Luther: Der Luegenmeister.
"Aus einem verzagten Arsch kommt kein fröhlicher Furz!" (Martin Luther)
""""[Luther's] dialectical style was translated into the famous doctrine of the "two swords" dealing with authority in society. Luther argued that the authority of the Church ("the sword of doctrine") extended only to "spiritual" matters and that the Church should never interfere with the running of the state ("the sword of the princes"). In fact Luther taught that the princes could do whatever they needed to do to maintain order without regard to moral concerns. After all, justification was by faith, not by works and only dealt with one's eternal standing before God, not with one's temporal standing in the world. This was the first use of dialectical morality in Christian European history and was used to justify the brutalization, torture, rape and murder of peasants, Jews, Catholics, Anabaptists, and anyone else who threatened the absolute authority of the princes in their realms. Needless to say, this made Luther very popular with the more rapacious German nobles.""""
Luther/Errors
Arguments---sound arguments--- could be made that Luther and Lutheranism in some sense resulted in German nationalism, and the rise of the nazis. And if one recalls that Hegelian dialectic --Hegel was a devoted Lutheran at the end of his life, and rightist-militarist--- not only influenced German rightists, but Marx and the left , one could argue Luther, via Hegel ushered in Stalinism as well. Lutheran-Hegelian Apocalypse, dankeschoen.....Bertrand Russell sort of thought along those lines.
Luther rejected Aristotelian logic, and thus the law of contradiction (rather important to classical mathematics as well--try a reductio ad absurdum sans the law of contradiction), and most of the catholic theology (and in a sense greek rationalism): there is some mystical dualism instead, where Christ is both sinful man and god. That is one reason the catholics hated him (and burnt some of his translations of Screeepture), and still do. Luther's irrationalism then, according to this reading, had a great influence on Hegelian dialectic and marxism, which is also contra-Aristotelian logic (instead of objecting to contradiction as falsity, the protestants, and Hegelian-postmodernists in some sense embrace it).
That's not "necessary" in a sense (for one, methinks Hegel did respect the greeks to some extent--as did Kant), but some scholars argue in that fashion--I wager Gottlieb Frege, the father of modern logic and mathematical analysis, thought something like that (along with Russell, a Fregean such as Quine, writing on presumed challenges to the law of contradiction [a few supposed anomalies of quantum physics, or Browerian "intuitionism," etc.], also rejects the anti-rationalist, i.e. anti-logicist position). That's not to suggest that catholics are superior, or a more authentic tradition; merely that protestantism begins with a certain anti-rationalist position (Nietzsche also in that tradition to some degree, but FN, well-aware of the power of scientific empiricism--from Copernicus to Darwin--, simply rejects the theological BS---such as the dualism, either protestant/Hegelian or platonic-catholic--).
Therefore, we here at Contingencies interpret Luther's little anti-despair fart-rant, as sort of a "keep a smile on, firm-handshake, Win-Win situation" protestant-salesman BS: Reagan-like nearly. (Calvin himself also thought in those terms). I wager Luther was probably some big beer-swilling, pork-eating, saxon thug: recall his "sin strongly, but keep your faith" BS. In other words, keep your eye on the sparrow, und Gott im Himmel, as your Panzer division enters Poland.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Queequeg's bad dream
extrem großer Megalodon-Zahn
"""""Unappalled by the massacre made upon them during the night, the sharks now freshly and more keenly allured by the before pent blood which began to flow from the carcase - the rabid creatures swarmed round it like bees in a beehive.
And right in among those sharks was Queequeg; who often pushed them aside with his foundering feet. A thing altogether incredible were it not that attracted by such prey as a dead whale, the otherwise miscellaneously carnivorous shark will seldom touch a man."""""
(from Melville's Moby Dick)
extrem großer Megalodon-Zahn
"""""Unappalled by the massacre made upon them during the night, the sharks now freshly and more keenly allured by the before pent blood which began to flow from the carcase - the rabid creatures swarmed round it like bees in a beehive.
And right in among those sharks was Queequeg; who often pushed them aside with his foundering feet. A thing altogether incredible were it not that attracted by such prey as a dead whale, the otherwise miscellaneously carnivorous shark will seldom touch a man."""""
(from Melville's Moby Dick)
Saturday, September 22, 2007
A Punk named Eli
„‚Gott‘, ‚Unsterblichkeit der Seele‘, ‚Erlösung‘, ‚Jenseits‘ lauter Begriffe, denen ich keine Aufmerksamkeit, auch keine Zeit geschenkt habe, selbst als Kind nicht, – ich war vielleicht nie kindlich genug dazu? – Ich kenne den Atheismus durchaus nicht als Ergebniss, noch weniger als Ereigniss: er versteht sich bei mir aus Instinkt. Ich bin zu neugierig, zu fragwürdig, zu übermüthig, um mir eine faustgrobe Antwort gefallen zu lassen. Gott ist eine faustgrobe Antwort, eine Undelicatesse gegen uns Denker –, im Grunde sogar bloss ein faustgrobes Verbot an uns: ihr sollt nicht denken! …“
(Nietzsche)
Move On is whacked, crypto-marxist, regardless of their database of "signatures" (and any Jeffersonian--und, a fortiori, Nietzschean-- should ALWAYS be wary of people who say "we have 500,000+ signatures, aren't we right??"). Billionaire leftist Soros throws millions of shekels to MoveOn each year.
Gen. Petraeus is a 101 Airborne vet, quite respected by his peers (MoveOn-o-Cheks should pray to St. Marx that the 101 boys--or even Rudy Guiliani-- don't get a hold of that list of signatures). Even Hillary Clinton likes him. Eli Pariser on the other hand is a little Vermonty-pacifist punk: his satire wasn't even amusing. MoveOn. Inc. lied about Petraeus's record, and also insinuated that Petraeus himself had lied during his testimony to Congress (probably a defamation case as well). Then the silly "betray-us' jive. Not even amusing.
.jpg)
Phuck dat punk: and the punks who sign on to MoveOn's bitch list.
„‚Gott‘, ‚Unsterblichkeit der Seele‘, ‚Erlösung‘, ‚Jenseits‘ lauter Begriffe, denen ich keine Aufmerksamkeit, auch keine Zeit geschenkt habe, selbst als Kind nicht, – ich war vielleicht nie kindlich genug dazu? – Ich kenne den Atheismus durchaus nicht als Ergebniss, noch weniger als Ereigniss: er versteht sich bei mir aus Instinkt. Ich bin zu neugierig, zu fragwürdig, zu übermüthig, um mir eine faustgrobe Antwort gefallen zu lassen. Gott ist eine faustgrobe Antwort, eine Undelicatesse gegen uns Denker –, im Grunde sogar bloss ein faustgrobes Verbot an uns: ihr sollt nicht denken! …“
(Nietzsche)
Move On is whacked, crypto-marxist, regardless of their database of "signatures" (and any Jeffersonian--und, a fortiori, Nietzschean-- should ALWAYS be wary of people who say "we have 500,000+ signatures, aren't we right??"). Billionaire leftist Soros throws millions of shekels to MoveOn each year.
Gen. Petraeus is a 101 Airborne vet, quite respected by his peers (MoveOn-o-Cheks should pray to St. Marx that the 101 boys--or even Rudy Guiliani-- don't get a hold of that list of signatures). Even Hillary Clinton likes him. Eli Pariser on the other hand is a little Vermonty-pacifist punk: his satire wasn't even amusing. MoveOn. Inc. lied about Petraeus's record, and also insinuated that Petraeus himself had lied during his testimony to Congress (probably a defamation case as well). Then the silly "betray-us' jive. Not even amusing.
.jpg)
Phuck dat punk: and the punks who sign on to MoveOn's bitch list.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Genealogy, n.
"An account of one's descent from a man who did not particularly care to trace his own."
(Ambrose Bierce). Ambrose knew the score: the typical American middle-class idiot generally invokes his ancestral name (or what is assumed to be an ancestral name) when some lucrative opportuni-tay presents itself. MormBots and other pious frauds are especially fond of the genealogy hustle (and the clans that don't quite pay their respects to the LDS elders are awarded black marks next to their family tree (or weed as it were)).
"An account of one's descent from a man who did not particularly care to trace his own."
(Ambrose Bierce). Ambrose knew the score: the typical American middle-class idiot generally invokes his ancestral name (or what is assumed to be an ancestral name) when some lucrative opportuni-tay presents itself. MormBots and other pious frauds are especially fond of the genealogy hustle (and the clans that don't quite pay their respects to the LDS elders are awarded black marks next to their family tree (or weed as it were)).
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Reality
Crude went from $25 to $80+ bucks a barrel, in five years (that's how Rothschilds are born). The Federal reserve boys, realizing that oil prices have a direct relationship to the US economy as a whole (such as mortgages, credit, bonds, etc.), more or less adjust interest rates accordingly (though they were off until 2003 or so).
Trading units in crude oil are 1000 barrels each. Most shekelmeisters start with at least 10 contracts: 10,000 barrels (a big-time baron like Gates or Ellison probably has millions tied up in the crude casino). So starting--modestly, in capitalist terms---with 10,000 @ $25, you had $250,000 (minus the fees for brokers and other whores). Less than 4 years later, you got $800,000 in value (add another 0 or two for how the deep pockets boys in NY or Chi-town play)--actually with leverage, it could be more. That ain't working.
Crude went from $25 to $80+ bucks a barrel, in five years (that's how Rothschilds are born). The Federal reserve boys, realizing that oil prices have a direct relationship to the US economy as a whole (such as mortgages, credit, bonds, etc.), more or less adjust interest rates accordingly (though they were off until 2003 or so).
Trading units in crude oil are 1000 barrels each. Most shekelmeisters start with at least 10 contracts: 10,000 barrels (a big-time baron like Gates or Ellison probably has millions tied up in the crude casino). So starting--modestly, in capitalist terms---with 10,000 @ $25, you had $250,000 (minus the fees for brokers and other whores). Less than 4 years later, you got $800,000 in value (add another 0 or two for how the deep pockets boys in NY or Chi-town play)--actually with leverage, it could be more. That ain't working.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Candide Lemma (Steven Pinker on Design)
Pinker is a psychology professor at Harvard University, and best-selling author and linguist.
""....Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.
The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break His windows.
The theory of natural selection explains life as we find it, with all its quirks and tragedies. We can prove mathematically that it is capable of producing adaptive life forms and track it in computer simulations, lab experiments and real ecosystems. It doesn't pretend to solve one mystery (the origin of complex life) by slipping in another (the origin of a complex designer).
Many people who accept evolution still feel that a belief in God is necessary to give life meaning and to justify morality. But that is exactly backward. In practice, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions and 9/11. Morality comes from a commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated, which follows from the realization that none of us is the sole occupant of the universe. Like physical evolution, it does not require a white-coated technician in the sky.""""
Pinker, unlike many of the neo-Darwinists (Dawkins hints at the issue, but does not really develop it) points out a central problem of any putative "Design arguments": a Designer would by definition have knowingly designed the bacteria that caused the black plague (--and all other nasty organisms, whether viruses, or T. Rex). However obvious that point is (it was obvious to Voltaire, the Marquis Of Arouet, and really to the more skeptical of the Founding Fathers such as Franklin and Jefferson (who kept a bust of Voltaire in his study)), it remains a rather powerful counterargument to theological "naturalism"--and really to any religious claims. For Voltaire, the Lisbon quake of his time (and the tidal wave which resulted in the deaths of 10,000 people) offered ample evidence of a lack of a perfect Designer--and the Indonesian tsunami of 12/2004 Lisbon x 30. Yet neither tsunamis nor plagues (nor world wars) phase the modern fundie: each sunday he marches into his chapel and gives thanks to his volcano "God".
Pinker is a psychology professor at Harvard University, and best-selling author and linguist.
""....Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.
The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break His windows.
The theory of natural selection explains life as we find it, with all its quirks and tragedies. We can prove mathematically that it is capable of producing adaptive life forms and track it in computer simulations, lab experiments and real ecosystems. It doesn't pretend to solve one mystery (the origin of complex life) by slipping in another (the origin of a complex designer).
Many people who accept evolution still feel that a belief in God is necessary to give life meaning and to justify morality. But that is exactly backward. In practice, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions and 9/11. Morality comes from a commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated, which follows from the realization that none of us is the sole occupant of the universe. Like physical evolution, it does not require a white-coated technician in the sky.""""
Pinker, unlike many of the neo-Darwinists (Dawkins hints at the issue, but does not really develop it) points out a central problem of any putative "Design arguments": a Designer would by definition have knowingly designed the bacteria that caused the black plague (--and all other nasty organisms, whether viruses, or T. Rex). However obvious that point is (it was obvious to Voltaire, the Marquis Of Arouet, and really to the more skeptical of the Founding Fathers such as Franklin and Jefferson (who kept a bust of Voltaire in his study)), it remains a rather powerful counterargument to theological "naturalism"--and really to any religious claims. For Voltaire, the Lisbon quake of his time (and the tidal wave which resulted in the deaths of 10,000 people) offered ample evidence of a lack of a perfect Designer--and the Indonesian tsunami of 12/2004 Lisbon x 30. Yet neither tsunamis nor plagues (nor world wars) phase the modern fundie: each sunday he marches into his chapel and gives thanks to his volcano "God".
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Secularism for the Peoples! (Hitchens on the road, sans God)
""""May 3, New York City: To the Lou Dobbs show, on CNN—Mr. Middle America at prime time. Mr. Dobbs displays a satirical paragraph from my book, about the number of virgin births that all religions have always claimed. He tells me off-air that he quit Sunday school as a very small boy, and that he's raised all his children without religion. He lets me bang on a lot. At the end, he refers to my new American citizenship, the oath of which I swore at the Jefferson Memorial on April 13 (Mr. Jefferson's birthday, and mine). I get to try out my latest slogan, echoing what Jefferson said about the "wall of separation" between church and state: "Mr. Jefferson—build up that wall!" Mr. Dobbs leans over and, on-camera, pins an American flag to my lapel. Patriotism and secularism in the same breath, on middle-class TV. It can be done. As I leave, Dobbs says wryly that he'll now have to deal with all the e-mails. I promise him that they will be in his favor and ask to have them forwarded. The mailbag eventually breaks about 70-30 in support, though one woman does say that she'll never tune in to CNN again."""
Hitchens/VanityFair
Dawkins may do the Darwin schtick more effectively, but few journalists can match Hitchens' gusto. Ah how Americun yokels (even putative "liberals") detest Brits---especially witty drunken ones telling them there is no God...............
""""May 3, New York City: To the Lou Dobbs show, on CNN—Mr. Middle America at prime time. Mr. Dobbs displays a satirical paragraph from my book, about the number of virgin births that all religions have always claimed. He tells me off-air that he quit Sunday school as a very small boy, and that he's raised all his children without religion. He lets me bang on a lot. At the end, he refers to my new American citizenship, the oath of which I swore at the Jefferson Memorial on April 13 (Mr. Jefferson's birthday, and mine). I get to try out my latest slogan, echoing what Jefferson said about the "wall of separation" between church and state: "Mr. Jefferson—build up that wall!" Mr. Dobbs leans over and, on-camera, pins an American flag to my lapel. Patriotism and secularism in the same breath, on middle-class TV. It can be done. As I leave, Dobbs says wryly that he'll now have to deal with all the e-mails. I promise him that they will be in his favor and ask to have them forwarded. The mailbag eventually breaks about 70-30 in support, though one woman does say that she'll never tune in to CNN again."""
Hitchens/VanityFair
Dawkins may do the Darwin schtick more effectively, but few journalists can match Hitchens' gusto. Ah how Americun yokels (even putative "liberals") detest Brits---especially witty drunken ones telling them there is no God...............
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
911 Conspiracy claims: Bogus with a capital B.
I strongly doubt most of the 911 conspiro-nuts have bothered reading even the intro. to the NIST (which is hundreds of pages long now) assembled by top university physicists and engineers. The scientists are nearly in complete agreement that there were NO before-the-fact plantings of explosives or some prep job on the part of the US Govt. like some tin-foil hat wearing DNC-o-crats and crypto-stalinists still seem to believe ( some whackier conservatives also uphold 911 conspiracy claims--911 now sort of the contemporary "grassy knoll" of Conspiracy.com).
The ConspiroCrats also tend to lie about some supposed consensus of scientists who uphold conspiracy claims, when it is precisely the opposite. Indeed there are some arguing that the sort of libellous BS spewed by ConspiroCrats should be viewed as what it is: sedition.
Dr. Manuel Garcia, Princeton PhD , and Lawrence-Livermore physicist, has written two technical refutations of any and all conspiracy claims (and he generally agrees with NIST)---including the lies and BS regarding the WTC 7. They are on Counterpunch---even some brighter leftists have had it with the sort of hysterical idiocy typical of DUsters (we here at Contingencies do not agree with all the opinions expressed on Counterpunch, old Alex Cockburn's marxist-green site, but he does provide useful info. on occasion). But the usual DU'ster could unlikely make it through even the easier derivatives in Dr. Garcia's report (here we even googled it for you, McN-gahs).
Physicsof911
Dr. Garcia:
"The WTC towers collapsed at speeds approaching that of free fall because:
1. The dynamic force created out of the gravitational potential energy within the space of just one level spacing was far in excess of the static force the framing was designed to support, and
2. Elastic waves launched from the collapse front quickly filled the building --both lower structure and upper block --with large dynamic stresses, which weakened and ruptured joints well in advance of that material entering the collapse front.
The towers shattered, and the pieces fell to the ground."""
Muy bien.
I strongly doubt most of the 911 conspiro-nuts have bothered reading even the intro. to the NIST (which is hundreds of pages long now) assembled by top university physicists and engineers. The scientists are nearly in complete agreement that there were NO before-the-fact plantings of explosives or some prep job on the part of the US Govt. like some tin-foil hat wearing DNC-o-crats and crypto-stalinists still seem to believe ( some whackier conservatives also uphold 911 conspiracy claims--911 now sort of the contemporary "grassy knoll" of Conspiracy.com).
The ConspiroCrats also tend to lie about some supposed consensus of scientists who uphold conspiracy claims, when it is precisely the opposite. Indeed there are some arguing that the sort of libellous BS spewed by ConspiroCrats should be viewed as what it is: sedition.
Dr. Manuel Garcia, Princeton PhD , and Lawrence-Livermore physicist, has written two technical refutations of any and all conspiracy claims (and he generally agrees with NIST)---including the lies and BS regarding the WTC 7. They are on Counterpunch---even some brighter leftists have had it with the sort of hysterical idiocy typical of DUsters (we here at Contingencies do not agree with all the opinions expressed on Counterpunch, old Alex Cockburn's marxist-green site, but he does provide useful info. on occasion). But the usual DU'ster could unlikely make it through even the easier derivatives in Dr. Garcia's report (here we even googled it for you, McN-gahs).
Physicsof911
Dr. Garcia:
"The WTC towers collapsed at speeds approaching that of free fall because:
1. The dynamic force created out of the gravitational potential energy within the space of just one level spacing was far in excess of the static force the framing was designed to support, and
2. Elastic waves launched from the collapse front quickly filled the building --both lower structure and upper block --with large dynamic stresses, which weakened and ruptured joints well in advance of that material entering the collapse front.
The towers shattered, and the pieces fell to the ground."""
Muy bien.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
"Talkers of the first order": L-Ron Hubbard and R.A.Heinlein (the Politics of Sci-Fi continued)
HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools. (A.Bierce)
Numerous scribes have pointed out the friendship of Hubbard and Heinlein. Both were navy men, and had some scientific and engineering expertise (though in Heinlein's case, that ended after a semester at UCLA---). In the late 40s and 50s both were fairly popular (though not yet wealthy) and prolific writers associated with the hack sci-fi publisher John Campbell--Campbell's publishing house was, more or less, a Brill Building of early science fiction. What's not as well known are the connections of both L-Ron and Heinlein to Jack Parsons--founding member of the JPL, and pal of Werner Von Braun--and to Aleister Crowley. Though the Church of Scientology now denies any connection between Hubbard and Crowley or to the occult, Hubbard did, like his one-time pal Parsons (Parsons later killed himself in a rather mysterious explosion at his Pasadena residence) communicate with Crowley a few times (in the 40s before Uncle Al's death), and allegedly dabbled in matters diabolical, as did Heinlein himself on occasion (see Mike Davis' "City of Quartz" for some background on COS and early sci-fi business, and google a bit on anti-Scientology sites).
Chairman L-Ron.
Ample documentation exists showing that Heinlein and Hubbard were close friends; and it's fairly evident that Hubbard greatly respected Heinlein and his ideas, whether in regards to writing science-fiction or "religion as business". That may not have been completely reciprocated ( Heinlein most likely realized that L-Ron and his growing "church" were considered Quackery with a capital Q. by many, and thus thought it sound business to disassociate himself from his former pal). RAH was close to Hubbard for years, however:
"RAH and LRH had one or more discussions during 1944 and or 1945 when they were both in Philadelphia, and RAH pointed out to LRH that religions had an inordinate amount of legal latitude in the U.S. and that churches could engage in a great many activities otherwise thought of as secular, under the tax and other protection churches enjoy. He had already explored these ideas in some of his stories and was to revisit these notions in their original form in Stranger. It is possible that this conversation or series of conversations took place as late as December 1945 or early 1946 and in Los Angeles."
The Master, RAH
Heinlein seems quite the entrepreneur according to these reports, and like L-Ron--and Ayn Rand--interested in creating some type of ersatz, "scientific religion" (take a few bits of engineering and astronomical tech.speak (O Holy Integral!), Von Braun-like rocket-jazz, some Spencer and Darwin for the "ethics", a bit of Nietzsche for style: VOI-phucking--LA) which would, when sold to American consumer 'bots--whether via fiction or actual Church activities---rake in a great deal of money for the religion's creators (and Harlan Ellison has confirmed many of these reports as well---and reportedly referred to Heinlein as fascist on occasion): sort of a PT Barnum of the space opera biz. Given his relationship with Hubbard, Heinlein (secrets there are a plenty regarding the soirees at old Jack Parson's pad as well) should, it seems fairly safe to suggest, therefore be credited with assisting in the foundation of that great American swindle, the Church of Scientology. Hail Xenu............
Whoa! A Thetan, maybe.
HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools. (A.Bierce)
Numerous scribes have pointed out the friendship of Hubbard and Heinlein. Both were navy men, and had some scientific and engineering expertise (though in Heinlein's case, that ended after a semester at UCLA---). In the late 40s and 50s both were fairly popular (though not yet wealthy) and prolific writers associated with the hack sci-fi publisher John Campbell--Campbell's publishing house was, more or less, a Brill Building of early science fiction. What's not as well known are the connections of both L-Ron and Heinlein to Jack Parsons--founding member of the JPL, and pal of Werner Von Braun--and to Aleister Crowley. Though the Church of Scientology now denies any connection between Hubbard and Crowley or to the occult, Hubbard did, like his one-time pal Parsons (Parsons later killed himself in a rather mysterious explosion at his Pasadena residence) communicate with Crowley a few times (in the 40s before Uncle Al's death), and allegedly dabbled in matters diabolical, as did Heinlein himself on occasion (see Mike Davis' "City of Quartz" for some background on COS and early sci-fi business, and google a bit on anti-Scientology sites).
Chairman L-Ron.
Ample documentation exists showing that Heinlein and Hubbard were close friends; and it's fairly evident that Hubbard greatly respected Heinlein and his ideas, whether in regards to writing science-fiction or "religion as business". That may not have been completely reciprocated ( Heinlein most likely realized that L-Ron and his growing "church" were considered Quackery with a capital Q. by many, and thus thought it sound business to disassociate himself from his former pal). RAH was close to Hubbard for years, however:
"RAH and LRH had one or more discussions during 1944 and or 1945 when they were both in Philadelphia, and RAH pointed out to LRH that religions had an inordinate amount of legal latitude in the U.S. and that churches could engage in a great many activities otherwise thought of as secular, under the tax and other protection churches enjoy. He had already explored these ideas in some of his stories and was to revisit these notions in their original form in Stranger. It is possible that this conversation or series of conversations took place as late as December 1945 or early 1946 and in Los Angeles."
The Master, RAH
Heinlein seems quite the entrepreneur according to these reports, and like L-Ron--and Ayn Rand--interested in creating some type of ersatz, "scientific religion" (take a few bits of engineering and astronomical tech.speak (O Holy Integral!), Von Braun-like rocket-jazz, some Spencer and Darwin for the "ethics", a bit of Nietzsche for style: VOI-phucking--LA) which would, when sold to American consumer 'bots--whether via fiction or actual Church activities---rake in a great deal of money for the religion's creators (and Harlan Ellison has confirmed many of these reports as well---and reportedly referred to Heinlein as fascist on occasion): sort of a PT Barnum of the space opera biz. Given his relationship with Hubbard, Heinlein (secrets there are a plenty regarding the soirees at old Jack Parson's pad as well) should, it seems fairly safe to suggest, therefore be credited with assisting in the foundation of that great American swindle, the Church of Scientology. Hail Xenu............
Whoa! A Thetan, maybe.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Arianna actually writes something nearly interesting.
(and guar-an-teeeed to upset many a liberal or marxist cyber-moralist)
In the Age of Terror, Isn't Busting Toe-Tappers an Insane Use of Our Law Enforcement Resources?
by Arianna Huffington
""""""In the consensus judgment of America's 16 intelligence agencies, the terrorist threat to our homeland is "persistent and evolving," placing our country in "a heightened threat environment."
Given that chilling assessment, isn't it the height of madness to use America's finite law enforcement resources to seek out and arrest people for tapping the foot of a cute undercover officer in a restroom?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not wild about walking into a public restroom and seeing a couple using the a stall for something other than, as Sgt. Dave Karsnia, the arresting officer in the Craig case put it, "its intended use."
But that is not what Larry Craig did. If he had, someone in the restroom could have done what most people do when they see a law being broken: go get a cop.
And as it happens, since Craig was arrested in an airport, presumably there were plenty of law enforcement officers nearby looking for, you know, real threats -- like explosives or folks on a Watch List. Assuming, that is, they weren't all hunkered down in other bathrooms across the airport, protecting the public against people who might be thinking about having sex.
Let me be clear: I'm no fan of Larry Craig. Indeed, I disagree with almost everything he stands for. And I'd much rather he not be in the United States Senate. But I'd also rather have had his exit be the result of his constituents voting on his ideas and policies, instead of a ridiculous sting operation in an airport bathroom......"""""""""
Bravo.
J-Mac.
J.M. has a blog, and he permits a few cronies to post there. Though he proclaims himself a "progressive," he controls registration and comments, and does not allow the public to post. In effect, J.M.'s blog is a VPN. So, J.M., like many "liberal" bloggers, falls in the class of Hypocrites (yes, the H-word is overused, but rather appropriate when the H-ness has reached the proportions of J.M.): for progressivism generally relates to "freedom" and his blog is anything but free. Progressive freedom in regards to writing, even blogging, implies the freedom to dissent (as does the 1st Amendment, arguably), even when that dissent offends someone's political or religious or psychological biases. (Even a rather f-ed up leftist such as Chomsky realizes that).
J.M. also likes to play skeptic or even atheist on occasion, while allowing born-again xtians (protestants, of course) to post on his site (and censoring other skeptics). He even listens to his born-again pals when they have some pathetic moralistic outburst to share (and moralists are to be found on both sides of political spectrum). Indeed progressivism (if J.M knew anything about it) actually opposes religious and theological thinking, while perhaps respecting Biblical ethics to some degree---say the Beatitudes--- in principle. But J.M. doesn't quite believe that, just as he can't quite rid himself of his presbyterian past. Indeed, like his unnameable, robot-like associate B_______, he doesn't know jack about the message of the New Testament either. More of his rather profound hypocrisy.
Along with the hypocrisy, J.M.'s site offers boo-coo bad surrealism (of course, the NW goys don't know Breton from their Bon Jovi albums) and low-grade Monty Python imitations: sort of the Starbucks liberal's favorite kultural pastime. NW: about the equivalent to talent nite at Bethel Baptist. It's unlikely any one of them ever read even a book by Kurt Vonnegut, a somewhat talented American surrealist. In fact, J.M. formerly associated with Deadheads. As did Contingencies, to a lesser extent. J.M.'s own anti-libertarian actions and his association with xtians, however, all might be read as a betrayal of the Grateful Dead code, which, while leftist to some degree, was never synonymous with, say, marxism, or even the DNC. Those who are not privy to the code of the Dead might not realize when that code has itself been betrayed. Suffice it to say that when Mormon writers and Heinlein are praised along with GoreCo. and the soccer-mommy marxists of KOS--and Dead manga or Vonnegut or cyberpunks are nowhere to be found---the code's been tossed away like the wrapper to a tofu and sprout tamale.
J.M. also allows his gangster-like associates to lie, and to offer great generalizations as truth. And allows them to depend on low-grade appeals to pathos, defamation, and logical fallacies. Most of the writing is premised on ad hominem ("don't f-n listen to Hitchens, that sickfuck neo-con" yada yada......), and ad populus, if not various simple-minded tautologies. To J.M., Bush and the GOP and War Effort are wrong because they are evil, and evil because they are wrong. Indeed most of the writing on NW rarely rises above that level. J.M. alas never quite realized that his own stated secular progressivism implies that values are not absolute (--especially when the jihadist opponents of the USA believe their own values are absolute). Pragmatism never appears on his blog: how could it? That would demand a far more nuanced type of thinking which he is incapable of. The only demons in the world are in the GOP, according to his unstable mind. And J.M. and his cronies never allude to the demons of the DNC (like Feinstein) who actually agreed to the GOP war project, in toto.
J.M., after censoring people, lying about them, libelling them, misconstruing their writings, also has the audacity to accuse his adversaries of mental instability. That is rather amusing: about like some KGB men who after a few years of revolution, decided the real marxists (even like Zinoniev) were actually a hindrance to the stalinist liquidation plans, and more or less concocted some BS charges , put them on show trials (with the "Peoples'" support), and sent them off to gulags. No, NW has not quite reached that level of malevolence, but in miniature, that is what many of these frat-boy leftist blogs have become: sort of mini-KGBs.
We here at Contingencies simply say this to J.M and his psychotic baptist-stalinist palsie: Essen sie Scheisse.
J.M. has a blog, and he permits a few cronies to post there. Though he proclaims himself a "progressive," he controls registration and comments, and does not allow the public to post. In effect, J.M.'s blog is a VPN. So, J.M., like many "liberal" bloggers, falls in the class of Hypocrites (yes, the H-word is overused, but rather appropriate when the H-ness has reached the proportions of J.M.): for progressivism generally relates to "freedom" and his blog is anything but free. Progressive freedom in regards to writing, even blogging, implies the freedom to dissent (as does the 1st Amendment, arguably), even when that dissent offends someone's political or religious or psychological biases. (Even a rather f-ed up leftist such as Chomsky realizes that).
J.M. also likes to play skeptic or even atheist on occasion, while allowing born-again xtians (protestants, of course) to post on his site (and censoring other skeptics). He even listens to his born-again pals when they have some pathetic moralistic outburst to share (and moralists are to be found on both sides of political spectrum). Indeed progressivism (if J.M knew anything about it) actually opposes religious and theological thinking, while perhaps respecting Biblical ethics to some degree---say the Beatitudes--- in principle. But J.M. doesn't quite believe that, just as he can't quite rid himself of his presbyterian past. Indeed, like his unnameable, robot-like associate B_______, he doesn't know jack about the message of the New Testament either. More of his rather profound hypocrisy.
Along with the hypocrisy, J.M.'s site offers boo-coo bad surrealism (of course, the NW goys don't know Breton from their Bon Jovi albums) and low-grade Monty Python imitations: sort of the Starbucks liberal's favorite kultural pastime. NW: about the equivalent to talent nite at Bethel Baptist. It's unlikely any one of them ever read even a book by Kurt Vonnegut, a somewhat talented American surrealist. In fact, J.M. formerly associated with Deadheads. As did Contingencies, to a lesser extent. J.M.'s own anti-libertarian actions and his association with xtians, however, all might be read as a betrayal of the Grateful Dead code, which, while leftist to some degree, was never synonymous with, say, marxism, or even the DNC. Those who are not privy to the code of the Dead might not realize when that code has itself been betrayed. Suffice it to say that when Mormon writers and Heinlein are praised along with GoreCo. and the soccer-mommy marxists of KOS--and Dead manga or Vonnegut or cyberpunks are nowhere to be found---the code's been tossed away like the wrapper to a tofu and sprout tamale.
J.M. also allows his gangster-like associates to lie, and to offer great generalizations as truth. And allows them to depend on low-grade appeals to pathos, defamation, and logical fallacies. Most of the writing is premised on ad hominem ("don't f-n listen to Hitchens, that sickfuck neo-con" yada yada......), and ad populus, if not various simple-minded tautologies. To J.M., Bush and the GOP and War Effort are wrong because they are evil, and evil because they are wrong. Indeed most of the writing on NW rarely rises above that level. J.M. alas never quite realized that his own stated secular progressivism implies that values are not absolute (--especially when the jihadist opponents of the USA believe their own values are absolute). Pragmatism never appears on his blog: how could it? That would demand a far more nuanced type of thinking which he is incapable of. The only demons in the world are in the GOP, according to his unstable mind. And J.M. and his cronies never allude to the demons of the DNC (like Feinstein) who actually agreed to the GOP war project, in toto.
J.M., after censoring people, lying about them, libelling them, misconstruing their writings, also has the audacity to accuse his adversaries of mental instability. That is rather amusing: about like some KGB men who after a few years of revolution, decided the real marxists (even like Zinoniev) were actually a hindrance to the stalinist liquidation plans, and more or less concocted some BS charges , put them on show trials (with the "Peoples'" support), and sent them off to gulags. No, NW has not quite reached that level of malevolence, but in miniature, that is what many of these frat-boy leftist blogs have become: sort of mini-KGBs.
We here at Contingencies simply say this to J.M and his psychotic baptist-stalinist palsie: Essen sie Scheisse.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
The extreme position of Islam (Christopher Hitchens)
".....Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated. And when these ontological claims have collided, as they must, with their logical limits, it is even further beyond the cognitive capacity of any person to claim without embarrassment that the lord of creation spoke his ultimate words to an unlettered merchant in seventh-century Arabia. Those who utter such fantastic braggings, however many times a day they do so, can by definition have no idea what they are talking about. (I hasten to add that those who boast of knowing about Moses parting the Red Sea, or about a virgin with a huge tummy, are in exactly the same position.) Finally, it turns out to be impossible to determine whether jihad means more alms-giving or yet more zealous massacre of, say, Shiite Muslims.""""
Unlike most milquetoast liberals (or over-accomodating GOPers), Hitchens at least recognizes the threat posed to Western democracy by Islamic theocracy (and theocracy of all types). Any authentic American (i.e. one who values Madisonian-Jeffersonian principles over dogma, or over the political philosophy of Al Capone), has reason to object to Muslim encroachments on civil liberties (and sharia is already creeping across Europe). Alas, most of the Bukharin-wannabes who frequent the liberal poliburo.coms (KOS, DU, Talking points, Schmendricks.com, etc. etc.) only value democractic principles (Due Process, habeas corpus, yada yada yada) when needed to defend terrorists.
".....Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated. And when these ontological claims have collided, as they must, with their logical limits, it is even further beyond the cognitive capacity of any person to claim without embarrassment that the lord of creation spoke his ultimate words to an unlettered merchant in seventh-century Arabia. Those who utter such fantastic braggings, however many times a day they do so, can by definition have no idea what they are talking about. (I hasten to add that those who boast of knowing about Moses parting the Red Sea, or about a virgin with a huge tummy, are in exactly the same position.) Finally, it turns out to be impossible to determine whether jihad means more alms-giving or yet more zealous massacre of, say, Shiite Muslims.""""
Unlike most milquetoast liberals (or over-accomodating GOPers), Hitchens at least recognizes the threat posed to Western democracy by Islamic theocracy (and theocracy of all types). Any authentic American (i.e. one who values Madisonian-Jeffersonian principles over dogma, or over the political philosophy of Al Capone), has reason to object to Muslim encroachments on civil liberties (and sharia is already creeping across Europe). Alas, most of the Bukharin-wannabes who frequent the liberal poliburo.coms (KOS, DU, Talking points, Schmendricks.com, etc. etc.) only value democractic principles (Due Process, habeas corpus, yada yada yada) when needed to defend terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Custom Search
