If colleges are indeed training the nation’s future leaders, America is doomed. On Sunday, the Daily Caller reported that Rohini Sethi, a student government leader at the University of Houston, was suspended and ordered to diversity training for engaging in the heinous act of free speech. In this case, the offensive speech was a Facebook post that read, “Forget #BlackLivesMatter; more like AllLivesMatter.”
…concerning the University of Houston the first thing that came to my mind was this.
I can’t believe in an age when there are so many lawyers out of work that a University is willing to be this stupid.
Granted Universities have become rather insular in their thought to the point where actually educating people on thing that matter has become secondary but I suspect this is going to provide an education to those who attempted to put on this sanction.
Because this type of thing no longer takes place in a vacuum and because of this, the words of a political leader who I suspect is popular with the left, namely “GET IN THEIR FACES AND PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD:” will come into play here.
This means that right about now tens of thousands of conservatives on social media are discovering this story, tweeting about this story and getting outraged over it, which will cause Rohini Sethi who meekly submitted, likely thinking that nobody was with her to realize she is not alone.
Of course that means that among those upset will be Police Unions around the nation will also be discovering this who will pass this along to their members.
Even better this is an issue ready made conservatives both in Texas and for the Donald Trump campaign, all he has to do is send out a single tweet and literally tens of millions will be hounding the University of Texas
And as the Student Government had to pass an “ex post facto” rule to allow her to be sanctioned and that such sanctions involve money this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Which likely means that groups like FIRE will get involved and they tend to get results to wit:
Adams State University will settle a federal lawsuit brought by a former ASU professor who says the school violated his free speech and due process rights when it banned him from campus over blog posts criticizing the university’s pay practices.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado announced in a press release yesterday that ASU agreed to rescind the “No Trespass Order” it enacted against Danny Ledonne and will pay $100,000 to settle the lawsuit the ACLU of Colorado brought on Ledonne’s behalf in February.
Ledonne was banned from campus in October 2015, two days after he began blogging critically about ASU administrators on his Watching Adams blog. Ledonne taught in the Mass Communication department and did media production work for ASU between 2011 and 2015. After ASU didn’t renew his contract in the spring of that year, he launched Watching Adams.
Now it’s very possible that despite all this potential Rohini Sethi might decide to continue to meekly submit in the hope it all goes away.
But I submit and suggest that it’s very likely that she might change her mind and fight and if she does she’ll discover that she has a juggernaut of opinion and law behind her and in the end the only power the University of Houston has is the hope of keeping her intimidated.
Personally If I ran the University of Houston I’d quietly reverse myself now before the storm comes and they get an education.
Don’t forget this is the 2nd week of our 6 week tryouts for Da Magnificent Prospect, You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.
Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.
Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
the evening’s telecast of “Four Days in October,” ESPN’s 2010 documentary about Boston’s stunning comeback from a 3-0 deficit against New York to reach, and eventually win, the World Series, was missing his crucial Game 6 performance.
The bloody sock game was one of the defining moments in the 2004 ALCS which is likely why MLB decided the anniversary of the game was worth marking.
It’s easy to look back now and think that, of course, Boston would win that game with one of the great postseason pitchers of all time on the mound. But think back to Game 1, when Schilling pitched through a torn tendon sheath and was shelled for six hits and six runs over three innings.
It was fair to wonder how things could change. A day before Game 6, the Red Sox’s medical team came up with a radical procedure in which team doctor Bill Morgan would suture Schilling’s loose ankle tendon back into the skin. To be sure, Morgan first tried the somewhat barbaric procedure on a cadaver.
Nobody outside of the Red Sox’s clubhouse knew about the impromptu procedure, so it was easy to think the worst when there was visible blood on Schilling’s sock that surfaced early in Game 6. In actuality, it was just a byproduct of the stitches pressing against the tendon. Not only could Schilling pitch, but he came out pitching well in Game 6, showcasing a nasty splitter.
“And it wasn’t overblown,” remembers outfielder Gabe Kapler. “When there was all that talk about, ‘Was that really blood?’, not only was it really blood, but what he endured and mentally overcame the way he did may never be done again. I don’t know that there’s ever going to be a procedure like that to get a guy ready to pitch again. It was a little bit, like, science fiction-y.”
I hadn’t watch ESPN since the firing of Curt Schilling over this transgender nonsense, but pulling a Stalin and making him an unperson should be over the line even for the most left leaning of sports fans, particularly in Boston.
But ESPN rules sports so apparently this didn’t happen
If ESPN can throw Schilling’s performance in game 6 down the memory hole how does any conservative athlete or potential athlete do anything but presume that ESPN is sending this message.
If you have the “wrong” opinions and choose to express them openly then be aware we will cover your accomplishments differently…
…assuming we cover them at all.
I’ll give schilling the last word:
For sale, never used, rarely worn ring from player who didn't actually have anything to do with getting it. pic.twitter.com/6qWxO3uRDN
She was born Helena Kafka in 1894. Helena was a nurse who inspired by Franciscan Nuns to join their order. She continued as a Nurse eventually becoming lead surgical nurse at Modling Hospital in Vienna at the close of the first World War.
Now one might wonder what an Austrian Franciscan Nun in Nursing has to do with Donald Trump, well that can be answered when you consider their enemies.
The supporters of Donald Trump find themselves having to brave the violence of those who wish to silence him and make any expression of support for Mr. Trump be hidden.
Sister Restituta was very outspoken in her opposition to the Nazi regime. When a new wing to the hospital was built she hung a crucifix in each of the new rooms. The Nazis demanded that they be removed. Sister Restituta was told she would be dismissed if she did not comply.
She refused. The crucifixes remained on the walls.
Does this sound familiar? If you’ve been following the culture wars it should be. Fortunately for us we have the protections of the 1st Amendment and a history of free expression which helps keep those who wish to suppress the free expression of opinion or religion in check, Sister Restituta was not so lucky.
One of the doctors on staff, a fanatical Nazi, would have none of it. He denounced her to the Party and on Ash Wednesday, 1942, she was arrested by the Gestapo as she came out of the operating room. The charges against her included, “hanging crucifixes, and writing a poem that mocked Hitler.”
The Nazis promptly sentenced her to death by the guillotine for “favouring the enemy and conspiracy to commit high treason.”
It is very likely that none of us will suffer the faith of Sr. Restituta who was beheaded on March 30, 1943 but let me point out something.
There was a time in Austria when if you told people that you would see Nuns beheaded if you let these guys get power they would have said you were crazy.
There was also a time, not long ago, when if you told someone who supported the likely nominee of a major US political party that attending one of his rallies would put your personal safety in danger when people would have said the same.
Now some of our friends on the left, who might not like this kind of thing may find it convenient to keep quiet about this, not wanting to risk chasing away potential voters.
And some of my fellows who don’t support Trump as the GOP nominee might also find it convenient to blame Trump for the violence of these protestors as an easy way to highlight all they find disagreeable with him.
There are two problems with this approach, first ethically it is dishonest and wrong.
But as a practical matter sooner or later these movements eat themselves, ask Troskey, ask Robespierre or ask Cathy Brennan.
There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’
She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers.
Now this would on its face seem a sensible thing, after all if the science is with you engaging other people is the thing to do, as Yul Brenner said in the movie the Buccaneer: If you’re offer is good it will stand up under fire. and if the science is with you there is certainly no problem with someone looking over the data.
What does it say about climate cabal that this is considered such unacceptable behavior that no person without tenure would date to say it and be able to hold a job?
Moe: …if they ain’t got ants, they ain’t got ants! A. Mouser:So you give them ants, und mice, und moths, all sroough the houses; you Dummkopfs! Moe:Boss you’re a regular Napoleon
The Three Stooges Ants in the Pantry 1936
There is one constant concerning sin & temptation that any person who has struggled with it can easily recognize.
The easiest way to get immediate relief of the temptation is to give into it.
Like an addiction the temptation comes in waves with little things and triggers hoping to lead you there and as long as you are resisting the temptation grows, occasionally it will ambush you when you least expect but it’s always there keeping the pressure on until you give in.
Now once you give in there may be subtle attempts to expand said sin, convince you it’s not sin and finally make you decide that God is unreasonable for considering it sin, or it will try to reconcile you to the sin as something you simply can’t beat so why fight it, but all of it comes with a single end to keep you in that state of Mortal Sin by whatever means necessary.
For any Catholic priest, particular one in a parish, all of what I’ve just said is pretty basic stuff. They’ve seen this a million times and would recognize this pattern in their sleep, not only because of their experience in the confessional but because they, as humans are subject to the same fight on a daily basis.
That’s why I simply don’t see how the Vatican doesn’t get what’s going on with the anti-catholic left.
For over two years now the left has regularly fawned over Pope Francis, they have lionized him, ignoring statements and actions when they are orthodox and bending statements that support their cause. As long as the vatican didn’t push hard against sexual sin they were with him.
This pattern was maintained during his US trip, every time he spoke clearly on subjects that were to their advantage (climate change, or the old church scandals) they emphasized it. When he gave subtle references to the family or abortion they were minimized or even spun as not serious because they were subtle and if an action was so blatant that it could not be spun like meeting with the Little Sister of the Poor being sued by the president, they ignored it completely.
However the Kim Davis meeting once it came out was too big to ignore. Suddenly every American leftist was up in arms. How DARE he meet with this woman who is committing the sin of refusing to give into them! A trip to comment pages of any leftist site saw the return of the Pope as a figure to be hated in the same way that Benedict XVI was and at some sites you didn’t have to bother going into the comments to see it loud and clear..
In other words the Catholic Church had decided to openly resist and they must be punished.
So what did the church do, did they use it as a teaching moment? Did they stress that one can’t demand unconditional love unless they show it? Did they use this moment to proclaim the love of Christ to all?
Nope ,they under pressure from journalists who, because of the Pope’s ethnicity don’t dare attack him, allowed themselves to be spun, to minimize, to obfuscate to give the media the narrative that they wanted, that the Kim Davis meeting was something other than it was in the hopes that it would pacify the mob of the left. Like a sinner dealing with temptation they figured the easiest way to stop it was to give in, so they did, providing an official statement devoid of substance on the record while others hiding behind anonymity spun the event as if the Pope didn’t have a clue.
While it had the immediate effect of lowering the western media’s pressure it took only a few days for the idiocy of this plan to be made plain, when Msgr Charamsa decided to hold his very public coming out party.
When this decades long member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith not only came out as gay (not a big deal as a sexual orientation is not in itself sinful) but revealed himself to have a boyfriend and made a list of demands that the church redefine both the catechism and Church doctrine to define his actions as not mortal sin suddenly the church was once again put in a position where it had to act.
They had a choice, to give into these demands to rewrite scripture, tradition and 2000 years of church teaching on the spot and declaring the vows of a priest to be meaningless, or uphold both doctrine and the sanctity of priestly vows.
In reality it really wasn’t a choice at all, even those within the church who would like to undermine it were smart enough to understand the consequences of such an act. So the vatican dismissed him on the spot and will likely be defrocking him within the week.
That was enough to once again unleash the left’s outrage machine. The media was in full spin mode How DARE they fire a gay priest, how DARE they do such a thing (never mind the issue of vows and celibacy, as far as the press was concerned this was an anti-gay act! Every media outlet was once again the attack and social media and comment sections were once more alive with the same outrage and hatred that they were spewing a week ago demanding this decision be reversed.
And that my dear friends is the lesson of the radical anti Catholic left and the press who support them.
You can not change them, you can not persuade them, you can not reason with them, like dealing the devil your choices are to either appease and give in, or resist.
I would have thought that a church whose primary foe’s modus operandi is exactly the same would have been smart enough to recognize such an obvious fact. As it is apparently not let me bluntly state a rule that you can take to the bank:
Anyone inside the church who counsels either appeasement or surrender to such people/groups is either very stupid, very naive, incredibly gullible or actually on the other side.
Reg:What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
Francis:It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg:It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.
Monty Python the Life of Brian 1979
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Snark concerning the Bruce Caitlyn not withstand lets cut to the chase and deal with the principles here that actually matter.
1. Bruce Jenner is a free American. He has earned what he has through a lot of hard work. If he has the delusion that he is a woman, wants to be treated as a woman, chooses to use the wealth he has earned over the years to pay for expensive surgery to remove & insert different anatomical parts to present himself as a woman, chooses to take hormones to produce feminine physical changes and wishes to be called “Caitlyn” all to support said delusion (or even make a buck off it) that’s his business
If this was just some avg schmuck with more money than he can spend instead of a world-famous Olympic champion this would just be another rich eccentric able to find people willing to support or enable their delusions for a price.
2. If Bruce Jenner dressed like Napoleon, choose to speak only French, surgically reduced his height and paid people around him to shout: “Vive l’empereur!” wherever he went around would not change the neutral objective fact that is is not Napoleon. Likewise no amount of hormones, dress up or even altering a birth certificate will change the objective fact that Bruce Jenner is male any more than a delusion he was a vampire would be objectively real if he had his incisors sharpened into points, only came out at night, slept in a coffin and ran away at the sight of the Crucifix.
Barbara McMannon nailed it in this tweet concerning the Vanity Fair Cover:
main thought about #CaitlynJenner is not always going to have vanityfair makeup lighting photographer photoshopping … goodluck with that
3. While as a free American I acknowledge Mr. Jenner’s right to live his delusion and the right of others to, for whatever reason, play along with it, I insist on my right as a free American to not to go along with it. I further insist on my right as a free American to publicly state the objective provable fact Mr. Jenner is not in fact a woman named Caitlyn.
As I’ve said over and over again about Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular, the reason to believe it & act accordingly is because it’s true.
4. Any attempt by the current cultural elites to enforce a subjective opinion upon society to replace an objective fact is dishonest and dishonorable. Any attempt to compel said opinion on any individual or on society by law is oppression.
Since the days of old there has been money to be made & power to be had from a spectacle if it draws click or sells magazines there are those that will take advantage of it and there has been nothing that has been more of a spectacle than the Bruce Jenner “Caitlyn” business. But I see those trying to convince me that “Caitlyn” Jenner is a man for their own purposes no differently than this:
I refuse to dance for a bunch of flim flam artists out to scoop up the gullible.
Any citizen in the United States can legally change their name through a variety of available methods and I don’t consider it my place to question their choice. Like many other things we shall discuss here today, I consider it a matter of free speech. If the guy wants to be called Chelsea and files the appropriate paperwork, so be it. Chelsea it is. But to the best of my knowledge, Bruce Jenner has not taken those steps yet. If and when he does I shall be happy to call him Caitlyn or whatever else he chooses.
Remember the only way I can do this type of journalism is if enough people choose to kick in to support me making a nominal living doing it.
My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta) If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.
Back in the day there was a big hubbub about the movie “Life of Brian” that actually led to a rather celebrated informal debate between John Cleese and Michael Palin and opponents of the film on British TV (you can watch the show hereherehere and here)
Who knew that those guy everyone thought were edgy comedians poking a finger in the eye of culture were just a bunch of bigots trying to perpetuate the heteronormative patriarchal oppression of the very Christian Culture they were supposedly mocking.
While all of this blame on Pam Geller might bring back memories of the Jim Crow era when Newspapers & pols blamed attacks against blacks on civil right crusaders provoking otherwise peaceful people into violence which would beg the question: Does the media have any shame? (No they don’t) but I don’t think that’s the real lesson of the day.
I think the real lesson is for Christians, particularly protestants who believe in “Once saved always saved” to grab their guns bombs start shooting.
By the left’s argument we have established responsibility for religious violence lies at least in part, for the person who commits an act that acts provokes ones deeply held religious beliefs.
Well if drawing a cartoon for display at a private event what about a Gay pride parade? Or forcing someone to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding or forcing a JP to perform one? After all Sodomy is one of the sins that “Cry out to heaven for vengeance?” Wouldn’t taking vengeance for such a sin would be justified?
Or what about Abortion? This is the actual taking of an innocent human life, it’s murder. By the standard the media and left are using for Pam Geller not only did the late Dr. George Tiller have it coming but so does every person who works at, assists or aids in an abortion.
Now again for a Catholic like myself, this argument doesn’t hold water. One sin doesn’t excuse another and such violent act would be mortal sin risking one’s soul and requiring sacramental confession and repentance to avoid damnation.
But there are plenty of protestants believe in the doctrine of “once saved always saved” meaning that once you accept Christ all your sins are forgiven forever, even the ones you haven’t committed yet.
Such a person would have no religious fear of shooting up a Gay Wedding or blowing up an abortion clinic or plowing through a gay rights parade with a truck, after all they believe they’re already forgiven and furthermore thanks to our friends in the media they can can feel justified because of being culturally provoked.
It’s practically an invitation for Westboro Baptist to grab their guns & start shooting.
Can’t you just see kids on the playground or in school beating up members of the LGBT club using this argument, can you imagine once the fear of actual violence by well armed Christians is established how quickly universities will shut down events, speakers and clubs due to worries about violence? Can you see insurers refusing to insure or pay off policies on events or movies or exhibits because the responsibility for any violence against them is partly with those holding them?
For decades our friends on the left have painted Christians as violent barbarians to be feared now they are taking steps to make it so. I pray they are wise enough to see the end result of this new free speech standard they are setting and turn away from it before it’s too late.
And if not, May they be happy in the choice they have made and the environment they create.
Update 2: Jim Treacher asks what would happen with Islamists targeted a Gay Wedding:
What would happen to all these people insisting, “I’m all for freedom, but…”? What would happen to their sudden respect for religious sensitivities? How would they deal with it if the brutal murder of gay people we’re seeing in the Middle East was brought right to their doorstep? How would they reconcile the cognitive dissonance caused by two of their favorite groups of pet victims colliding in such an inconvenient fashion?
I think the answer would depend on two things:
1. Which group Islamists backers or Gay Activists would throw more money to them
2. Which group is more likely to cause them physical danger
The 4th Doctor :“You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”
Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Episode Four
Stan:I want you all to call me “Loretta”
Monty Python’s Life of Brian 1979
In the course of my reading yesterday I came across this piece at The Other McCain concerning the ongoing war between Radical feminists and Transgender activists.
I wish Brennan and her radical feminist allies could be strategic enough to realize that there is a huge majority of people who would be willing to support them on this one point — that “woman” is a biological category, not a “gender identity” — if only they realized how important this issue is. The fact that the people being targeted now are my ideological antagonists is not irrelevant to my concern. If hardcore feminists can be targeted this way, what do you think is going to happen when the Tranny Totalitarians target conservatives?
While I find the fight between this em “interesting” groups of people quite amusing there was a rather clarifying moment within this post. This was a tweet from a “transgender” person by the name of Sophia Banks and a response by a person who goes under “SugarPuss” that neatly encapsulates the actual reality here:
Now before we comment on this tweet there is one thing that needs to be clarified. There is, in fact, a tiny amount of people who are born with the sexual organs of both sexes and or an abnormal production of hormones. If a person is in such a situation one should respect whatever decision said person makes at the age of decision in terms of choosing to define oneself as either (or no) sex. None of what follows applies to a person with said medical condition.
Now back to that tweets, The bottom line is with the exception I just noted above there is a simple fact that can not be disputed:
Women do not have penises.
Or as Nursie once explained in Black Adder Series 2
Women do not have penises, Women have never had penises and baring an incredible advance in genetic modification and manipulation or transplant surgery women never will have penises any more than men will have wombs.
Now there are a statistically insignificant amount of men and women who have for whatever reason chosen to have their bodies physically altered, via surgery and or hormone treatments to resemble the opposite sex and who have chosen to live as such. The recognized term used for such a person is “Transgender”. In some countries such alteration is recognized by law, however this doesn’t change the actual reality any more than laws claiming a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s under sharia describes an actual mathematical ratio of eyewitness validity.
Now if that tweet said “Transgender woman” rather than simply “woman” I would have no problem with it as it acknowledges the objective reality of a person choosing to physically or chemically altering themselves in a way recognized by law. Nor do I have a problem with a person such as Sophia Banks choosing to live as a woman, function as a woman etc etc etc. Whatever my opinion of the wisdom or sanity of such a decision it’s not my life and therefore not my business. Nor would I have a problem is a person meeting “Sophia” chooses to use female pronouns in discussion, particularly if they had no acquaintance with Sophia before the alternation. Two of the three “transgender” people I know I only met after their “transformation” therefore I find it convenient to use feminine pronouns particularly if they do not wish their previous status disclosed.
However a line is crossed from amused disinterest line to outright defiance if any attempt is made to compel me to acknowledge this delusion as “fact” or if one wishes to force such an acknowledgement by law. At that point this goes from a delusion that only harms the deluded to an attempt to impose a blatant falsehood as truth which is wrong. A great parallel to this would be the group of “catholic” women who ordain themselves & others as catholic “priests”. It’s one thing for them to live this delusion, it’s quite another if they demand the actual Catholic Church to recognize the validity of their make-believe orders.
Or think of the character of Teddy Brewster in the Movie Arsenic & Old Lace. As long as Teddy is simply blowing his bugle and just talking to neighbors his delusion is not a problem or at most a minor annoyance, but the moment he demands secret service protection as an Ex President and insists on attending international conferences being acknowledged as Theodore Roosevelt and takes legal action to secure and compel it, then one would be compelled to remind him of objective reality.
And that brings us to this tweet I put out in response to Stacy’s post that caused so much fuss yesterday.
I found it all quite amusing and returned tweets for a bit until actual “life” trumped my amusement but as of this writing angry responses continue to enter my timeline. I’m not inclined to block them because I’m a first amendment guy & I generally don’t block an account unless it’s a phony troll one. Contrary to their totalitarian impulses crazy uncles/aunts have the right to their opinion just as I have and I further am confident in the wisdom of my followers.
While flogging this reaction might be good for traffic & DaTipJar there is a more interesting phenom to note in term of both psychology & the net that I’d like to discuss.
Five years ago (have I really been doing this that long?) I wrote a piece called “The Empowerment of Crazy Uncles” where I talked about how the internet empowers the 1% of people who are, shall we say reality challenged.
The problem is with the internet and social networking and the like that crazy 1% or 1/10 of one percent is suddenly empowered. Instead of the crazy uncle at the family gathering that you can ignore, suddenly he has 1000 friends that he can text to rebut and counter rebut all night. He is affirmed and empowered and boy is he motivated, because now there are thousands of people telling him he’s been right all along and is MUCH smarter than everyone thought.
300,000-3,000,000 crazy uncles as individuals isn’t a big deal, but get them all writing e-mails or making phone calls and most importantly AFFIRMING themselves and suddenly you have a potent economic and or political force. Suddenly there is a huge market for a book or 10,000 people willing to pay $20 for a DVD. That’s a fair amount of change and a person can make a good living off of it.
While the net empowers these crazy uncles there is one limiting effect upon them. While they make up a considerable niche market and an excellent activist base in reality they are a rounding error when compared to the actual population. That means if you have constructed your psychological identity based entirely on an illusion and have spent thousands of dollars and years of your time reinforcing said illusion via surgical & chemical alteration the one thing you dread above all else is the person who, without fear, is willing to deny your illusion , to pull back the curtain of the Wizard, or point to the procession and say “but the Emperor has nothing on!”
And if such a person is in any way a public person that might encourage others to do the same the carefully built lie that is one’s life becomes as fragile as a block of flats put up by hypnosis: You want to talk phobia THAT’s phobia.
But it’s not just those deluded and fearful of reality who are endangered, it’s the people who make their living supporting and enabling such delusions. The expensive treatments, the bestselling books, the political machines who can count on shock troops, the ability to exploit these people financially & politically for their own gain is never more in danger than when people are willing to stand up and bluntly say the truth. And the truth is this:
When your identity & belief system in your life can be summed up neatly in a 3 minute gag from a Monty Python movie Then it’s likely a wise move to re-examine that system closely.
It’s one thing to lose a cherished delusion, it’s quite another to lose the gravy train that those people illusions finance. That demands a loud, immediate and even a totalitarian response. That’s the real fear on display for the world to see here, if they did not have this fear they would have ignored me as just some guy on twitter to block.
Two things in closing: None of this nonsense removes the inherent dignity owed a person by virtue of humanity. Furthermore said person remains a child of God and thus the proper subject for prayer as required. Those are the rules.
If one’s goal is to intimidate and silence that last thing you want to see is this:
The amusing & irrational tweets from those outraged by my homage to reality will be the subject of my lead post tomorow. @rsmccain#tcot#p2 — Peter Ingemi (@DaTechGuyblog) July 24, 2014
retweted by Instapunit
As a wise man once said: ” Heh, indeed.” ***************************************
With 8 days to go we need $1100 to make this month’s goal.
If just twenty of you can hit DaTipJar for $50 or more July will end as a success.
If you think the coverage and commentary we provide here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below and help keep the bills paid.