ETC. The editorial staff of Instapunk.com has always displayed an
interest in "fringe science." As it happens, I've been dabbling in some
fringe science lately, so when IP invited me to write some guest posts,
I knew right away where to start.
Perhaps you have, like venerable Harry, enjoyed wine from time to time.
Perhaps, like him, you've even enjoyed enough at one sitting to
experience an intoxicating effect. But let's not dwell on such
excesses. For this journey of imagination, let's merely stipulate that
you enjoy one single, modest serving of wine every evening while you
curl up in your Snuggie in your favorite cozy chair, savoring the
latest drollery of Maureen Dowd or James Wolcott. A comforting, yet
intellectually stimulating, routine.
But one night, a friend stops by and insists, quite insistently, that
you read a book. A book he claims may -- no, will -- change your whole
life for the better. A book that, if you chose to believe it, would
mean giving up wine for life... or at least indulging in it only on the
very most special occasions. Certainly not on a nightly or near-nightly
The author is a doctor who has seen thousands of patients. His years of
experience have convinced him that the wine sold in stores today bears
little resemblance to the wine that people have been drinking since
before the dawn of writing. Yes, its flavor is similar or even better;
but the twentieth century introduced innovations in winemaking that not
only reduced wine's nutritional value, but made it actively harmful to
humans. So harmful, in fact, that "Frankenwine" by itself may account
for a good portion of America's increases in health problems over the
last few decades.
He has spent considerable time and effort searching the corpus of
scientific knowledge for relevant information. He has found much that
he believes supports his theory, and includes citations for all of it.
The author claims that if you are willing to undertake the experiment
of going without your daily glass of wine for one month, you will
notice significant positive benefits. Your mood will improve, possibly
within days. Your energy will increase. Your excess weight will begin
to melt away. Your skin will clear up. Your chronic aches and pains,
particularly those related to inflammation, will diminish or vanish
entirely. And so will your cravings for wine.
All you have to do is go without wine! -- Though you do have to be
scrupulous about it. Drinking one glass of wine may be enough to halt
your progress for three days. You also have to keep an eye out for wine
lurking where it isn't advertised; for example, in your Chicken
Marsala, or in your Mimosa. Sorry, champagne counts as wine.
The author also maintains a web site. It is usually updated daily, and
many people visit it. Oftentimes the comments on a given blog entry
will include posts from people who just stopped by to thank the author
for changing their lives. Some even write impassioned personal
histories, or lament that the knowledge came too late to save a
relative who died of a wine-related illness.
You take the time to determine whether this author has detractors, and
of course, he does. But you notice a curious consistency among them.
They don't seem to disprove the author's arguments. Some point out that
wine has been around for a long time. Some say wine allergy is a
well-known problem among a small percentage of the population, and the
book has no broader application. Others refute assertions the author
never made. Still others complain that the author failed to include
In the meantime, while you contemplate the book and the words its
detractors have written, you grow ever more fat, tired, and depressed,
and you need to buy a bigger Snuggie.
So. Are you ready to give up wine?
You may have guessed the scenario isn't hypothetical. But before you
make up your mind, I should mention there's one detail I changed. The
substance in question is actually wheat,
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Real Atheist Theology
political class is yearning to be "free."
They hate the "stink" of uncontrolled flyover humans.
DARE ANYONE QUESTION OBAMA'S THEOLOGY? Everything you need to
know about the history of 20th/21st century leftism is contained in the
clip above. I know Santorum has been criticized for his use of the word
theology in opposing Obama's policies, and it's unfortunate that he is,
like most conservatives, fumbling inarticulately toward a truth he
senses without wholly understanding. But we all know what he is talking
about. What so-called liberals term secular humanism is a synonym for
rational atheistic totalitarianism. Its overwhelmingly most important
objective is to amputate God from the social equation. It's vital that
there be no divine justice, which implies supra-human absoluteness that
transcends secular authority, but only a relative, frequently vengeful
and vindictive impostor hinted at in the qualifying term 'social
Supposedly, they're the ones
who care equally about everyone, and all the rest of us care unequally
about everyone, fatally compromised by free opinions embodying biases
no one should have. These cause us to discriminate -- i.e., make
decisions and judgments based on differences between our nonsensically
absolute ideals and the behaviors of individuals and groups of peoples.
Which are always wrong. Because only the secular humanists are
objective enough to know that secular humanist decisions and judgments
are objective and everyone else's decisions and judgments are
irrationally racist, sexist, homophobic, reactionary, selfish,
ignorant, and wrong. Not to mention anthropocentric. As if the history
of human life conferred some right to feel superior to other forms of
life randomly generated by evolution.
Whereupon we fall immediately into their trap. We laugh at secular
humanist legislation aimed at killing family farms and housing
developments for the sake of saving snail darters and the last two
surviving yellow-lashed dung finches. Who's exhibiting the more divine
concern for "every sparrow that falls" than they? We're the
small-minded ones. They're the Big Picture grandees, the ones who care
about "The Planet" more than a cracker kid's desire to manifest his
adolescent testosterone by showing off at junior bull-riding in the
local rodeo. Hell, their kids
aren't even allowed to play with toy guns. Who's more humanly virtuous
uh, WE are. Discrimination is not a crime. It's a fundamental component
of human survival. Throughout all of human history, we have
discriminated to protect our families and communities -- between friend
and foe, strong and weak, health and disease, moral strength and moral
weakness, fidelity and betrayal, hard-working and lazy, fruitful and
barren, brave and cowardly, valorous and merely violent, creative and
parasitic, determined and equivocal, reliable and not worth a damn.
These are all value judgments. Why the human race has advanced to a
degree that Agent Smith regards as akin to a virus. While the mammals
he regards as archetypes of mammalian "equilibrium," many now
threatened by their inability to think and adapt (evolution, anyone?)
are declining toward extinction, we
are here in greater numbers than any other large mammal. Virus? Really?
A mammal anomaly? Really? Has Agent Smith ever heard of rats? But rats
didn't build the Sistine Chapel, and rats don't create a virulent
philosophical anti-rat offshoot that hates rats as a threat to the
Agent Smith should have ensconced himself in Washington, DC. He'd be
almost at home there. He hates the ordinary human form he's been
required to adopt. Like all the brilliant overeducated supermen who
pass laws they never have to comply with themselves. Pelosi's a
Catholic who can tell the Pope what's what about about contraception
and abortion. Harry Reid's a Mormon who can defy his avowed beliefs
just as expediently. Obama is a professed Christian who lives like a
married Pope and gets to be infallible about everything, because if he
isn't, you're a racist. If there's a unifying theology here, it's
pretty clear God has nothing to do with it. At all. Which, I'm
thinking, is the whole point. The only god on the scene is the superior
person or persons in charge. Why they continue to sympathize with
Castro, Ahmadinejad, and the Taliban. The powerful are more united by
their contempt for their subjects than by faith or ideas. All that
really matters is what you can get away with. Why Agent Smith's
peroration is corrupt before he even begins it.
But I'm willing to accept one
of Agent Smith's metaphors. The left has become a disease akin to a
virus. Its purpose is to invade healthy cells and destroy the immune
system, generate cancer, and cause normal healthy functioning to turn
against itself and mutate into self-destroying pathology.
This is one of those posts where you can cite a hundred topical links
or none. I'll cite one here.
Now I'll move on.
Here's the thing. The left now owns the intelligentsia. The press, the
universities, the entertainment media, the assholes who think union
loyalty is more important than patriotism, the hyphenated millions who
look to government to make America more responsive to their own
personal needs than the long-term health of the nation, the same ones
who adore JFK for his rhetoric about "Ask not what your country can do
for you, but ask what you can do for your country," when all they're
thinking about every single moment of every single damn day is "what
can my country do for me," the ones who are so content with a new
definition of the presidency as Excuse-Maker-in-Chief that they're not
even slightly irked by Michelle's 16thglamour
vacation in three years.... Why? Well, she's a celebrity. And we're
just... uh... what?
Right. We're the consumers of internet alternative media. We can
console ourselves with this,
(if you were only registered), and other stuff like this.
Or closer to home, this.
Problem? The radical new left of the sixties was famous for declaring
that "everything is politics." They may not have been right then, but
they're right now. Facts and truth don't matter anymore. Everything you
read, including me, is now less important for its content than its
category. If you draw your facts and commentary and hope from the
rightish blogosphere, rest assured that it's completely refuted by
bland or strident (as needed) assertions to the contrary by CBS, NBC,
ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the
Philadelphia Inquirer, the LA Times, the Providence Journal, Newsweek,
Time, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, The Huffington Post, The View, SNL,
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Glee, Fashion Police, and every single
sitcom on the air in America.
Not to mention every poll created as an artificial news story by some
combination of the alphabet broadcasters (including Fox News, which is
as anxious as every ugly girl to have a fairer friend to go out with,
sorry to say), and every survey released from institutions like
Harvard, the Brookings Institution, the Ford Foundation, the Tides
Foundation, and, of course, Harvard. If you get your news or motivation
from somewhere else, well, everyone who matters can smell your, uh,
"stink." If you get your news and arguments from the Drudge Report,
Breitbart sites, Hotair, the Daily Caller, the Washington Times, the
Washington Examiner, or (shudder) Worldnet News Daily, your stink is
off the charts. You're pure Neanderthal, the virus Agent Smith was
speaking of. They're poised and well able to destroy us in the upcoming
election, despite the fact that Obama is the worst president by far in
I'd counsel despair and acceptance of defeat -- but for one thing. The
secular humanists are not
saviors waiting in the wings. They've already had their chance. They did their own first version of the Matrix that was supposed to make everyone happy. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Catastrophic failures both. With casualties in the hundreds of millions. Killing individual aspiration for a better life in favor of government godhood seems to be the stupidest revolution of all. And we
have the best record possible of both their vision and their legacy.
The truest fossils of philosophy and its consequences are the
architecture their sponsoring visions produce. On the one hand, we have
the history of an architecture
inspired by belief in the divine. On the other, we have the record
of the architecture produced by the only rational atheist governments
who ever ruled on our, uh, "planet." One Nazi,
(Mao's secular dreams never actually resulted in what we'd call
architecture. Just tens of millions of unmarked graves. The new stuff
is, uh, capitalist, in a
rather older architectural tradition.)
Compare. What inspires you? What depresses you? Take a look at the
brief architectural glimpses we see in Agent Smith's tirade. What do
they remind you of? Do you want to live? Or do you want to die? The
choice facing Americans right now.
Architecture is the concretization of ideas about the meaning of life.
Buildings either celebrate individuality and faith or they reduce
humanity to slots and boxes. Follow the links. You think free peoples
are immune? I'll close with a link to the architecture
of contemporary London, the most surveilled city in the supposedly
free west. Take note of the geometry -- boxes, squares, units,
sameness, warehouse regularity. This is where we should desire to be
headed? The new rational utopia? Lock and load, my friends. Atheism is
the most anti-human force on earth.
Final note. Architecture is also the memorial of who we were. A
cultural tombstone if nothing else. How do you want yours to read? We
ran away when the tank was bearing down on us? Or we stood fast and got
run over? There's been a lot of talk about a brokered convention.
Mostly, conservatives seem to be opposed. A pragmatic reminder: if
there is a brokered convention, the only possible candidate is Palin.
Nobody else has been vetted (er, already
raped and ransacked and eviscerated) by the national press. If you
don't want Palin, don't hope for a brokered convention.
Final final note. If gas goes to $4.50 a gallon, it doesn't matter who
runs against Obama. In that case, we win. Which means, I guess, that
old notions of "electability" no longer apply.
In short, we're screwed. But maybe not. As I've said before, "the wheel
spins round and round..."