Occasional Confirmations (2)

green

Political Islam Replacing Gays at the Progressive Pyramid’s Topcurrent-top2

In a February 21, 2017 post on The Progressive Pyramid of “Moral Authority,” I stated that:

There can be legitimate debate on when Political Islam was raised to the Progressive pyramid’s top position.  However, in 2016 the reality of this elevation became crystal clear.

After having given the issue great thought and carefully considered the evidence, this conclusion did appear to be “crystal clear” to me.  However, I had some apprehension as to if my readers would agree that the evidentiary bar had indeed been exceeded. After all, as I admitted:

In fact, even the holders of the 2000+ pyramid’s peak were gobsmacked when events revealed that this demotion/promotion had certainly occurred.

Thus, if actual members in top standing of the Progressive Pyramid had not seen this event coming, then there was enough ambiguity to make an objective observer wonder.

2010-11-22-iran_gayexecutionI no longer have these doubts.  For, a bisexual man (and thus a man who identifies as gay), has come into direct conflict with Political Islam’s murderous treatment of homosexuals, and was put in his place by a Progressive “Pyramid positioning officer“.

A bisexual male student at the University of Texas–San Antonio said during an informal conversation outside class that he was uncomfortable with Islam because people still receive the death penalty for being gay in 10 Muslim-majority countries.

For expressing this thought, the student—Alfred MacDonald, who no longer attends the school—was instructed to meet with the chair of the philosophy department, Eve Browning. Prof. Browning told MacDonald in no uncertain terms that he had committed the crime of “offending” someone, and she warned him that his habit of saying what he thinks could bring down the entire program. She threatened to call the Behavior Intervention Team and refer MacDonald to counseling. She did everything but send him to Room 101.

Unfortunately for Browning, MacDonald secretly recorded their conversation. The transcript, first publicized by Gay Star News, is incredible.

Note that it is not some conservative organization that has reported on this incident, but rather the Gay Star News.  I also pointed out this appalling situation early in the series of posts leading up to my conclusion regarding Political Islam’s top pyramid position.

Professor Browning, as a Progressive elite in good standing, made it absolutely clear to this bisexual student that he had no right to state a fact that might offend adherents of the Muslim faith.  Although there is a complicating factor concerning the context for the student’s statement, there is no doubt about the outcome.  Here’s a key point in the transcript:

ALFRED MACDONALD: Nothing. I wasn’t talking about the engagement to the Muslim. I was talking about Islam in that particular moment.

EVE BROWNING: Well, let me just say that kind of thing is not going to be tolerated in our department. We’re not going to tolerate graduate students trying to make other graduate students feel terrible for our emotional attachments.

The issue isn’t the truth of falsehood that Political Islam commits practicing homosexuals to death in at least ten countries, but rather the impact of stating that fact on the feelings of a Muslim person.  In fact, as the conversation continues, it becomes clear that the student will submit to this Progressive idol without question or need to understand (emphasis added).

EVE BROWNING: Those are things that would get you fired if you were working in my office. The Islam comment would get you fired.

ALFRED MACDONALD: …Would it really get me fired to say that I could be killed somewhere?

EVE BROWNING: In that situation as you’ve described it, absolutely yes.

ALFRED MACDONALD: How?

EVE BROWNING: Don’t even ask. It’s clear you’re not taking my word for it. I don’t care to convince you. If I can’t persuade you that it’s in your interest to behave in ways that other people don’t find offensive and objectionable, then at least I’ve done my job.

ALFRED MACDONALD: Well I know that it’s in my interest. I’m just trying to understand the reasoning.

EVE BROWNING: You don’t have to.

ALFRED MACDONALD: Well, this is a truth-seeking discipline!

greenNote that this transcript also confirms (that’s two!) my belief that Progressives’ primary strategy for getting their way is by intimidation as opposed to persuasion.  Thus, this incident is now a “dual-confirmation” event.

greenNo, Mr. MacDonald, you are terribly mistaken to believe that Professor Browning is part of a “truth-seeking discipline.”  She is a member in good standing of the Progressive hyena pack, a heartless enforcer (wow, that’s three confirmations!) of whatever is currently the Progressive party-line.  However, I salute your foresight in recording this discussion and your courage by daring to share it in spite of the certain Progressive mob blowback.  Perhaps you will eventually draw conclusions as to who actually supports humane policies and who only pretends to in order to achieve their true ends.

And finally, I’d like to acknowledge Professor Browning’s incredible achievement of confirming not one, not two, but three of my conclusions regarding Progressive ideology and practice in a single amazing incident.  It’s hard to imagine someone ever managing four such significant confirmations.  Your achievement casts an impressively dark shadow over human decency and wisdom.

Advertisements

King David: Warrior and Poet After God’s Own Heart (14)

King Saul and David (1 Samuel 18)

In the previous post I introduced the concept of narcissism.  Perhaps a working definition is needed prior to  proceeding:

extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.

John_W._Waterhouse_-_Echo_and_Narcissus(1903)

Echo and Narcissus* – John W. Waterhouse (1903)

The Narcissism of our Present Age

The core conceit of current narcissism is this:

The evidence-less presumption that I and my like-minded comrades stand at the absolute pinnacle of human virtue.  Therefore, anyone who deviates from my worldview, regardless of if they are my contemporaries or lived centuries earlier, can be motivated only by a combination of inexcusable stupidity and evil.

man-selfieAlthough the above description is useful in a general sense, there remains a significant gap between it and a compelling explanation of its application to our particular time and place.  I finally ran across a passage, from a piece discussing the current situation in France (by Christopher Caldwell) that excellently fills this need (emphasis added):

Upwardly mobile urbanites, observes Guilluy, call Paris “the land of possibilities,” the “ideapolis.” One is reminded of Richard Florida and other extollers of the “Creative Class.” The good fortune of Creative Class members appears (to them) to have nothing to do with any kind of capitalist struggle. Never have conditions been more favorable for deluding a class of fortunate people into thinking that they owe their privilege to being nicer, or smarter, or more honest, than everyone else. Why would they think otherwise? They never meet anyone who disagrees with them. The immigrants with whom the creatives share the city are dazzlingly different, exotic, even frightening, but on the central question of our time—whether the global economic system is working or failing—they see eye to eye. “Our Immigrants, Our Strength,” was the title of a New York Times op-ed signed by London mayor Sadiq Khan, New York mayor Bill de Blasio, and Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo after September’s terrorist bomb blasts in New York. This estrangement is why electoral results around the world last year—from Brexit to the election of Donald Trump—proved so difficult to anticipate. Those outside the city gates in la France périphérique are invisible, their wishes incomprehensible. It’s as if they don’t exist. But they do.

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that these “fortunate people” are deluded to a degree that is nothing short of scandalous.  That they occupy the pinnacle of power in our nations can only be explained by a monumental failure of the temporal Christian church, parenthood, government, education and media, among others.  This is what civilizational failure looks like.  In the following post I will address the central delusion that has resulted in this sorry situation.



*Echo and Narcissus is a myth from Ovid‘s Metamorphoses, a Latin mythological epic from the Augustan Age.

Why Can’t You be Nice Like Christians are Suppose to Be? (Part 2)

How did you respond to the previous post’s questions?  My answers are:

  1. Only in the first scenario did the wife demonstrate love for her spouse
  2. In the second scenario, the wife demonstrated the opposite of love, which is not hate or anger, but indifference

When we are angry with someone it means that we care enough to respond strongly to what we consider to be their wrong beliefs and/or behavior.  However, when we are indifferent to someone, when we have no feelings one way or the other about what they believe and/or do, we are showing that there is no care in our heart.

The wife in the second scenario was so indifferent to her husband that she raised no opposition to his self-destruction.  The wife in the first scenario cared so much that she engaged her whole self in an attempt to prevent that same self-destruction.

When I engage in criticism of the PCUSA leadership it is a sure sign that I care about them and about what they are doing to the church.  I believe that their beliefs and actions are causing destruction to themselves and the church, and thus must be opposed.

Were I to cease this criticism and move on to other things, that would be indifference.

The question now is how did we arrive at an understanding of Christianity that has led to practical indifference to virtually anything that others believe and/or do, which I believe is the exact opposite of love.

Why Can’t You be Nice Like Christians are Suppose to Be? (Part 1)

the-niceties-of-being-nice

Opening Comments

I’m certain that some who read this blog are uncomfortable, if not off-put, by my deep, broad and sustained criticism of the PCUSA leadership.  This reaction may be independent from the merits of my arguments.  That is, there is a powerful presumption that the defining characteristic of a true Christian is that they are always nice to everyone.  I’m going to explore this idea in the following posts.  But, before I dig into the details, I’d ask that the reader consider the following two scenarios.

Background

There is a married couple with a young child.  They have been married for three years.  The husband injures his neck, and, is prescribed pain medication.  His condition improves, but, he has become addicted to the medication.  So, he begins to obtain these and other drugs illegally, and, over time his behavior shifts markedly towards dishonesty, unreliability and selfishness.  These behavioral shift and the underlying addiction have a negative impact on all of his activities and relationships, most severely on his family.

Scenario #1

Early on the wife senses subtle but disconcerting changes in her husband’s behavior.  She engages with him in conversation, attempting to understand what’s going on in his life.  However, he is not responsive, and, over time, his condition worsens.  His wife begins to investigate this change.  She engages the husband in probing conversations, she thinks about his words and actions, seeking to find a credible motivating cause, and, she becomes progressively more aggressive about engaging her husband on this set of issues.  But, all is for naught.  As her husband descends into ever more serious deception and addiction, his job suffers, their friends are off-put and their once happy family begins to fall apart.

Finally, after having tried every other conceivable means, the wife confronts her husband directly.  She forces him to observe the wreck his behaviors have wrought.  She exposes the lies that he has told.  She points back to all that has been lost.  In this last desperate measure she is attempting to save him and all that his life had meant prior to the descent into this dark and dangerous addiction.

Scenario #2

Although the wife eventually becomes aware of changes in her husband’s behavior, she is so focused on her own personal and career issues that she doesn’t pay much attention.  Over time, as his condition worsens, she responds by taking on responsibilities that her husband had previously covered.  This added load causes increased stress, which leads her to further distance herself from her mate.  Over time, their lives increasingly separate, with him descending into ever greater addiction.  As his life falls apart she focuses on creating a new life for herself and the child.

Finally, she files for a divorce.  She puts her husband behind her and moves forward into a new life.  She loses touch with him, and has no idea if he was able to right his life or not.

Questions:

  1. In one of these scenarios did the wife show love for her husband?  If so, which one?
  2. If you said “yes” to one scenario in question 1, how would you characterize the wife’s behavior in the other scenario?