male March 22, 2018 11:11 AM  

Rashadjin wrote:The evidence presented suggests that each animal family, roughly, is an archipelago of potential broken up by environmental limitations. So while a lizard may become a raptor or crocodile, there's no compelling support for the idea that lizard became rodent.
Nobody has ever said that a lizard became a rodent.  That's a really bad mis-statement of the actual claim, which is that the precursors of today's lizards and the precursors of today's rodents look more and more alike as you go back in time to a common ancestor of both.  An "archipelago of potential" is exactly what you would expect to see at any snapshot in time, just like taking a horizontal section through a tree gives you separate cross-sections of all the various branches which reach that high despite them all growing from a single point below.

The fact that you don't state the evolutionary argument correctly means you can't even argue against it coherently.  Your very first statement was a rather common creationist straw-man, very similar to the strawman arguments used by SJWs and other leftists.  They may be rhetorically and emotionally satisfying, but they prove nothing; they are dialectically empty.  Feelz don't matter, only facts do.

putting a humanish ape next to an apish human is just as fascile as putting a feline-ish dog next to a canine-ish cat and declaring one arose from the other.
If there was anything like a modern human in existence 2 million years ago, we haven't found it.  Going back in time, everything that looks humanoid gets more and more ape-ish.  Neither today's apes nor today's humans came from each other, but it's pretty obvious both from the paleontological record and DNA evidence that there is some distant ancestor which we all hail back to.

Creationists tend to overreach and make silly mistakes when using Genesis as a basis to understand the how.

But on the other hand, Evolutionists are doing the same thing.

When your first substantive statement is a straw-man argument, it means you're projecting.

I'm having trouble keeping up with this discussion because I was just handed a huge pile of documents to review and it's pretty much consuming every bit of concentrated attention I have.  I am going to have to keep my participation here at a fairly low level, just what I need for breaks from real work.  This might go on into the weekend.

Blogger Pale Male March 22, 2018 1:19 PM  

Looking Glass wrote:your reply to Resident Moron™ wasn't on the thread's topic and most of it was attacking a strawman.
Resident Moron™ introduced the topic, and he posited a false dichotomy based on an erroneous assumption (he created the strawman, not me).  I'm happy to shed light, especially if it helps to dissipate some of the heat surrounding this subject.  It's time for you to accept evolution, theistic or otherwise, and move on.

It behooves you to understand this, because as long as there is a difference between the claims of theology and the evidence embedded in the world itself these questions will never, ever stop coming up and creating conflict where none should exist.  Well, maybe if something like Islam and its sanctioned inbreeding makes humanity too stupid to see the contradictions.  No chimpanzee is ever going to worry about its relationship to gorillas.  Breed humans to be dumb as chimps, and they probably won't even be able to carry Islam forward let alone Western Civ.

Blogger Pale Male March 22, 2018 5:45 PM  

SirHamster wrote:The belief that you can reverse engineer billions of years of history with a snapshot from the present is unproven and impossible.
"Unproven" AND "impossible"?  Why don't you throw "blasphemous" in there too?  Or would that be letting the cat out of the bag?

Your assertion is really close to the post-modernist claim that "we can't know anything".  They use this to dodge demands for evidence of their claims and assert they're right even when they're dead wrong, e.g. lie.  Why would you use the same dodge?

Go find the shape of an ice cube from the puddle it left behind.
Obviously not possible.  You can't even tell if it was left as ice or spilled water (unless it's still cold).  But you can analyze the amount of flavorings and coloring in it and tell if it is consistent with a spill from a full cup of soft drink, or melted from the ice left over after most of the liquid was consumed.  These are not the only possibilities, but if you find flavorings and coloring Occam's razor says that the rest are very unlikely.

When you pile up enough independent likelihoods pointing to the same conclusion, the possibility of the truth being ANYTHING else is vanishingly small—so small that to declare it false is to take leave of reason.  There's also the detail that such evidence weighed against indoctrination that it must be rejected or one will lose one's immortal soul makes people feel like the world is out to get them.  Induced paranoia from indoctrination is an ugly thing, like any other induced mental illness.  The left is the unquestioned champ of that game today, but they had some pretty good examples to work from.

Blogger Pale Male March 22, 2018 9:49 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Clergy is not the same as Christian.
Congratulations.  You got the No True Scotsman fallacy (they weren't really Christian) and the fallacy of the appeal to consequences (their inquiry led someplace you didn't want it to go [long after their deaths in many cases], therefore it was wrong) into just 7 words.  That's got to be one for the record books.

if you begin with the assumption that Genesis is an eyewitness account, you find that the fossil record bears it out.
Nonsense.  Christians have been arguing over the "eyewitness" nature of Genesis literally for centuries.  I'm no theologian so I'm not getting in the middle of that except to note that there is no uniform accepted meaning.  I will go so far as to say that if something contradicts the fossil record, which is LITERALLY part of creation, then it is wrong.  Creation/the universe is what it is.  Unless we take the mohammedan view that the supreme being changes things willy-nilly at his whim, including the past, what was true a billion years ago is true now.  Frankly, I think islam is insane.

If you begin with a big bang billions of years in the past, you find that the fossil record bears it out.
Except nobody began with a big bang billions of years in the past.  That came after the discovery of the cosmological red shift (that pesky universe again), and the cosmological background radiation.  Neither did anyone assume or expect the fossil record.  It is simply there, and damned inconvenient for a lot of previous assumptions.  You just have to man up and accept that those assumptions were and are wrong.

Assumptions always drive the analysis.
Spoken like someone who assumes his conclusion, and unfailingly finds it.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts