January 20, 2013 Leave a comment
September 23, 2012 2 Comments
In my return to “Radical Analysis,” we discuss the basic overview of the events of 9 11 which demonstrate a clear and consistent narrative of a planned event by rogue forces within the system.
To download the MP3/WMA file,
right click and “save as”
September 14, 2012 1 Comment
In this return to local Cincinnati Radio, Tom Lynn and I discuss black ops/false flags, propaganda, vaccines, social engineering, the Huxleys, geo-politics, Libya and Syria, as well as Al Qaeda, and cognitive dissonance.
To download the mp3
March 5, 2012 10 Comments
Or, The Enlightenment rationalist laid bare
An interesting discussion/debate recently transpired. A friend who is a scientific “skeptic” discussed his dubious demeanor in terms of there being advanced secret technology for two reasons. First, such ”conspiracies” are doubtful because they are “theories” and come from persons who want to promote a certain worldview (namely a conspiratorial one). Evidence is gathered, so the theory goes, that is interpreted in a certain fashion to back up the said theory. Pause for a minute: doesn’t that sound a lot like the modus operandi of those who utilize the “scientific method” to “prove” a certain theory? Why, yes it does!
Second, he made the argument that the process of scientific advancement is such that whatever advances occur, occur because “someone contemporary to said person would eventually discover the same thing.” Scientific advancement and discovery happens (so this narrative goes) in a community of objective, non-biased “scientists” committed to the use of “reason” and the building up of human knowledge and progress. Communities of scientists don white lab coats and thereupon, like Mormon underwear, become sacramentally endued with a sciencey force field that shields them from bias, groupthink, deception, forgery and other nasty human tendencies.
Let’s examine both of these arguments philosophically. The business of philosophy is the questioning of assumptions and presuppositions, and all the sons of the Enlightenment gloat to no end about their forebears who exalted “reason” above and all “revelation.” The operant assumption at work here is that there is a universally shared international discourse of egalitarian scientific rationale that men are nobly committed to. The warrior souls have long battled religionists, only to wrest control of the university and the social arena from “God talk” and letting “science” have the free reign. These enlightened ones are the true Promethean heroes who distilled the superstition of the middle ages and brought about the dawning of the new age of evolutionary progress into computers, cellphones and the Xbox. Do you notice that this is starting to look like a religious mythology? There is a narrative developing, you see, that encompasses past, present and future, and the fittest (namely, those who have sufficiently mastered this reductionist quantification of all reality) press on to inherit the future.
“But wait!” comes the cry from the army of lab coats, “you now reveal yourself as a Luddite! Nietzscheanpostmodernisthorkheimeradornoist! You are refuted by the very computer you type on! Unenlightened fool! You’re no philosophe, you’re a philo-oaf!” I say no such thing. I reject the mythology of the Enlightenment just as much as what I believe to be the false mythology of the postmodernists, Marxists and existentialists. I still hold to the rationality of religious revelation and tradition, but that is another argument. For now, we are examining whether it is “rational” to take our doubting to a deeper degree than the Enlightenment thinker above did. He doubted his religious views of youth and so adopted what he saw as a freeing, “scientific” worldview. This then inducted him (so he would think) into the glorious association of the communion of saints of “science” and lab-coated genii. But wait–the foundation of all this is the “scientific method.” This great building block of all modernity is now what grounds our many theories upon a certain and firm basis – trial and error, which then confirms our theories, or conversely falsifies them. Read more of this post
June 10, 2011 3 Comments
A Simple Example of How to Refute Moral Relativism
I argued with Lez Winstead, I mean Lizz Winstead, today. She’s the co-creator of the Daily Show, so you think she’d be intelligent and funny. However, in a spar with her femenemy, man, she ended up flustered. Yes, logic and humor were not what she was expecting to meet on Twitter from an actual male not in her trendy New York drag queen circles. So let’s see how well ultra-liberal wit and reasoning stands up to masculinity. Let’s see how tolerant, level-headed and logical those of this ilk are.
Lizz tweeted how much she loved homosexual gayness, because, you know, it’s just inherently so beautiful and radical:
So let’s see that loving tolerance in action. What happens when you rationally challenge this claim on philosophical grounds? Liberals are into philosophy, right? Local universities, philosophy, liberals, etc., doesn’t that all sorta flow together into one large living Gaia? Yes, you’d think. So let’s analyze this. Note the reasoning – “happiness” is what is the justifying criteria for what constitutes moral affirmation. So, if you say that, it follows that:
This is entirely reasonable. The ”tweet” claims that moral lifestyles are justified on the basis of the purported pleasure of “happiness” they bring. Well, some people enjoy sex with animals, children and relatives. What’s the enlightened, tolerant liberal response? “Shut the Fuck Up.”
So, because I responded with a logical query, that moral relativism leads to the conclusion that bestiality, incest, rape and torture are all ago, I’m a “hater”! Why, who are we to stop someones else’s “happiness,” we fascists?! How dare you! But wait! Lizz is a super liberal, who thinks that no one should impose their views on others. But Lizz thinks Planned Parenthood is glorious and that feminism is totally awesome. So, Lizz thinks it’s wrong to oppose these things and adhere to moral absolutes. but Lizz imposes her worldview on others, even though you can’t impose your views on others, since that’s intolerant and not loving. But who said “shut the fuck up” first? She did. That’s not loving liberal and is intolerant. I was a “hater” for asking a logical question. So much for the beautiful “open mind” that the “liberals” are supposed to have. My next response was more abrupt:
Moral relativism is the key foundation stone of all who take this route. Moral relativism says that there are no absolutes in morals, period. Those who argue this never explain how that very claim itself is supposed to be absolute, though, since there are no absolutes. All moral claims are purely relative to the individual. No one, therefore, can claim that any thing is, strictly speaking, “wrong.” There are only preferential and non-preferential actions. Murdering babies isn’t wrong, per se (Lizz likes it, in fact), but is instead solely up to the determination of whatever the individual lists. Not in a good mood today? Baby-daddy ran away? Just kill it.
If Lizz is such a supposed liberal, why does she support Planned Parenthood, which was founded to weed out blacks, as the video below shows? That’s not very loving liberal or logical. In other words, Lizz had no response, not even a funny one (given that she is supposed to be a “comedian”). What’s her response? I, and anyone who believes in moral absolutes wants to have sex with dogs. You can’t make this up:
And you will see in a moment I am who she is responding to. So, because I pointed out that adopting moral relativism is contradictory, I actually want to have sex with dogs. There is no comparison between homosexuality and incest and other actions. But the point is not whether the actions are similar or of the same degree. The point is that the justification for actions is based on whatever makes one “happy.” No one can deny another person their hedonistic fleshfest (or furfest!). In fact, that Lizz thinks actions like incest and rape are of a different category deemed offensive shows she still wants to have moral absolutes and standards. But wait! Why are you imposing again on others’ “freedoms”? Why are you being a fascist again, seeking to tell the poor pedophiles and bestiality afficionados they are distasteful or aberrant? Why are you being so judgmental. And furthermore, why are you being so judgmental against me? I clicked “follow” on Twitter because I thought you might be funny. In response, I got hatred. It is not I who hate, but you. Read more of this post
October 28, 2010 2 Comments
Rand Paul, as many are aware, has become somewhat of a media star of late, with the majority of the mainstream attention focused on anything but the issues. We have heard ad nauseam about “Aqua Buddha,” that Dr. Paul kidnapped women in college, forcing them to smoke pot, he is a “racist,” that he is for drugging children and forcing “everyone” to pay a $2000 dollar Medicare deductible. This is all you will hear from the mainstream media, and guess what—none of it is true.
The “anonymous source” for the Aqua Buddha fiasco has retracted her story, but the mainstream outlets have not reported this. In fact, there was no kidnapping, and the “secret society” is a joke. When Dr. Paul was on Rachel Maddow’s show, what he responded “yes” to was whether he could hear the audio feed, not “yes” to repealing all civil rights laws. But that is not how the media has spun the incident—it’s far juicier to say he wants to appeal all civil rights.
Ironically, it is not Dr. Paul who wants to see all children “drugged,” as his opponent Jack Conway has implied, but rather Dr. Paul supports decriminalization of drugs solely for the purpose of decreasing out massive prison population. The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, and most are there for non-violent offenses. To reduce the massive prison complex would cut taxes, as well as create new jobs (since inmates are cheap labor). In fact, as has just recently surfaced, according to the Louisville Courier Journal’s article of October 23rd “LMPD Probes Detectives Who Tipped Off Prosecutor Under Investigation,” it is now Jack Conway and his brother who are embroiled in a possible absconding of a drug investigation. So it appears that in terms of drugs, Conway has more to explain that Rand. In regards to the Medicare, what Rand actually said was that seniors over a certain age might have to pay a deductible if we want to continue the system, since it is not working.
Now that we have cleared away the smoke and mirrors of the mainstream liberal establishment, it’s crucial to consider that students might be tempted to think Dr. Paul is just a mainline neo-conservative. This is also not true. Dr. Paul, like his extremely popular father, Dr. Ron Paul, has as his main agenda balancing the budget and the private Federal Reserve banking system. The Federal Reserve is a private institution that prints fiat money and controls our monetary system, as well as our government.
July 29, 2010 3 Comments
I propose a modified form of the transcendental argument for God’s existence. Not that it’s different, but it’s an aspect to the argument I’ve never seen previous proponents take. It occurred to me while reading Alisdair MacIntyre and while considering some of what Husserl and Karl Otto Appel have said. But of course, debates get old. They get old as I get old, maybe. Anyway, the subject matter itself is still worthy of reflection, even if one chooses not to engage in debate. Didn’t debate used to be a respected art? yes. But in our INGSOC modernity, questioning is itself suspect. But to the point.
MacIntyre points out that there is a kind of narrative structure for any meaningful conversation to take place. He makes a convincing case in his piece mentioned above. It occurred to me that for the localized instance of conversation to make sense, though, there has to be a larger narrative structure within which the localized conversation takes place. MacIntyre’s The Virtues, The Unity of a Human Life and the Concept of a Tradition gives an example along the lines of approaching someone gardening. To say a nonsense statement like “flight of the condor eats cheese wings perpetually,” has no meaning. In fact, to say even a meaningful phrase assumes some sort of context, such as, “how is the gardening coming?” or something of that nature. So why is it that we do one and not the other? Deconstructionists, relativists, nihilists, and so on, can say that it’s just utilitarian and social convention that has caused to use certain sounds in a certain way to stand for certain things, and that we evolved this way, blah blah blah.
But this kind of simple, mundane interaction doesn’t just show a kind of appropriateness to the content of what can be said, it also evidences a narrative structure. For example, generally, such a conversation would have a greeting, middle, and climax. Granted not always per se, but even a passing hello, has a kind of narrative structure to it, with an intended meaning that one party has, that the other party receives and many or may not acknowledge. Again, the intentions obviously vary as well as the received meanings and responses, but none of this changes the loosely narrative structure of such interactions. Read more of this post