Author: Papa Giorgio

Richard Dawkins Rejects Darwinism As It Relates to Ethics

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally Posted in February 2015

As a note/addition to the above dialogue concerning “Darwin & Hitler”… here is a Mein Kampf quote:

  • “The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature.  Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all….  If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy [New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942], pp. 161-162.

Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014), fn.2, 319 [added linked reference from Evolution News for context]:

Dawkins spells out the contradiction: “As an academic scientist, I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs.” A Devils Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2003), 10-11.

In another place, he admits to the logic of his own determinism (that people cannot be held responsible for their actions), but emotionally he cannot accept this. See the Dawkins interview by Logan Gage, “Who Wrote Richard Dawkins’s New Book?,” Evolution News (website), October 28, 2006:

Manzari: Dr. Dawkins thank you for your comments. The thing I have appreciated most about your comments is your consistency in the things I’ve seen you’ve written. One of the areas that I wanted to ask you about, and the place where I think there is an inconsistency, and I hoped you would clarify, is that in what I’ve read you seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out; but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that. But it would seem, and this isn’t to be funny, that the consistent position would be that necessarily the authoring of this book, from the initial conditions of the big bang, it was set that this would be the product of what we see today. I would take it that that would be the consistent position but I wanted to know what you thought about that.

Dawkins: The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It’s not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I’ve ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn’t seem to make any sense. Now I don’t actually know what I actually think about that, I haven’t taken up a position about that, it’s not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism. What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” Maybe we should… I sometimes… Um… You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil[‘s]… car won’t start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that’s what we all ought to… Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is “Oh they were just determined by their molecules.” It’s stupid to punish them. What we should do is say “This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced.” I can’t bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. And so again I might take a…

Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?

Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.

Manzari: Thank you.

(Even more at REASON FOR GOD)

2 Peter 1:5-8 & Isaiah 5:20:

“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Woe to those who call evil good

and good evil,

who substitute darkness for light

and light for darkness

who substitute bitter for sweet

and sweet for bitter.

Dawkins says:

“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” (See/hear more)

In other words, there is no absolute moral ethic, Dawkins wants to have a consensus of people agreeing what is “right” and “wrong” — he says as much in the audio above.

Which means that rape and murder are only taboo… not really wrong.

Secondly, there can be no concept of “ought”

What about human actions? They are of no more value or significance than the actions of any other material thing. Consider rocks rolling down a hill and coming to rest at the bottom. We don’t say that some particular arrangement of the rocks is right and another is wrong. Rocks don’t have a duty to roll in a particular way and land in a particular place. Their movement is just the product of the laws of physics. We don’t say that rocks “ought” to land in a certain pattern and that if they don’t then something needs to be done about it. We don’t strive for a better arrangement or motion of the rocks. In just the same way, there is no standard by which human actions can be judged. We are just another form of matter in motion, like the rocks rolling down the hill.

We tend to think that somewhere “out there” there are standards of behaviour that men ought to follow. But according to Dawkins there is only the “natural, physical world”. Nothing but particles and forces. These things cannot give rise to standards that men have a duty to follow. In fact they cannot even account for the concept of “ought”. There exist only particles of matter obeying the laws of physics. There is no sense in which anything ought to be like this or ought to be like that. There just is whatever there is, and there just happens whatever happens in accordance with the laws of physics.

Men’s actions are therefore merely the result of the laws of physics that govern the behaviour of the particles that make up the chemicals in the cells and fluids of their bodies and thus control how they behave. It is meaningless to say that the result of those physical reactions ought to be this or ought to be that. It is whatever it is. It is meaningless to say that people ought to act in a certain way. It is meaningless to say (to take a contemporary example) that the United States and its allies ought not to have invaded Iraq. The decision to invade was just the outworking of the laws of physics in the bodies of the people who governed those nations. And there is no sense in which the results of that invasion can be judged as good or bad because there are no standards to judge anything by. There are only particles reacting together; no standards, no morals, nothing but matter in motion.

Dawkins finds it very hard to be consistent to this system of belief. He thinks and acts as if there were somewhere, somehow standards that people ought to follow. For example in The God Delusion, referring particularly to the Christian doctrine of atonement, he says that there are “teachings in the New Testament that no good person should support”.(6) And he claims that religion favours an in-group/out-group approach to morality that makes it “a significant force for evil in the world”.(7)

According to Dawkins, then, there are such things as good and evil. We all know what good and evil mean. We know that if no good person should support the doctrine of atonement then we ought not to support that doctrine. We know that if religion is a force for evil then we are better off without religion and that, indeed, we ought to oppose religion. The concepts of good and evil are innate in us. The problem for Dawkins is that good and evil make no sense in his worldview. “There is nothing beyond the natural, physical world.” There are no standards out there that we ought to follow. There is only matter in motion reacting according to the laws of physics. Man is not of a different character to any other material thing. Men’s actions are not of a different type or level to that of rocks rolling down a hill. Rocks are not subject to laws that require them to do good and not evil; nor are men. Every time you hear Dawkins talking about good and evil as if the words actually meant something, it should strike you loud and clear as if he had announced to the world, “I am contradicting myself”.

Please note that I am not saying that Richard Dawkins doesn’t believe in good and evil. On the contrary, my point is that he does believe in them but that his worldview renders such standards meaningless.

(Nothing Beyond the Natural Physical World)

We know Dawkins’ position is not science, so… what is it? Here begins the journey for the truly curious.

American Infidels and the Left | Screams Before Silence

Published by Papa Giorgio

This entire post bleeds into the video at the end. I suggest you at last skip all this fodder, as important as it is, and watch that video at the bottom.

This is the video [below] that caused Google to remove Prager University’s ap from their store:

  • (PJ-MEDIA) There are messages that do not conform to the Accepted Narrative. If the messengers cannot be controlled, they have to be eliminated. So it should come as no surprise that a tech giant, with a history of left-wing proclivities and a cozy relationship with Democrats in power, found the excuse it needed to silence a dissident voice. (See also RIGHT SCOOP)

Radical Islam poses a significant threat to our freedom. The rise of anti-American rhetoric and violence in cities and universities is a direct result of the indoctrination led by those perpetrating a religious war against the West. PragerU’s short documentary features first-hand accounts from those who escaped Islamic rule and have come to warn America.

Featuring:

  • Ayman Abu Suboh (later Dor Shachar), a Palestinian who escaped to Israel from the terror of Hamas and later converted to Judaism.
  • Sophia Salma Khalifa, an Arab Muslim born in Israel who moved to the U.S. to earn her master’s degree from Stanford University.
  • Omar Vieira, retired U.S. Navy SEAL who served for 21 years and led high-risk operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations in the Middle East.
  • Jason Tuschen, retired U.S. Navy SEAL Command Master Chief who served for 27 years and was responsible for executing National Security Strategy in the Middle East.

MORE:

Just a couple, related , stories that I cam across recently. But first, just some excerpts on what we already know: “Amid a bitter election-year debate over illegal immigration, FBI Director Chris Wray told a Senate panel on Monday that dangerous individuals have entered the United States illegally at the southern border. (ABC)”

This story garnered the Left’s attention to say, “Ha, the open border in the South is not the issue…”

  • 736 known or suspected terrorists apprehended at U.S. border in fiscal 2023 – 66% of those apprehended at northern border (CENTER SQUARE)

However, the question becomes this… how many got away on our Southern Border? Remember, the number is higher today

These numbers don’t include gotaways, which are believed to also include KSTs. “Gotaways” is the official U.S. Customs and Border Patrol term that refers to those who illegally enter the U.S. between ports of entry, don’t return to Mexico or Canada, and are not apprehended. They total at least nearly 1.7 million since January 2021. However, the number is believed to be much higher because not all gotaways are known and or reported.

With people illegally entering the U.S. from over 170 countries, former ICE Chief Tom Homan told The Center Square some of these countries they are coming from are sponsors of terrorism.

“If you don’t think a single one of the 1.7 million [gotaways] is coming from a country that sponsors terrorism, then you’re ignoring the data,” he said. “That’s what makes this a huge national security issue.”

But yes, both borders are under assault: “Terrorist watch list apprehensions at northern border continue to break records.” Now you know the rest of the story.

Hijrah

In Islam, there is the idea of Hijrah.

The Hijrah, in Islamic lore, was the migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina, where the Muslims ultimately outnumbered the local population and took over the city. Ever since then, Muslim migration to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of turning them Muslim is part of Islamic doctrine.

In fact, in the Qu’ran, Sura 4, Verse 100 says…

“And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.”

Confirming the above video, PJ-MEDIA notes the “Sharia Courts” growth in Europe. And now Europe is in a battle under reported:

…. The English actor-turned-political-activist Lawrence Fox recently noted what was happening: “The Mayor of London is a Muslim. The mayor of Birmingham is a Muslim. The Mayor of Leeds is Muslim. Mayor of Blackburn – Muslim. The mayor of Sheffield is a Muslim. The mayor of Oxford is a Muslim. The mayor of Luton is a Muslim. The mayor of Oldham is Muslim. The mayor of Rochdale is Muslim. All this was achieved by only 4 million Muslims out of 66 million people in England.”

This kind of thing has happened before, but few remember. Back in the days when our schools and universities concentrated on teaching actual facts rather than leftist propaganda, race hatred, and gender fantasy, every schoolchild learned about the Norman conquest of England in 1066. Nowadays one would be hard-pressed to find someone under twenty who knows what a “Norman” was (they were people from Normandy, in northern France, where a large number of Norsemen from Scandinavia had settled), but a few decades ago any random student would have been able to tell you that this conquest was not just a military victory. It heralded the thorough transformation of English society.

The invading Normans were few in number compared to the English, but once they had defeated the defenders, they set about systematically to ensure that England would remain theirs in perpetuity. They removed the native English from positions of political and ecclesiastical power. Norman French mingled with the Old English language, ultimately creating the English language as we know it today. Historian Richard Southern observed that “no country in Europe, between the rise of the barbarian kingdoms and the 20th century, has undergone so radical a change in so short a time as England experienced after 1066.”

Until now. Lawrence Fox continued: “Today there are over 3,000 mosques in England. There are over 130 sharia courts. There are more than 50 Sharia Councils. 78 percent of Muslim women do not work, receive state support + free accommodation. 63 percent of Muslims do not work, receive state support + free housing. State-supported Muslim families with an average of 6 to 8 children receive free accommodation. Now every school in the UK is required to teach lessons about Islam. Has anyone ever been given an opportunity to vote for this?”

All this has already transformed Britain, and much more is to come. JNS recently reported that “honor-based abuse cases in England rose by more than 60% in two years, with 2,594 cases in 2022 vs. 1,599 in 2020.” It pointed out that “such crimes are common in many Muslim countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh. (1.6 million people, or 2.7%, of the United Kingdom’s population identify as Pakistani, and 94,434, or 1.1%, as Bangladeshi, according to the 2022 U.K. census.)” Now honor crimes will be common in a new Muslim country, Britain. …..

Douglas Murray

‘Morally wicked’: Douglas Murray calls out commentator defending Hamas’ charter

Author Douglas Murray has called out an American political commentator for defending Hamas’ charter and claiming it does not want to kill Jewish people in Israel. Briahna Joy Gray claimed Hamas wants to limit the idea of a Jewish state and wants a democracy similar to what is seen in the United States. “There is something morally wicked about doing that. She would accept that in no other situation of something to explain what a terrorist group actually seeks to do,” Mr Murray told Sky News host Rita Panahi.

Susan Sarandon
#MeeTooUnlessYouAreAJew

Now, Susan Sarandon

NEWSBUSTERS has more on the issues with Susan and her #BelieveAllWomen… except Jewish women stance (BTW, the few week old video commentary included [to the right] has some rough language for those sensitive to it):

Susan Sarandon isn’t letting cancellation curb her pro-Palestinian views.

The Oscar-winning actress lost her representation late last year after uttering this tone-deaf comparison at a pro-Palestinian rally

Bottom of Form

“There are a lot of people that are afraid, that are afraid of being Jewish at this time, and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country.”

She also shouted along with the crowd, “Long live the Intifada,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” according to The New York Post. Both comments are steeped in violent, antisemitic tropes.

[….]

Social media user Keren Picker walked with Sarandon during yet another pro-Palestinian protest in late April. Picker pressed the star on her positions regarding the Israeli/Hamas war. That included the mountains of evidence that Hamas did more than butcher hundreds of women.

The terror group sexually assaulted them in the most barbaric ways possible. 

Sarandon dubbed those assaults mere “myths.”

“We know that all of those myths about babies in ovens and the rapes,” Sarandon said in response to Picker’s interrogation.

“It’s not a myth. You’re denying, you’re denying the terror actions made on October 7th to so many innocent civilians,” Picker countered. She shared the exchange on Instagram….

SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA covered this topic well:

AMI HOROWITZ

‘Me too unless you’re a Jew’: Ami Horowitz slams Susan Sarandon’s stance on Israel-Hamas war

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz says actress Susan Sarandon “dropped the veneer” of being anti-Israel and instead is openly an anti-Semite. Mr Horowitz joined Sky News Australia host Rita Panahi to discuss the actress’ stance on the Israel-Hamas war. “Susan Sarandon had dropped the veneer of simply being anti-Israel but being an open anti-Semite a while ago,” he said. “You can believe the New York Times – I’m sure is Susan Sarandon’s Bible, that interviewed 150 rape victims, rape counsellors, medical emergency personnel, and actually had video the rapes that happened, you can do that, or you can believe Hamas, because that’s essentially what she’s doing. “I mean, me too unless you’re a Jew.”

Her radicalism is reverberating through a film being made. Here is DAILY MAIL’S story on her anti-Semitism ruining what should b a fun film to make:

… The plot will follow three longtime friends who travel to Key West, Florida to be bridesmaids in a surprise wedding for their other close pal, played by Midler.

But despite playing a group of loving gal pals on screen, insiders tell DailyMail.com that the relationship between Sarandon and her co-stars was fraught on set after she persisted with her controversial campaign following her previous anti-Semitic remarks. 

‘Bleecker Street is furious at Susan for the way she’s been carrying on. So is Bette, who is a proud Jew and hates what Susan is doing,’ a film insider told DailyMail.com. 

‘Sheryl is upset at her too, as is Megan Mullally, the whole crew and cast are. It’s a mess. 

‘Her co-stars are disappointed that so many people worked so hard on it, and now Susan is ruining it for everybody.’….

Screams Before Silence

Which brings me all the way to this excellent, but truly tragic — tragic because it had to be made at all — documentary:

A must-watch documentary. #ScreamsBeforeSilence sheds light on the unspeakable sexual violence committed on October 7. As heartbreaking as these stories in the documentary are, we cannot afford to look away. (ORIGINAL FILE)

Sam Shamoun | Divinity of Jesus vs Islam

Published by Papa Giorgio

These verses used below are also used for Jehovah’s Witnesses and our Jewish brothers as well. BTW, the title’s this YouTube Channel creates are essentially “click bait” — “COMPLETELY,” “DESTROYED”, etc, but I appreciate them adding captions and the like.

Sam Shamoun COMPLETELY DESTROYS Sheikh Uthman’s ARGUMENTS About Jesus

Claiming that Jesus never identified as God in the Bible is an obvious display of ignorance. Passages like John 1:1, John 20:28, and Titus 2:13 clearly affirm Jesus’ divinity, directly contradicting his arguments. Furthermore, questioning the authenticity of the New Testament while relying on Islamic texts, which lack comparable manuscript evidence and consistency, is totally hypocritical.

Sincere Muslim THOUGHT He EXPOSED The Bible… BUT COMPLETELY BACKFIRES

The Bible clearly shows that Jesus is more than a prophet: He is called “Lord” and “God,” worshipped as divine, recognized as the eternal “Word of God,” and claims to be “I AM,” showing His divine nature, which differs greatly from the Islamic view of Him being just a prophet​!

Rep. Byron Donald’s Jim Crow Comments

Published by Papa Giorgio

A couple “house keeping” issues… the 2nd video below is from a Democrat oriented RUMBLE channel. Which I support, BECAUSE, freedom of speech is ALL SIDES!

I love the video for the reason that Joy Reid at least played the entire clip for clarity…. which showed just how “out of sequence” her later questioning of Byon was.

I will also post the response [comment] I made on Blue Wave Network’s video under that video.

BUT FIRST, Byron responding to dumb Dems:

FINISH HIM: Byron Donalds Claps Back HARD on Hakeem Jeffries Over Jim Crow Comments (TWITCHY)

Here is Joy Reid’s interview with the Florida Rep:

GOP Congressman Facing Backlash for Defending Jim Crow’s “Positive Aspects”

Dumb.

His point wasn’t about the “positiveness of Jim Crow,” but the negativeness of Democratic policies since Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) and the welfare state. Here are my comments:

That was very nice of Joy to play the full quote. In the tradition of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Barak Obama, or Larry Elder… Byron discusses the assault by the progressive Left on the black family. Joy, uses a non-sequitur of a horrible event to the larger position Byron made about the cohesiveness of the black family then, versus now.

  • “One of these ‘favors’ was the welfare state. A vastly expanded welfare state in the 1960s destroyed the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and generations of racial oppression. In 1960, before this expansion of the welfare state, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, 67 percent of black children were raised with either one parent or no parent.” [me: now it is 72%] – Thomas Sowell, Battle Creek Enquirer.
  • “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do…. And that is to destroy the black family.” – Walter E. Williams, The Wall Street Journal.
  • “Instantly in the early 1970s we get welfare without any expectation of personal development or family responsibility whatsoever. Nothing damaged the black family in America, including slavery, the way that those welfare policies did. And now we are seeing the results.” – Shelby Steele, Hoover Digest.
  • “They (Black fathers) have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.” – Barack Obama
  • “…from 1890 to 1940, a black child was more likely to grow up with married parents than a white child.” – Larry Elder, Prager U.

 

 

Tolerance

Published by Papa Giorgio

CLASSICAL [Paleo] LIBERAL DEFINITION OF TOLERANCE:

Modern day “tolerance” is a bit different than previous days iterations. The “tolerance of old” assumed disagreement in its definition.

It basically said that two people have two views of the world, they can get together [hopefully amiably], and make their points vigorously, walk away either saying “I never thought about that,” or, “I still disagree but let’s meet up next week for pickle ball.”

This definition says you are tolerant by amiably disagreeing. Again, this historical tolerance accepted disagreement.

THE MODERN [Woke, Progressive, Left] ILLIBERAL DEFINITION OF TOLERANCE:

The new definition of tolerance rejects disagreement at the outset. This new form of tolerance says that if you disagree, you are INTOLERANT.

One of the keys to this view is the person who is saying another is intolerant for disagreeing, is not amiable. They are activists. They want all of society to think a certain way… or else.

NEW (6/7/2024) Democrats have already weaponized the justice system against conservatives and Donald Trump, and no a New York Democratic congressional candidate thinks that all MAGA supporters should be sent to a “re-education camp” following the 2024 election.

Paula Collins, the Democrat challenging Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), publicly announced her idea during a public Zoom townhall this week. 

“Even if we were to have a resounding blue wave come through, as many of us would like, putting it all back together again after we’ve gone through this MAGA nightmare and re-educating basically, which, that sounds like a rather, a re-education camp. I don’t think we really want call it that,” Collins said. “I’m sure we can find another way to phrase it.” 

“This radical New York City Democrat Socialist who literally is renting a bed and breakfast room in NY-21 was caught on tape saying she wants to force Trump voters through ‘re-education camps,’” Alex DeGrasse, a senior advisor to Elise Stefanik, told Fox News Digital. “Everyone knows she will be defeated by Elise Stefanik by a historic margin.” 

Collins later attempted to clarify her comments.

“We currently have lawmakers, including Rep. Elise Stefanik, who mis-quote or mis-understand the law,” Collins told Fox News Digital. “Even if MAGA were to be resoundingly defeated, we would need to engage in widespread civics education, which both red and blue voters acknowledge has been slipping in recent years.” 

Yeah, okay.

Obviously, Collins is just one person and her views may not represent the entirety of the Democratic Party, but her statement underscores the troubling trend of how Democrats view people who disagree with them politically. ….

(PJ-MEDIA)

This is ACE of SPADES response to the above:

Had the Democrats not murdered Abraham Lincoln in 1865, perhaps he might have unleashed a terrible swift sword of justice on that party and burned its evil black heart out, which had done so much to defile and destroy the dream and promise of the American revolution, the results of which reverberate to this day with generations of wasted lives and potential.

They also posit that the “disagreeing” person is not just wrong, but in many ways evil. And to prove this they attack a sign around their neck that reads any number of these labels: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.).

This “new” tolerance is the outcome of what Allie Beth Stuckey calls “toxic empathy“, what Judge Bork called “illiberal egalitarianism.” Or what was in part, “political correctness,” what is also called “woke,” “social-justice,” “[Kendi’s] anti-racism,” “multi-culturalism,” all of it undefinable other than people taking political power through caste systems:

SOWELL

 HAYEK

And voilà, this disagreeable person, is a troglodyte deserving of shunning from polite [so-called] society.

…..Technically, tolerance is an attitude of putting up with those with whom we differ. Tolerance presupposes there are differences and yet, in order to get along, we tolerate our opponents as fellow human beings, Americans and neighbors. We find ways to work together for the common good while still maintaining our differences.

But, with the death of trust, tolerance has gone from being a mature and honorable tension to being a binary state of war because trust has been evaporated from the equation. Let me explain: Historically, there have always been ethical binaries. That is, ethical pairs that were either/or. For example, something is either right or wrong, good or evil, black or white, up or down. But many ethical components are non-binary — think on a spectrum. For example, cold, cool, tepid, warm, hot. Throughout history, tolerance was non-binary. It was more needed when relating to those who differed greatly, less so with those more aligned with us.

But, today, the ethics of tolerance have become binary, either/or, and this has eliminated the basic meaning of tolerance altogether.

Today, love and hate are binary. If you don’t love something, if you don’t agree, don’t applaud, and don’t acknowledge ideas or behavior as ethically acceptable, then you are a hater. Consequently, there is no longer a sense of tolerance. The whole concept has been wiped from the page of society in our day. When it comes to our enemies, we don’t tolerate, we terminate.…

(DAVID HEGG @THE SIGNAL — found and added today! 11/01/2023)

This form of “tolerance” has dangerous connotations in wanting to get people by coercion or force to think one way. Totalitarianism, or “total thought.”   This leads to programs like “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)” – which are forcing “total thought,” what Tammy Bruce many years ago titled her book about her early encounters with it: “The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds”

Today, politicians are seriously floating ideas of “re-education camps.” As an example, here is Hillary Clinton speaking about Trump supporters:

“Because at some point, maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members, but something needs to happen” (WALL STREET JOURNAL: “The Totalitarian Heart of Hillary Clinton: The 2016 Election Denier Calls For “Formal Deprogramming” Of Trump Supporters“)

The point made in the title of the Wall Street Journal article is that Hillary vehemently denied the election of 2016:

Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020, which is that in 2017 Democrats challenged nine state’s electors and in 2021 Republicans challenged six state’s electors:

9 VS. 6

…In the 2016 presidential election, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton‘s 227. During the joint session on January 6, 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.

According to a C-SPAN recording of the joint session that took place four years ago, the following House Democrats made objections:

  1. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama’s votes.
  2. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida’s votes.
  3. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia’s votes.
  4. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina’s votes.
  5. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing “massive voter suppression” after Mississippi’s votes were announced.
  6. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan’s votes.
  7. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, “I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask ‘Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'” after the announcement of Wyoming’s votes.

[….]

In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.

[….]

In total, Republicans made objections to votes from six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. By the end of the joint session, Biden’s 306 electoral votes were certified, just as Trump’s votes had been certified in 2017….

(NEWSWEEK) | More at RPT)

You may think that the idea of reeducation camps in America is crazy. But diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are basically that. A tyrannical attack on thought. Even THE ATLANTIC knows it is an affront to freedom in their piece titled: “The Worst DEI Policy in Higher Education: At stake: the First Amendment rights and academic freedom of 61,000 professors who teach 1.9 million students”

… Under the changes to California’s education code, all community-college employees will be evaluated in a way that places “significant emphasis” on “antiracist” and “DEIA competencies.” […] For professors, that means all will be judged, whether in hiring, promotion, or tenure decisions, on their embrace of controversial social-justice concepts as those concepts are understood and defined by state education bureaucrats

[….]

… “Under the previous faculty contract, faculty were evaluated for their ‘demonstrated ability to successfully teach students from cultures other than one’s own,’” the FIRE lawsuit notes. “Under the DEIA Rules, however, they are now evaluated on their ‘demonstration of, or progress toward, diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) related competencies and teaching and learning practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles.’” Before, professors were judged on whether they “successfully teach students.” Now they’ll be judged on whether they show progress toward abstract competencies that are theorized to help them successfully teach students.

That is a degradation, and Chancellor Christian should reverse course. Many First Amendment experts believe that the new guidelines will be found to violate the civil rights of faculty members. And even if they are upheld, their language and implementation suggestions are so incompetently drafted that even a leading proponent of equity-mindedness can’t quite endorse them as written. Whatever one thinks of social-justice ideology, there are far stronger versions of it.

This is the worst version of DEI.

Sick. But “conservatives are the fascists… got’chya.” (See my previous post regarding DEI: Free Speech Battles | California DEI Totalitarianism)

No reeducation camps for Democrats… just people who believe in traditional marriage, free thought and speech, those who think that being “color-blind” is the way to be. Etc., Etc.,

NEW (6/7/2024) Here is a clip from a somewhat decent ECONOMIST article… where they note the illiberal Left is all about power and caste systems:

… classical liberals and illiberal progressives could hardly disagree more over how to bring these things about. For classical liberals, the precise direction of progress is unknowable. It must be spontaneous and from the bottom up—and it depends on the separation of powers, so that nobody nor any group is able to exert lasting control. By contrast the illiberal left put their own power at the centre of things, because they are sure real progress is possible only after they have first seen to it that racial, sexual and other hierarchies are dismantled.

This difference in method has profound implications. Classical liberals believe in setting fair initial conditions and letting events unfold through competition—by, say, eliminating corporate monopolies, opening up guilds, radically reforming taxation and making education accessible with vouchers. 

[….]

Progressives of the old school remain champions of free speech. But illiberal progressives think that equity requires the field to be tilted against those who are privileged and reactionary. That means restricting their freedom of speech, using a caste system of victimhood in which those on top must defer to those with a greater claim to restorative justice. It also involves making an example of supposed reactionaries, by punishing them when they say something that is taken to make someone who is less privileged feel unsafe. The results are calling-out, cancellation and no-platforming.

Milton Friedman once said that the “society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither”. He was right. Illiberal progressives think they have a blueprint for freeing oppressed groups. In reality theirs is a formula for the oppression of individuals—and, in that, it is not so very different from the plans of the populist right. In their different ways both extremes put power before process, ends before means and the interests of the group before the freedom of the individual.

The FBI Just Admitted in Court That Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Real

Published by Papa Giorgio

Kanekoa The Great notes that the FBI just confirmed, in court, that the laptop truly belongs to Hunter Biden. Something we all knew.

Before sharing the 20 minutes of Joe Biden, U.S. intelligence officials, and the American media claiming that Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation”, Kanekoa posted the following on TWIX:

The FBI just admitted in court that Hunter Biden’s laptop is real.

Here are 20 minutes of Joe Biden, U.S. intelligence officials, and the American media claiming that Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation.”

The FBI has had possession of Hunter’s laptop since December 2019.

Leading up to the 2020 election, Twitter and Facebook censored the Biden laptop story because the FBI warned them of a potential hack-and-leak operation targeting Hunter Biden.

The FBI knew that Hunter’s laptop was real the entire time.

In October 2022, @MarcoPolo501c3 published a 640-page Report on the Biden Laptop (AMAZON) that meticulously documents 459 crimes involving the Biden family and their associates.

The report provides evidence of Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) violations, money laundering, and tax fraud found on Hunter’s laptop.

It also exposes how federal law enforcement agencies, influenced by politics, protect the Biden family from prosecution while targeting President Biden’s primary election opponent, Donald Trump.

Shame on all of these people for lying to the American people, rigging our elections, and destroying the integrity of our nation.

WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin’s Favored Trope… “Fascist”

Published by Papa Giorgio

Question:

  • Is Jonathan Turley a Fascist Jennifer Rubin?

And, if this is turned over in appeal, will that judge be a fascist according to the Left? Dennis Prager dals with the idea that even questioning the perfect storm of how we got to this trial in the first place is somehow “fascists.”

This is nothing new for Miss Rubin… here is a “for instance” from January 2024:

Here are the two latest articles by Jonathan Turley, the first is the one Dennis is reading from:

  1. The Ghost of John Adams: How the Trump Trial Harkens Back to a Dark Period of American Law
  2. Buzz Kill: The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal

 

Examining Eastern Religions with Douglas Groothuis

Published by Papa Giorgio

Eastern religions are considered in relationship to biblical faith with apologist Dr. Douglas Groothuis of Denver Theological Seminary. We take a look at Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism in terms of how they view ultimate reality, the human condition, spiritual liberation and more. His “Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith” is a one stop hop for the apologetic enthusiast.

Republicans Should Do To Democrats What They Did To Trump

Published by Papa Giorgio

Remember This?

Well… hello Mabel….

Fox News host Mark Levin explains why he’ll press Donald Trump, should he be elected to the White House, to indict President Biden on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’

A very interesting article over at The Federalist concurs:

…. Hutchinson wasn’t alone in calling for the rigged, obviously corrupt trial and Soviet-style conviction to be “respected.” The former GOP governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, who is now running for U.S. Senate, encouraged people “to respect the verdict and legal process” and invoked the “rule of law” — a curious thing to say given how the entire trial made a mockery of the rule of law.

[….]

Put bluntly, Republicans have to make Democrats play by their own rules. They have to inflict pain ruthlessly on Democrats with endless show trials and lawfare, just as Democrats have done to Trump. The leftist radicals who run the Democrat Party only understand power, and they will only stop when they are force-fed their own medicine over and over. 

What does that messaging look like? It looks like Anthony Sabatini, a Florida Republican who said Thursday he’s running for Congress “to imprison as many Democrats as possible.”

As my Federalist colleague Sean Davis said Thursday, “If you’re a Republican running for office, you can just go ahead and throw away all of your elegant little policy proposals for this or that corporate exclusion or tax subsidy. Give me a list of which Democrat officials you’re going to put in prison, or get lost.”

What does that look like in practice? Here’s one idea. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton should immediately indict President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland for the ongoing crisis at the border, which in every way is a criminal human-trafficking conspiracy that they have orchestrated and sustained by flouting federal immigration law.

[….]

If the Republican Party is going to be anything other than controlled opposition for the Democrats, fiddling while the republic burns, it needs to purge its ranks of snakes like McConnell and elevate those who aren’t afraid of playing by Democrats’ rules. A good way to separate the two groups would be to start asking Republican officeholders and candidates whether they’d be willing to bring criminal charges against high-ranking Democrats and, if they can, imprison them.

That’s the world Democrats have called into being with this show trial. They are the ones who have cried “no quarter” in this fight. The least Republicans can do at this point is accept their terms and enter the fight on equal footing.

Why is that so important? For two reasons. The first, mentioned above, is that Democrats will never stop unless they are made to suffer exactly what they would inflict on Republicans. If we’re going to start jailing political opponents in America, then it has to go both ways. The other reason is now that Democrats have done this, have made a mockery of our justice system, the only way to restore faith in the rule of law is to make those responsible pay for what they’ve done and bring them to justice. If Democrats get away with this, Americans will be justified in thinking the entire system is illegitimate.

So Republican officials have a choice to make. They can do what’s necessary to stop Democrats and restore faith in our justice system, or they can become Democrat slaves and let the republic burn.

John Yoo: Trump Verdict Will Cause ‘Harm’ To Our Legal System

CNN Legal Experts Call Foul | PLUS: Third World Nation Status

Published by Papa Giorgio

Alan Dershowitz FLASHBACK.

JD Vance Calmly Explains ‘Sham’ Prosecution Of Donald Trump As Wolf Blitzer Stammers

Alvin Bragg’s former colleague/current CNN legal analyst called out the rigged Trump case

A former colleague of both Alvin Bragg and Todd Blanche at the Southern District of New York AND a senior legal analyst at CNN just trashed the charges brought against Trump by Bragg and the trial itself as an “ill-conceived, unjustified mess.”

Elie Honig doesn’t fault the jury for doing their job, but rips everything else about the trial in new article in the New York Magazine.

Here’s what he has to say:

[….]

…The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017….

(RIGHT SCOOP)

CNN Legal Panel Says There’s ‘Great Likelihood’ Of Trump Overturning Verdict On Numerous ‘Issues’

Attorneys On CNN Rip Merchan For Throwing Constitution ‘Out A Window’ With ‘Bad’ Jury Instructions

Hans von Spakovsky: New York might as well rename itself Venezuela following Trump trial verdict

….‘One of the Craziest Things’

Constitutional law expert Hans von Spakovsky says the conviction isn’t likely to stick, for an array of reasons. Chief among them: Merchan’s convoluted jury instructions, in which the Biden campaign-donor judge framed the jury’s deliberations in a way that, according to legal expert Jonathan Turley, “seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt.” Merchan told the jurors they didn’t have to agree on the three possible “unlawful means” prosecutors vaguely alleged Trump had employed to “influence” the 2016 election. 

“The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime,” Turley wrote in the Hill before the verdict was handed down. 

Accomplice media outlets running interference for Biden and his minions — and attempting to influence the 2024 election — collectively wailed that conservative news outlets have been misrepresenting Merchan’s jury instructions. But there’s no denying the unusual nature of the judge’s explanations at the end of a deeply legally flawed trial. 

Von Spakovsky said Merchan’s instructions point to reversible error — “an error in trial proceedings that affects a party’s rights so significantly that it is grounds for reversal if the affected party properly objected at trial,” according to the Legal Information Institute. 

“This is such a mistake. … If I were the court of appeals, the moment this case came in, I would overturn the conviction,” the former Federal Election Commission member and Heritage Foundation fellow told me before the verdict this week on the Simon Conway Show. “That is one of the craziest things I have ever heard and it is a complete violation of President Trump’s substantive due process rights.” 

Von Spakovsky said the standard in like cases is that jurors come to a unanimous agreement on each of the charges they are deliberating. He said Merchan added an absurd twist to the proceedings after handicapping Trump’s defense throughout the trial. 

Threw the Constitution ‘Out the Window’

Defense attorney Randy Zelin told CNN that Merchan’s jury instructions contained a “key flaw.” 

“Whether you are driving in a Ford or a Ferrari, if someone gives you bad directions, you’re going to end up lost. And those jury instructions were just a complete, just take the Constitution, throw it out a window, burn it, shoot it and hang it,” the attorney said on “CNN Special Report.”

Turley told Fox News that the “trial is a target rich environment for appeal,” although he said the appeal will likely “stretch beyond the election.”

Speaker Mike Johnson has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to quickly take up the case because of its unprecedented constitutional implications. The state appeals courts in line to preside over the Trump case are lined with Democrat-appointed judges. 

Von Spakovsky said the courts should act as expeditiously as the Supreme Court did in the Colorado ballot access case in which it unanimously overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling kicking Trump off the state presidential primary ballot. 

As for Merchan, von Spakovsky said the judge is either one of the most incompetent judges he has ever seen or his curious instructions to the jury was “a sign of intentional misfeasance.” 

“In fact, I think it’s the latter because throughout this entire case he has acted as if he is an alternate member of the prosecution team,” the legal expert said. ….

(THE FEDERALIST)

Excerpts of Dr. Robert A. Morey Regarding Reincarnation

Published by Papa Giorgio

(I clip portions of the original file as well as add stuff to the presentation.) This was found on Calvary Apologetics YouTube, a video originally titled, “Reincarnation a la Shirley MacLaine,” but now titled [as I found it]: “Reincarnation of Human Souls. Dr Robert Morey. RARE!“

I came across this video working on another critique of reincarnation via my call into the Dennis Prager Show: “Tackling Reincarnation on the Dennis Prager Show | RPT Views” (And the subsequent post on my site, HERE)