Being one of the only atheists in existence to actually spend time examining theistic arguments instead of just posting Christopher Hitchens memes, I’ve been reading Edward Feser‘s The Last Superstitution: A Refutation of the New Atheism, a book I firmly recommend to anyone interested in either Thomas Aquinas’s metaphysics or seeing Richard Dawkins get some much deserved intellectual ridicule. One of the concepts addressed is the New Atheist tendency to fixate on facile and easily dismantled arguments since the philosophical nuance required for attacking the more esoteric and complex variety eludes their feeble understanding.
Reactionary circles tend to reserve a lot of venom for the Libertarian crowd, much of it well deserved when one considers the autistic neckbearded insanity of many acolytes of the NAP and Saint Rothbard. You could misspend several hours cataloging Libertarian misadventures on the subject of legal age of consent, child abandonment or who meets the criteria for moral personhood. In general though, the Libertarian position does have a few things going for it compared to the typical American political non-options.
Many harsh criticisms have been made on this site, by myself and others, of the more autistic, neckbeardy and fedoraish strains of Libertarianism. Bulbasaur in particular has gained a reputation for pouring vitriol and contempt down on Libertarianism and its bastard stepchildren, Voluntaryism and Anarcho-capitalism. I have tried to take a more moderate approach, but have not always been exactly charitable. This may have seemed like hate to many of you. The words may have stung. Some buttcheeks may have gotten red, chapped or perhaps a bit numb and tingly over the whole affair. (You know who you are.) But Let me assure you dear readers, this was not done out of hatred or anger. At least not entirely. We did it because because we cared. It was tough love. In contrast I am now offering my apology for Libertarianism.
This article will be the beginning of what I plan to be a multi-part, multi-contributor series. The purpose? To seek rapprochement with libertarianism. Yeah, we’re going there.
Today’s article comes from The Orthosphere:
Here’s the headline version of the relevant story: a Catholic high school hires a vice-principal who is (whether known or not to the school) a practicing homosexual. As part of the terms of his employment, he signs a contract obligating him to publicly abide by the teachings of the Church. At some point later on, he “marries” his boyfriend, a public repudiation of those teachings that earn him the termination of his employment — whereupon the Catholic students at the school rebel.
The modern world turns Catholic school children into social justice warriors. These children, most of them appearing close to driving age, are so divorced from the faith that they are actively working against it.
The seemingly ubiquitous meme of “White Privilege” has been a favorite topic of TRS since we began. It has been explored at length on this site by myself and other authors and tackled from several different angles and we’ve had a lot of fun with it. I have suggested in previous writings that one sure way to fluster Social Justice Warriors, Tumblristas and “more progressive than thou” lefties in the course of argument is to accept their “white privilege” narrative without guilt or shame and challenge them to make their next rhetorical point. They can’t, because the narrative relies on whitey balking at the concept and arguing against it out of a desire to cleanse himself of the existential guilt implied by the accusation of privilege. I stand by this as an effective argumentative technique that sabotages the progressive narrative and could potentially lead to some valuable reflection both on the part of the leftist as well as their intended white victim.
Today’s subject comes from Amren: Pope Francis Calls Upon The Nations Of The World To Welcome Immigrants.
14 Warning Signs of Nothing in Particular
In 2003, an article appeared in the Secular Humanist magazine Free Inquiry titled “Fascism Anyone?” (editor’s note: this link requires a paid subscription to Free Inquiry, the full text can be found for free here) This article, which has since been attributed to a “Dr. Laurence Britt, political scientist/scholar,” detailed the “14 Warning Signs of Fascism” in an attempt to reduce Fascism to a set of commonly shared characteristics by which the determination could be made whether or not a given individual, movement, or government in our modern world was indeed Fascist, or on its way towards Fascism. And this article has proven largely successful, with Dr Laurence Britt being cited repeatedly across the internet in a variety of mediums along with his article in order to reveal the Fascism lurking in the wind, threatening to corrupt our very way of life and lead us all into ruin. But the question is, should this article about the so-called Warning Signs of Fascism really be given so much stock in its validity? This is the question I will be discussing here today, digging into the truth behind the man, the article and the “Warning Signs of Fascism.”
Cool story, bro: a party planned in Flint, Michigan went viral last week, threatening the West’s narrative on the negro question.
Particularly damaging were the party’s fliers, depicting civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.’s face photoshopped on a BET actor.
Oh, and the party’s theme was “freedom 2 twerk.” That’s pretty damned triggering, especially to us white folk who seem to be the only ones that recollect the words to and meaning behind MLK’s speeches.