Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:49 PM
Number of posts: 6,972

About Me

The last one to serve on the last jury before this joint takes its rightful place in the land of the 404 error, be sure and turn off the lights. See yah.

Journal Archives

Nope: I am a Christian. I *believe* the basic tenets of that religious faith;

I know, entirely outside of the parameters of those beliefs, that there is a God. You are conflating agnosticism with doubt, and doing it deliberately: it's another way to dishonestly prate "you believe just like I do, you're just a hypocrite for not stating it openly!!!11" It's an old Leftist bait-n'-switch dodge; another way Western Leftists soothe and purr to themselves about what superior human beings they think they are.

In this context, agnosticism and doubt are not only very different things: they are precisely opposite things. An agnostic says "I don't know if there's a God or not - but when I die I'll find out." A Christian says "I know there is a God and doubt only the extent of my election to salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven (whatever that turns out to be or is experience as)." This is the irony and mystery of the faith: the first confirmed Christian, i.e., the first person to express belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God; to have died and gone into the afterlife as a redeemed believer, was a thief and murderer hanging next to Jesus on his very own cross, not some saint or righteous person. The first confirmed Christian was a dreadfully flawed sinner - as are we all.

Your statement "you are agnostic, whether you choose to admit it or not" is simply false.

As for the atheist/agnostic dynamic, I'm going to repost in its entirety what I said to you previously about it:


Now, a brief aside about the atheist thing. You said:

"I am an atheist. I do not believe that such things exist."

This is simply not possible. To actually be a living atheist the following sequence of events would have had to occur: 1. You would have to have died, and been conscious of dying. 2. In death, you would have to have been consciously aware that you were experiencing nothingness, that, just as you'd suspected all along, there was nothing after death but darkness and....oops!...unconsciousness. 3. You would then have to have been revived, and brought back to life with your memories of what had occurred intact.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the fact that you were conscious during the experience would have rendered moot your belief that there was not afterlife: but let's put that aside.

You are an agnostic. A convinced one, to be sure, but an agnostic. You believe you are an atheist, just as I believe I am a Christian. But to be an actual atheist, you would have to be dead; just as for me to be an actual Christian - one whose beliefs had been confirmed - I will have to pass into the beyond.

You said:

"I don't pretend that my morality emerged from a burning bush or was delivered in a spaceship, and that I'm not responsible for the morality I espouse and live by."

Neither do I, and your reply here is, as you well know, quite unfair and a caricature of what you imagine it means to be me. All of us are a combination of many beliefs, from many different sources and persons whose judgement or pronouncements we have to come to trust or simply believe in. But every scrap of my morality could be justified on secular grounds alone: were I a convinced agnostic like you, I would still hold nearly every single political and cultural belief about the word I live in that I do know.

It's just that my worldview has a longer vision than yours, a vision that is grounded in the knowledge that there is a God, and that imperfect as I am and as the world is ultimately I will exist outside it, beyond it, doing, literally here, "God knows what," after my physical body dies and I pass into the afterlife.

You take your "foundational principles" largely from some German deadbeat who spent hours scribbling nonsense in the reading room of some London museum: I take mine from the divinely-inspired words of the Son of God. You are hardly in a position to preach to me about who is appealing to phantoms, and who is appealing to facts.

On edit, link to post:


The last time I posted that irrefutable summation of the matter at hand, your only reply was "I'm just not even going to bother reading a screed" followed by a lot of irrelevant, hand-waving jazz, and off you went, skipping away from something you could not refute.

We'll see if you can do better this time - or not.

Nonsense. You said: "you're rehearsing for a role, right?

Gotta stay in character. Weird though it may be."

I really tire of these semantics games you play, followed by false accusations of dishonesty or illiteracy. You well know such silliness is simply untrue, but you persist in posting it.

Let's play diagram the sentences: I posted what I posted above. It was an expression of one tenet of my religious beliefs. You posted what I quoted above. The implication is plain: what I posted was weird because (according to you) I'm "rehearsing for a role" and staying "in character" - part of which said role-playing or "character" acting is stating that I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God - "Weird though it may be."

Now, you go right ahead and play all the semantics games you want. But you're really fooling about nobody, know it?

"You - the "you" persona on this website - are a caricature. I assume that you have created this persona for a reason. It eludes me, but I am sure there must be one."

Nope: I'm a human being with real feelings, beliefs, and values. You choose to label me a "caricature" because you dislike my stated beliefs and have yet been able to refute them to any significant degree: every debate we've had, you've either wound up sputtering and pointing, or declared you're not going to read anything more I've posted, or simply wandered off to go bark and snarl at someone else.

Yet, just the other day you were pontificating to me about how Leftist ideology was about "valuing all people" or some such empty, airy sloganeering. But even that is false: your premise that I am posting in bad faith - "a caricature" - belies that you believe anything of the sort. Like most Leftists, you "value" the "people" or "the masses" in the abstract; when it comes to real people, with real views and feelings and beliefs, not so much. Especially if they hold and express views contrary to yours.

I'm going to post a separate reply dealing with your Convinced Agnosticism, as we've dealt with the issue before and the only reason we're discussing it now is your unsolicited labeling of my expression of a tenet of my religious beliefs above "weird."


Of course, the "power theory" of racism is an academic fraud, ginned up during

the 1980s by Leftist academics to excuse-make for the ongoing failure of a certain demographic who'd had, by 1983, three TRILLION dollars of welfare transfer payments and other assorted taxpayer-funded freebies transferred directly to them and only them and their communities to help them get their acts together, and start acting, collectively, like civilized human beings in largely stable environments. The total as of 2011, BTW, is now up to 17 TRILLION dollars of same, directly to that same demographic. change: if anything, a bit worse in terms of behavior, and that only mitigated by the increase of incarceration of felons from that demographic (again, at tremendous taxpayer expense) since the early 1980s.

Now, the mythical excuse-making cry is "white privilege": that's every bit as bogus as the "power theory" of racism of thirty years ago.

Excellent OP.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Sat Aug 9, 2014, 11:01 PM (1 replies)

Strange KC home invasion: One suspect shot in leg, one suffers panic attack

"Police were still sorting through information, but they received a report that one of the suspected home invaders was shot in the leg when they entered the home and were chased off by a resident.

One of the suspects also apparently suffered a panic attack following the chase."


On a side note, this story drew my attention because it was in KC that I ever came the closest to being in a Zimm Man situation: a group of homies in a barbecue joint parking lot decided they were gonna have m'ladies purse, whatever was in my wallet, and perhaps a little 'wilding'/'flash-mob' fun to boot.

I've had numerous dealings with such specimens from kindergarden to yesterday afternoon, and wasn't about to put up with it: I know how that story goes. One of them, no doubt marginally smarter than the rest, noticed I wasn't backing down and further that my right hand was wrapped firmly around something under my Polo shirt: that would've been my 14-round Glock (with one in the pipe), in .357 sig. He kept both himself and his homeboy's alive that day, and me off the national news. Because if that mob of ghetto guttersnipes had attacked, I'd of Christianized the lot of them, and justifiably so in self-defense.


The Muslim Right and the Anglo-American Left: The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Money quotes:

"Some in the human rights movement have gone overboard in their desire to defend the victims of state counter-terrorism, and ended up embracing the Muslim Right. A section of the Anglo-American left has done the same, focusing only on wrongs done by the United States and acting on the fatal principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”


"In the last ten years, however, some groups on the far left have allied with conservative Muslim organizations that stand for religious discrimination, advocate death for those they consider apostates, oppose gay rights, subordinate women, and seek to impose their views on others through violence. This support of the Muslim Right has undermined struggles for secular democracy in the Global South and has spread from the far left to feminists, the human rights movement and progressive donors."


"With similar political blindness, sections of the international left have continued to support the Iranian theocracy despite its violent repression of the “Green Revolution” of 2009-2010, its attacks on student and women’s organizations, and its suppression of labour unions. In September 2010, for instance, 150 self-described “progressive activists” in the United States, led by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and former member of the House of Representatives Cynthia McKinney, dined with Iranian President Ahmadinejad on his visit to the United Nations to show their support for his allegedly anti-imperialist stand."


"Even if the Muslim Right were a reliable foe of U.S. imperialism, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a very poor strategy for left wing survival. Wherever Islamists have gained power, they have wiped out the left—see Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Sudan, and, of course, Afghanistan."*


*Emphasis added. Silver linings, and all of that: I have long maintained that if the Western Left gets what it wants and Western Civilization suicides itself in the name of "diversity" and "multiculturalism," what will arise out of its ruins is a Tenth Caliphate in the former western lands, from Nome, Alaska to Athens, Greece.

What will happen then is that our new overlords will tell devout Christians such as myself to be sure and keep our Jizya taxes in good order; hie ourselves to our newly religiously-segregated suburbs/towns/assigned urban quarters (and stay there); but pretty much leave us to our devices after some initial blood-letting. "Priviliged White Males" ( ) and the people around them still know something about hard work, technical and mechanical prowess, and how to make an economy hum, after all: our productivity would be necessary - indeed, vital - to the economic health of a new Caliphate state.

But whither our secular, Leftist, feminist friends? As the article says: "see Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Sudan, and, of course, Afghanistan."


Shocking moment an owl is interrogated by superstitious Mexican villagers

after they set it on fire 'for being a witch':

"The terrified animal was filmed being questioned by its captors from inside a scorched cage in the city of Durango, north-west Mexico, with its feathers badly charred and its legs bound.

Believing it to be a witch, the female villagers can be heard demanding the owl reveal its human name and turn itself back into a woman if it wants to be freed"


"But the women interpret the bird’s cries as proof that it is really a witch and does not like the fact that its true identity has been discovered."


"The city of Durango, like many places in Mexico, includes the superstition that some women are witches that have the power to turn into animals."

Warning Discussionists! - Before you click on the link below to this article, be warned that it has very graphic images of this poor animal, and you should be advised before going there that it can be very upsetting to see. It upset me, and I don't normally have a queasy stomach about much. Please be advised! Thanks.

Yes, the blessings of amnesty will bring us many Durangos across the fruited plain...
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Sat Aug 9, 2014, 06:04 PM (5 replies)

Actually, I think outright annexation should be considered:

1. There are large "Red" swathes of Canada that would welcome being free of their Ottawa masters. Canada is not really a democracy: indeed, Stephen Harper's office ranks about third in the order of who holds any kind of actual power in that country. The Canadian Supreme court is actually an unelected panel of philosopher kings, and because the language and verbiage is so extensive in that 1982 "updated" constitution of theirs, it allows the courts there to simply rule by judicial fiat whenever they feel like it. The permanent bureaucracy in Canada is the second most powerful branch of their "democratic" regime: indeed, there is a legal process in Canada whereby an agency in Canada can simply ignore a direct order from their Parliament if they go to the courts and get a certificate that says they are upholding the Canadian Charter, and are thus immune to the legislative dictates of the democratic decision-making body that supposedly speaks for the Canadian people through elections.

Canadian government is, at best, a judicial and bureaucratic dictatorship with a happy face (they preen a lot about "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" and all sorts of other Orwellian PC dreck), with the slightest shade of democratic values included on the side in their Parliament.

Many of the "Red" regions would prefer a different arrangement. The United States should offer it to them.

2. Canadian government immigration policy is currently a clear and present danger to the rest of the North American continent. This would literally take too long to go into, but suffice it to say Canada's Leftist elites are hell-bent on "electing another people" because of their own phony white guilt and self-loathing of their ancestral European roots. Problem is, while trying to radically alter the demographics of their own native population, they are importing boatloads - literally - of people who, shall we say, do not have the West's best interests at heart, and many of whom would actually like to set up a Caliphate from Nome to El Paso. This becomes a national security issue for the United States: the Canadian Leftist elite's self-loathing is their own business, but when it starts to affect our security here, it's time the offending party is given the equivalent of a "cease & desist" order. Backed up by the 101st Airborne, if necessary.

3. Like the U.S., Canada is a "nation divided" between "Red" and "Blue" populations, with the anomaly of Quebec thrown in. A viable solution would be to annex the entire country, sans Quebec, which would be allowed to fulfill the long-time dreams of its native population, and have true sovereignty as an independent nation. It's foreign policy would by necessity have to be managed from Washington, and for that we'd have to have a coordinating body between the two country's on the lines of a NATO plus an EU-type supervisory board. Other than Francophones, Quebec's immigration policy would be controlled by the United States as a matter of U.S. national security. The rest of the provinces would be allowed a referendum to choose varying degrees of alliance with the United States: loose confederation, independence along the lines of the Quebec quasi-sovereign, or outright admission to the Union as new states. There would not be a "No Thanks" option, however. Those in the "Blue" populations of Canada would be given the option to stay, with the proviso they surrender their franchise: barring that, they would be given free transportation to any part of the Commonwealth they wished. I hear New Zealand is nice this time of year. They would be free to take any or all of their private property, and we wouldn't even charge them an exit fee.

Now, of course the United States has to get its own border problems solved and there is a looming Great Crises on the horizon between Red and Blue Americans themselves. But those things aside, the issue of North American common security and shared economic and cultural interest is going to have to be tackled at some point in this century. I think the general outlines of a plan like I have laid out above are not only workable and doable, but an eventual necessity.

Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Sat Aug 9, 2014, 12:45 PM (1 replies)

Ahhhh, but the Open Borders crowd will continue to bray "moar, moar

moar cheap labor and instant Democrats!"

Best case: America winds up like Brazil.

Worst case: America winds up like Somalia.

Preferred case: the "Blue" regions agree to let us on the decent human being side of the equation in the "Red" regions (note I said regions NOT "states"; more Red-region Californians voted for Romney in 2012 in total numbers than Oklahoma and Utah combined) separate from each other, and form our own respective country's.

We'll build a wall and enforce our borders (along with a lot of other things); they'll sink into irrelevancy, degeneracy, and chaos.

One thing: we get to the keep the name "United States of America." We'll even put the word "Original" in front of it: the "Blue" regions will just have to go with "People's Republic of Vibrancy and Rainbow Stew," or something similar.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Thu Aug 7, 2014, 11:21 PM (2 replies)

Excellent point. I read an article once (if I can Google around and find it

I'll post it here) that went through the history of this racial terming business, mostly self-titled by black Americans themselves. After the Civil War, the term "Freedmen" was insisted upon by the conquering Northern whites with almost as much politically correct fervor as the demand for "African-American" is by liberals today. The idea was that the term "freedmen" was not only literally correct in 1865, but that it would bolster the freed slaves self-image.

Then the term "Negro" came into fashion for, ironically, the same reasons: white people of the liberal - for the era - persuasion reversed course and began to insist that the term "freedmen," which implied, obviously, that before they were free they were slaves, was demeaning.

"Negro" hung in there until the mid-1960s, when the term "black" was insisted upon by both so-called "Civil Rights" leaders and white liberals. One opponent to this was Malcolm X, who preferred the term "Afro-American."

Sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s, one man - a race huckster named Jesse Jackson - appointed himself the Prince of Naming Black Folks, and demanded that the term "African-American" be employed henceforth. A dutifully supine and obedient liberal media and Leftist academia immediately complied: the inaccurate term "African-American" was adopted overnight, and the AP changed its stylebook so quick that they actually had to send out scissors with a replacement terminology page so they could update the books immediately, lest Prince Jesse be offended that some small-town newspaper somewhere still called black Americans black.

As I understand it, the idea is that self-esteem is more important than linguistic or ethnic accuracy - that's how the Left routinely rolls - and that a piddling little country like Germany (for "German-American") or Italy (for "Italian-American") or Ireland (for "Irish-American") simply wouldn't do: the new term had to embrace an entire continent. Any dissenters from the new term were simply labeled racists if they were white or Uncle Toms if they were black, and that was that.

It was a fascinating look at the evolution of a term.
Posted by Zimm_Man_Fan | Thu Aug 7, 2014, 06:42 PM (1 replies)

Nixon -- before Watergate

"Once again, aging liberals will walk the children through the tale of that triumph of American democracy when they helped to save our republic from the greatest menace to the Constitution in all of history.

Missing from the retelling will be the astonishing achievements of that most maligned of statesmen in the 20th century. And as this writer was at Nixon’s side for more than eight years before that August day in 1974, let me recount a few.

When Nixon took the oath in January 1969, more than 500,000 U.S. soldiers were in Vietnam or on the way, and U.S. casualties were running at 200 to 300 American dead every week.

Liberalism’s best and brightest had marched us into an Asian war they could not win or end. Yet by the end of Nixon’s first term, all U.S. forces and POWs were home or on the way, and every provincial capital was in Saigon’s hands." - Yup. That's why the Left hated and hates him so much: he made their previous rule of error look silly.


Go to Page: 1 2 Next »