Category: Uncategorized

Of Dysmorphic Delusions, Transgenderism, and Madness

The dysmorphic delusions that sufferers of diseases like bulimia and anorexia find a connection with those men and/or women who insist they are not men or women. In both cases (anorexia/bulimia and transgenderism) the sufferers feelings about themselves exist only in their minds and existing in the mind no one can tell them that objectively the case is not as their delusions are telling them. The difference however between something like bulimia or anorexia is that society is still willing to tell the afflicted that they are not right in the head whereas with the transgenders society has now decided to join them in their delusion. With transgenders like the seismic anomaly  (Richard Levine) serving as a four-star admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps it is now those who won’t play along with their make believe distorted vision of reality who now are deemed “not right in the head.”

As such the radical subjectivism at the heart of intersectionality, WOKE ideology, and gender theory now unchallenged and affirmed as a real state of affairs has abolished the possibility of disinterested debate by its ability to recast any disagreement by appealing to sanity. If the deluded register a claim to suffering if their delusion is not affirmed as being insensitive to their lived experience then all must bow before their claim of suffering. As such we are now in a position of either joining the delusion of the mentally ill or being accused of being trannie-phobes, haters, and downright mean.

In Favor of Censorship & Having Eyes Wide Open on What Liberty Means

Should Christians desire to win the culture wars against the WOKE cultural Marxists crowd they have to be done with classical liberalism as a worldview and embrace censorship once in power while suppressing ideologies, organizations, and persons who would subvert the Christian vision. In short Christians must practice cancel culture just as is prescribed in God’s Word. In God’s Word if someone, for example, committed a sexual crime their life was canceled. This kind of mindset must be take up again by Christians if they are to defeat those who would practice cancel culture by seeking to economically and personally destroy those who oppose sexual perversion.

The idea of absolute freedom of speech has never been practiced in American History. Early American communities has crimes against taking God’s name in vain. Woodrow Wilson’s Attorney General, A. Mitchel Palmer threw known communists out of America because of their radical speech and actions that were attempt to overthrow American interests. And today it is no different. Political Correctness does not champion an expansion of free speech. Political Correctness instead exchanges one contextual inhabitation wherein a certain kind of Christian speech dwells for a different contextual inhabitation wherein a certain kind of anti-Christian speech and behavior can dwell. Think of Political Correctness not as broadening the standard for free speech and liberty but rather as introducing a new anti-standard standard for free speech and licentiousness.

To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton we must seek to censor “the thought that stops thought.” We must give up classical liberalism (which was always a myth) and embrace once again God’s Law as the norm that norms all speech and behavior norms.

Now, some will think this sounds harsh and even, dare say it, Puritanical, but keep in mind that this is exactly what is being done to the Christian sense of proper speech, liberty, and decency by the anti-Christ left to the Christian. The anti-Chris left has succeeded in ushering in a liberty that finds kiddies being brought before perverts in order to hear the perverts read during Drag Queen Story Hour. The anti-Christ left has succeeded in brining an “expanded standard” that allows teenage boys to use the girls locker-rooms while the teenage girls are changing. The anti-Christ left has succeeded in shutting down speech that opposes these kinds of things from happening.

Is freedom of speech as wrongly absolutized really something that Christians want to support if it leads to where we are at? We must turn the censoring tables on the enemy. We must quit with the freedom of speech nonsense and begin to censor our enemies just as our Fathers did before us.

The culture war will not be won by aligning with Libertarian who, at least according to their principles have to allow every speech and behavior under the sun (as if that were possible).

If Christians who fancy themselves biblical and so conservative hope to recover anything akin to standards that they need not be embarrassed by then must not only articulate a moral and political vision that are wholesome by God’s standard but they also must suppress and censor and practice cancel culture on individuals, ideologies, organizations, and institutions that subvert our Christian vision.

Addendum

Conservatives have to quit thinking that all because WOKE ideology is irrational and illogical therefore an explanation that points out the contradictions is sufficient to convince people to give up their WOKENESS.

The WOKE crowd doesn’t give a Schrödinger’s cat about rationality or logic. This isn’t about a debate. This is not about logic or rationality. This is about whatever it takes to strip the remnants of Christianity and Christendom from the current social order. This is about raw power. If tomorrow raw power requires holding one side of the stick to beat Christianity it’s all good. If the day after tomorrow what is required is holding the opposite side of the stick it remains all good.

Biblical Christians have to quit trying to win a debate and enter into their own version of power politics.

Chambers Gives Us Another Slightly Different Take on Wilson’s Nigerian Anglian Woman

I think that after listening to the criticisms leveled at Doug Wilson for his view that he has more in common with a Nigerian Anglican woman than with his white pagan neighbor, it is quite likely that (Doug) the wordsmith will come back and say that he was speaking qualitatively rather than quantitatively. That he is speaking of importance rather than numbers. That a shared faith is more important than all other considerations. And I think that both parties are missing an element of covenant, i.e. that the Caucasian race is a covenant people. It is the Caucasian that took the Gospel from Asia Minor into Russia and across Europe and eventually to the Americas and reaped the blessings associated with it. Western culture, by which all the world has benefited is the product of the Caucasian Christian mind. Discipling the nations has been quite as Kipling described it, the White Man’s Burden, and we have been blessed with the promises of Deut. 28 because of our faithfulness. Who can deny it? We are a covenant people and there is a shared covenant bond between each of us and the members of our race as a whole. But the modern western church has a truncated individualistic view of covenant and no longer thinks in broad covenantal terms. Even the unity of the family, the basic building block of culture, is being obliterated. One need only look at the second half of Deut 28 to see it. The alien will rise higher and higher while we sink lower and lower. They will be the head and we will be the tail. We were blessed as a covenant race and now like Esau, having rejected our birthright, we are being likewise judged for our apostasy.

Israel is our example. When the alien was in the land he was subject to the stipulations of God’s law and reaped both its benefits and punishments. He was treated fairly. And though the alien could claim and serve the true God, there was a distinction drawn. He was not allowed to own land, he could not rule, and Israel was forbidden to go after foreign wives. Inter-marriage was not allowed. Why do we imagine that things are different now? Yes we share Christ with all those who bow the knee but that does not eliminate all the other God ordained distinctions. He set the boundaries of the habitations of all peoples. Who do we think we are to violate them?

The Anthropological Considerations Behind Political Correctness

Political correctness is the consequence of humanist anthropology. PC presupposes that man is a victim as seen in its usage of language to cover up the Christian notion as man as responsible. Because of the PC anthropology a language is created that reinforces “man the victim.” Illegal Immigrants become undocumented workers, “bums” become the “dislocated unhoused.” In both cases the idea of the person as being responsible for their negative status is replaced with the idea that the person is a victim of circumstance, or environment or of White people. The PC jargon is a jargon that belies a switch in anthropology from Christianity where men are responsible to humanism/Marxism where man is a victim of his environment. This denial of holding people responsible to established standards allows the “victims” to avoid moral opprobrium moving the moral opprobrium to anyone who would dare use non-pc language to label correctly the malfeasance in behavior of the person who is a bum, tramp, or illegal immigrant, etc..

All of this is a denial from Christian culture as inherited from the Puritans for example. Puritan culture was traditionally marked by a strong sense of sin and responsibility. The Puritans felt that man was responsible to God, that what he did he had to give an accounting. Therefore, in everything he did man had to be a responsible person. The anthropological shift, which Political Correctness gives cover for, now insists that man is not responsible for anything he does or is and instead of being responsible is now a victim.

With its use of language PC reinforces the denial that human behavior is fixed and immutable as is the reality in Christian culture and instead introduces a new anthropology where human behavior is malleable and is what it is in any individual not due to any fault (sin) in them but is due to their environment, their upbringing, or their being oppressed.

Political correctness in speech could not exist unless the anthropology was first being changed out.  As such Political Correctness is indeed an Orwellian Big Brother project to control thought but as in the service of the new anthropology that is foundation for its existence.

This has several implications

1.) Political correctness by turning people into victims and so removing any kind of moral responsibility for man’s behavior ends up eviscerating any idea of a coherent moral code except as that moral code is applied to anyone actually using language that rightly defines people as responsible.

Said slightly differently, Political Correctness, by flattening out the distinction between good and evil removes all sense of the irregular, strange, and odd. If all people are victims, oppressed, or non responsible, then no behavior can be labeled as out of bounds.

2.) The truth of the above works to make the chief sin to be the sin of noticing. Those who notice and label strangeness are now those who are the real criminals because they threaten the new anthropology. It is those who commit the sin of noticing who must be noticed and, if possible, experience cancel culture.

3.) All of this creates what has been called a “paranoid culture.” A victim anthropology, with a PC speech code to provide cover, works to turn every man into someone who is paranoid. According to John Caroll in his book, “Puritan Paranoid Remissive: A Sociology of Modern Culture,”

“For the paranoid, it is always someone else who is to blame. Misfortune, like all emotional states and influences, comes from without. Even sin is projected. Hence, the paranoid’s chronic fear of the unknown, his lack of curiosity and his one dimensional imagination. The paranoid accepts the existence of authority, but in a negative, punitive form. He lives the antithesis of personal responsibility, having no self. It is the external that is always guilty.”

So, again we see the connection between Politically correct speech which provides the cover for a anthropological shift from a Christian anthropology to a Humanist/Marxist anthropology where paranoia and blame shifting are rife because everyone is now  a victim except those who refuse to own this anthropology.

This new anthropology and the speech code that provides cover reminds us, in the words of Stanley Fish,

“Speech, in short, in never a value in and of itself but is always produced within the precincts of some assumed conception of the good to which if must yield in the event of conflict.”

Which is just another way of saying that even in speech codes there is no neutrality. In the case of Political Correctness it is produced within the precincts of the assumed conception of the good as now defined within the precincts of the Humanist/Marxist new anthropology.

In conclusion we note that when the Church gives into Political Correctness in any form it is at that point dining with the Devil and using a very very short spoon.