Eratosphere: regressive cesspool

Well me hearties, I have finally, and at long last, been successful in getting my ass out of Eratosphere. Eratosphere used to be a place where intelligent people could gather to express differing opinions about what is going on in the world, and, more specifically, about what is going on in the world of formal poetry.

Well, those days are LONG over. The only way you are going to have your voice heard at the Sphere, is to surrender your mind, pretend you never had an original thought in your life, and parrot the lefty-loony party line. Short of this, you will be treated as suspect. If you do not spout the party line, at each and every situation, you will be looked upon with suspicion. If you actually express political views that are NOT in line with the accepted and received train of thought, you will be suspect, and what is more, you will be accused of every sort of wrong doing the loony left can think up. If you quietly suggest that Islam is, in FACT, NOT a religion of peace, you will be taken to task, and you will be considered a bigot, and an "Islamophobe". And make no mistake, regardless of what you say, you will be branded a racist, misogynist, isolationist, nationalist, patriarchal, piece of human shit.

THESE are the actual, real, tactics of the Regressive Left, who are, essentially, Fascists. They are the pretend intellectual elite, who will call anyone with an ORIGINAL IDEA a fascist. And, the worst part is: these people are SO stupid, and SO caught up in their political machinations, and SO deluded and comforted in their circle-jerk method of confirmation bias, that they have absolutely NO idea of what harm they are causing around the world. And, the truly worst part: they DON'T CARE.

PM to someone who needs some Information and a dose of Reality

I won't be returning to C's thread. I've unsubscribed to it and will ignore it for a few days, then go back and read it; but I will not be adding any more posts there. It's too risky for me, as I was already silenced by A. and J. S. for offense given in A. M's T. W. thread. I just barely made it back without being banned outright.

Background on me:

I barely made it through high school. I was a "super senior". It took me an extra year to get my diploma, because of a lack of credits. I wanted to be a rock star, played in a band, and was basically an ignoramus. I failed every subject in my first senior year.

Never stepped foot in a college or university, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was spared a proper "washing" and have remained among the Great Unwashed. Phew, that's a good thing.

I currently work as a kitchen utility grunt in an assisted living facility. I'm a career healthcare cook, and was in management briefly, with the intent of becoming a Dietary Technician, but all that fell out due to my manic-depression/ bi-polar issues. 

I currently earn the Arizona minimum wage. So I'm not exactly waving the flag for greedy capitalists, though I know enough to know that civil rights and a free market have been the best boons to actual prosperity and progress. Von Mises knew Marxism would end in disaster, in 1922; also Hayek, and many others. I won't even mention that fiesty Russian Jewish woman named Alisa, who sold lots of books and told of her university experience in Petrograd during the 1918 disaster. Of course she has been unpersoned in very Stalinist fashion, at least intellectually, for a very long time. 

I was born at West Point to a modest civil servant and a lapsed Catholic mother. I lived in a 60 foot trailer, in a trailer park, until I was twelve. I've written a novella, called "Fireflies of the Dusk", wherein my protagonist is essentially me, but not me. The noted Spherian, S. K., is thus far the ONLY person I know who has read that novella, and she has told me that it's one of the best works of fiction she has read. As you know, S. is a Muslim, and she and I have a long, healthy correspondence via the Sp., and email. She wants me to read the Qur'an, which she has sent me in a specific translation she finds the best. I've read through the Qur'an before, but never made much headway. This new version is far better, according to S., than any other available. 

I am a strident secularist, and a part of my activity on Facebook and on my blogs has been to draw attention to liberal and moderate Muslims, and their various websites, literature, and movements.

As for racism: I believe that racism can exist in a person in a strange fashion: ie: some of the most virulent anti-white racists ARE white; just as there are black people who seem to have a problem with black people who have differing opinions, and in my view, they are racist in their views. 

I have seen some of the most virulent anti-Jewish nonsense coming from Jewish people. Marx himself was a Jew. I consider Roger Waters, who's father, I believe, was a card-carrying communist, to be one of the most anti-Semitic people alive. I used to love Pink Floyd, until I discovered his deep down dislike and suspicion of Jewish people. Of course he claims he's not against any race, religion, or ethnic group, but his actions against Israel, by attempting to "unperson" any musical artist who performs in Israel, are disgraceful, and no amount of back-pedaling can make his agenda more palatable.

I could write so much more, in an attempt to prove to you that I'm not some kind of closet apologist for the extreme right. I am a centrist, a liberal at heart, who is aware of the dangers of extremism on both ends of the political spectrum.

If you wish to correspond with me, please do, but if you decide not to, that is alright also. I understand you are a busy person.

6.4.17

Snowflakes and Snowstorms; FB post

There's a word that's getting popular on college campuses - "Microaggression". Saying "Freshmen" instead of "First Year Student" is considered an act of microaggression. The existence of "men" in the term "freshmen" is "potentially insulting and degrading due to gender issues." I saw one young lady who considered free speech advocates to be "suspect", because, in her words, "Free speech ENABLES hate speech."

Eventually, the right to free speech will be next to non-existent, due to the over-sensitive, as well as the under-sensitive. Those on the far right never liked the idea of free speech OR the theory of rights. Those on the far left are only just beginning to catch up to their "opponents" on the far right. Political theorists are now advancing the idea that politics has really never been about left and right, but is actually more of a vicious circle. ie: Go far enough Left, you arrive at Right. I talk with far-left "progressive" liberals all the time, and virtually none of them will have a single negative thing to say about Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. But just mention Shitler, well, they're on board when it comes to how evil he was. Let's just conveniently forget how many millions died because of Stalin. Oh, and he wasn't the "right" kind of communist anyway. Soon, the "right" kind of radical socialists will be in charge, and then everyone will sit down and hold hands. Yeah. I got some land in Siberia I'd like to sell you.

The favorite mudslinging term used by the new liberals is "fascist". Just call someone who disagrees with you a fascist, and you'll have plenty of pats on the back and you'll be able to feel really good about yourself - UNTIL you grow up, gain a modicum of wisdom, and understand that you were a budding fascist yourself.

5.5.17

Radical socialism doesn't work; BB post; Talk Freethought

Originally Posted by William A. Baurle

https://archive.org/details/KolymaTh...ovietLaborCamp
 

Do you really think some nice guy is going to be at the head of any radically socialist regime? It has never happened historically. What makes you think it will happen in the future?

j wrote: We agree. I just don't see how you can equate radical socialism with state gangsterism. They seem like opposites to me. 

Me: Well, my argument is, that radical socialism - becomes state gangsterism. Do you follow me? As a caveat, in the interest of understanding: socialism CAN work, on a small, non-industrial scale. Tribes all over the world, long dead and still extant, exist(ed) in a condition of necessary and obligatory socialism. But on a large scale, when you bring in industrialization, commercial trade, infrastructure, etc, etc, it begins to be untenable.

Work farms and cooperative communities of like-minded people can and do exist, but on the macro scale, when you have vast, quickly multiplying numbers, all of whom need food and shelter and the necessities, the dream of genuine, heartfelt socialism has been shown to be ineffective, and in fact, almost criminally ineffective, and it always comes down to the susceptibility of those in power to corruption: human nature. If you take the Native American tribes just as one example: there was no such thing, relatively speaking, as a "rich" Indian. There was leadership and scales of power, but they were manageable, and the harshness of mere survival kept heads straight, and without delusions of grandeur, by and large.

We all want what is best for people and critters, hairy and hairless. We just have different visions about how that is to come about.

Peace!

4.30.17

How to be Creepy in 2017

Someone else wrote: The Dracula things is picked up by Larkin himself in a poem. He had quite a lot more sex with quite a lot more girls than he let on.

Ruth Bowman
Monica
His secretary, Betty Mackelreth
Patsy Strang
Maeve Brennan. 

 I had initially written, in the thread this comes from, the following, but decided to snuff it, lest I get silenced again:

"And this would all be perfectly acceptable, if Larkin were a liberal; but since he was conservative, and had the audacity to be a shy and retiring man (the bastard!) he is, of course, a predator."

Simple really. You cannot be a conservative, heterosexual white male and admit to finding women attractive, or God forbid, actually having sex with them. If you do have the unmitigated gall and depravity of character to sincerely confess to having sexual thoughts about adult women, you are a "creep". 

The 'liberal' hypocrites are out in force. As are the poetasters. Beware. LOL! As if anyone with a brain larger than a mustard seed would have to be warned.

And in case this doesn't come across: there is nothing liberal, in the classical sense of that great word, about these contemporary lefty-lucy-loonies. They are unliberal, to say the least. In fact, they are anti-liberal, if truth be told. But we mustn't tell the truth, because the truth hurts. And these hypocrites literally believe and profess that the Great Unwashed are truly made of snow, and will melt into a dew at the slightest rise of a barbed eyebrow. But the troof is, and this is the GOD's honest troof: the real snowflakes are the lefty-lucy-loonies whose egos are far more delicate than any innocent child or flag-waving, fag-hating, knuckle-draggin 'Christian', and made of much finer stuff, say the finest dust of tulip or lily petal, gossamer fragile, dainty as lace spun of the milk of Hera in quantum space. Etc.

On another website, there are hundreds of ultra-lefty "enlightened" loonies who start thread after thread related to any kind of subject - many of them dealing with pornography, or just threads wherein posters put up photographs of the wanker material they like - and they act like a boatload of drunken spring breakers, with absolutely no concern about PC. BUT, if a known Christian and/or conservative person (usually male, but even right-oriented females are abused) joins in the thread, or says something critical about some debased comment some lefty has made, they are treated with suspicion, as an automatic reflex. 

4.16.17  ...grrr...

Hey All You Hellfire Preachers

Hi S.

I thank you for your considerate and erudite message! It comes at a very crucial time for me, as I am tottering on the edge of a knife: with faith on one side and a return to agnosticism on the other.

I was an atheist for most of my adult life, from around 18 to 47, when I had an emotional breakdown followed by a psychotic episode that wound me up in the emergency room for about 24 hours, perhaps more. I have only scattered and very brief memories of that time - but it was a profound experience that assured me that God had picked me up, given me a good shake, and claimed me for His own. Accepting Christ came a bit later, after more emotional turbulence and a profound sense that He had stolen my heart.

Since then, which was 2011, I have been a Christian of some kind. I don't go to church, and I don't have any association with Christians except for a few online friends, B. C. being one of them, J. S. another, and C. S. (though I think C. and I have had a bit of a falling out). I am non-denominational and non-doctrinal. I guess I'm what you'd call a "closet" Christian, in that I don't preach at people, I am the opposite of "evangelical", and I keep my faith close to my chest.

I'm not ashamed of my faith, but I do have major cognitive dissonance to deal with. I pray and pray, sometimes with my face on the floor, clutching my cross, for this conflict to be resolved. I pray for strength and for understanding. I believe (not know) I have become stronger as a person, and I can see that my understanding has improved. I can understand poems more clearly, whereas years ago they would have been opaque to me; I can understand philosophy more, and even get a tiny handle on certain braniacs like Roger Penrose - though I admit his book The Road to Reality became too difficult for me at about page 50 or so!

I had many conversations with C. S. about this concept of a literal hell. He is a Calvinist, and believes with total certainty that there is a literal hell awaiting most human souls; not only that, but that those souls will have a "new body" especially designed to withstand an eternity (in literal time, as we humans experience time, meaning forever and ever) of real fire. This will be a "dark fire", since hell will be pitch black. So, one must try and conceive of being in this place of total darkness, yet burning in real fire, forever and ever. And one must realize that God has foreordained, or predestined, most of humanity to this horrible fate.

If there is anything more absurd than that, I sincerely don't know what it is, but there are literally millions of people who accept this idea of hell, and they not only accept it, they seem to enjoy thinking about it. Many Calvinist and even hard-line Catholic believers claim that one of the "pleasures" of Heaven will be to witness the suffering of souls in hell. I am continually appalled and sickened that human beings can be so callous, so absurdly without compassion or pity, as to hang with such a disgusting and repulsive belief.

People like Charles Spurgeon spoke extensively on the reality of a literal hell. I would offer a quote but I imagine you know of him and his ilk.

I simply cannot reconcile a loving Father of fathers, and the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, with a literal hell. It makes no sense at all.

I can certainly accept some sort of reward or punishment scheme. In fact, I hope there is some kind of justice in some kind of afterlife. The idea that Joseph Mengele lived to old age in Brazil after what he did is appalling to me. It may sound petty, but I don't like the idea that such a barbarian was able to avoid punishment for his unconscionably evil acts. I would not advocate an actual hell, even for such an evil person, but at least some form of justice?

Perhaps his soul was born again as a hen, consigned to life in a battery cage?

Or, more fitting to the horrible things he did, as an animal used for vivisection? That would be an apt punishment for such a wicked man, who was known to cut into human beings without anesthesia, even pregnant women.

But, as it happens, I wouldn't even wish that on him, the bastard, because my sense of compassion would not allow it. I would not advocate torture or agony on any living being, regardless of how evil they are, because to do that I stoop to their level: I become as they are.

This subject will not leave me alone, and I think there is a greater reason behind it than simply one individual with an idée fixe.

I strongly believe that this idea of a literal hell is the most evil concept ever hatched in the human mind, and it's been used as a political tool, a means of leverage and power, mostly by men with a serious need to control and manipulate others, for far too long.
It must be put to rest, and emphatically so, but not only by atheists, but by people of faith, and by followers of Christ.

As Julian of Norwich said, All shall be well, and all manner of thing (sic) shall be well.

4.2017

Write That Check (Free Speech)

Ayn Rand, famous (or infamous) creator of Objectivism, considered the use of agressive force to be one of the 'destroyers of the world'. The other destroyer was faith. I'll leave off faith for another day, and focus on force.

As much as I currently disagree with much of Rand's philosophy (particularly her views on esthetics), I happen to agree that the use of aggressive force is one of the destroyers of the world; I also agree that the use of force is only ethical when it's used in retaliation to the initiation of force. In other words, I am no pacifist, and would even consider pacifism, especially if practiced by a whole society of people, not only as not ethical, but downright evil. But more of that some other time. (Short version: Pacifism, practiced on a large scale, puts innocent people in harms way. ie: It kills people.)

I've had a lot of arguments lately with various people about the respective virtues and/or dangers of words. To my way of thinking, true power lies in the exercise of reason, which manifests in words and actions; which also means, contrarily, that the opposite of reason is the exercise of brute force. For the purposes of simplicity, when I refer to brute force, let's imagine I mean fists, or weapons. It should almost go without saying, if we've learned anything as a species, that the person who is apt to start swinging his fists over the slightest disagreement, is a person who is not open to reason, but in fact, dead-set against it. These are the enemies of reason, and as such are enemies of free speech: the use of the power of words. A truly enlightened person knows that words and reason are inseparable and, in fact, co-dependent. Without words, we cannot reason.

In my experience, there are many people who are dead-set against reason. These are individuals who, in general, are so certain of the veracity of their beliefs that any disagreement, however delicately or diplomatically worded, will incite them to anger; and in some individuals this switch from normalcy to blind rage can be triggered, literally, in seconds. I have seen it happen so many times it makes my head spin: The absolute refusal, or sheer inability— I sometimes cannot determine which— to tolerate the articulation of an idea that causes these people of whom I speak to think outside the box they've locked themselves into.

Someone I know is fond of a certain expression: "Don't write a check your ass can't cash." This is a rather unfortunate little phrase that actually means: "If you think you might get hurt, don't voice your opinion." In other words, it's an explicit, if poetic, advocacy of cowardice. 

"Don't run your mouth unless you can back it up", is another way of phrasing the same sentiment: "If you're in a situation where speaking your mind might cause you to get your ass kicked, stay silent." No matter the street-wise manner these sentiments are voiced in, they amount to the same thing: Cowardice.

I've taken my lumps when situations have called for me to stand my ground, come hell or high water. I've got actual, literal lumps to prove it. I'm a small guy, not physically strong, and decidedly non-aggressive; but I'm also not a coward. I don't care if the person I'm interacting with is six foot ten: If they insult me, and especially if they are under the delusion that their physical advantage will intimidate me and cause me to hold my tongue, then all bets are off, and this six-foot-tenner is gonna get an earful of reality whether he likes it or not. 

Naturally, Goliath will have every right to exert his strength, and in many cases I can understand that I've got it coming. But the possibility of being beaten up is a trifle when compared to the possibility of behaving like a coward. 

The world is full of Goliaths (people or groups in power) who simply cannot grasp that fear of harm will not silence the people they wish to keep under their ugly, collective heel. They don't understand it, and it literally drives them crazy. They will stop at nothing in their blind attempt to silence the voice of reason with their big, hairy hands. When the voice of reason keeps on speaking, despite a bloody mouth, a black eye, or broken bones, these Goliath's get even angrier, and put even more force into their futile blows. "When will this idiot be quiet?" they cogitate, swinging away, wondering just how far they will have to go until the "idiot" finally decides to close his mouth.

The tragedy is that at some point, the voice of reason is, at long last, rendered silent, and Goliath can finally stop swinging his hairy mitts and relax. This is happening all over the world, especially in theocratic countries in the Middle East. There is sometimes a lot of blood to mop up, and maybe even some graves to be dug, but at least Goliath can rest in peace, since the silence he so dearly craves has been achieved. The voice of reason can rest in even greater peace, because it refused to be silent, even against the threat of harm or death. 

Nonetheless, Goliath will stand there, scratch his rotund belly, and wonder, "Why wouldn't that little prick just be quiet? Couldn't he see that he was wrong, because he had such little hands and since mine are so big and hairy? Hmm..." The world is full of bullies, of Goliaths, individually and collectively. But there will always be those pesky little David's with their words, their slings, and their indomitable courage.

WAB 3.22.17