Maggie's Farm

"Dumb stuff we right-wingers can and should finally stop saying."

The progressive left is psychotic and the popular right is happily codependent upon it and therefore all but utterly feckless and ineffective. And it's highly statist. Plus it's busy lifestyle signalling in order to deceive itself that it's pushing back against the left's virtue signalling. Yup: Codependent. The right can't even define original classical liberalism, much less re-enact it.

Normal is out. It has been for a century.

With regard to global climate, there happens to be a particularly strong North Atlantic Current right now that's bringing warmer water up as far north as Finland. Go to a global weather map, zoom out, toggle between temperature and wind, and you can see it perfectly clearly.

It's warmer around Iceland than in the Great Lakes. It's far colder in Chicago and northern India than it is near Svalbard halfway up the Arctic Circle. This has nothing to do with the long term global mean whatsoever.

Z-Bot(s) greatest failing is not having a lick of sense about human philosophy. There is no underlying framework to work from, just programmed rote responses aimed to deflect, obscure, and muddy.

This we call progressivism.

The robot you're debating has no evident perspective. The internet is it's perfect medium: Strip context, isolate targets, deny the obvious, move goalposts, and generally hew to a narrow repetition with no lasting value - that's the long term takeaway: No authentic, durable merit. No linear progression from a valid philosophy through to such a perspective. Empty. Endlessly argumentative, signifying nothing. Predictable. Mechanical.

In other words, not purposeful in human terms.

See what I mean? As if on cue.

To elaborate, if Luther, like Calvin, was a substantial dick, then that naturally throws the whole shebang into question, the whole shebang being Protestantism. Meanwhile, having determined - as many have - that Catholicism is technically un-biblical - that it's a cultural, social affectation of a kind of Christian heritage that has mostly ritual and hierarchy and social order to recommend it - then Christianity is itself extremely hard to suss out. What was Christ actually on about?

I doubt many can answer that; all whom I've asked eventually defer to "faith", which raises another set of questions as to the merit of, as it goes, a belief in things not seen. Why is that a thing, anyway? Nobody seems to know that either.

What does this have to do with secular religions like Progressivism? Well, first that Progressivism is indeed a religion. It has all the hallmarks and procedures and relative virtues of religion, but in its own case, has no valid philosophical bedrock. How can it when it's most known for emotion, envy, coveting, psychological projection, judgementalism in the extreme, systems of force and theft, cultural intolerance, completely variable and trendy morals, and so on and so on?

So we're struck - if we're human, that is - with a conundrum: What is a valid ethic? My answer would be that searching for the accountable, transparent heart constitutes the smallest step, one of intent. From there it's not inconsistent to venture immediately into personal accountability among others, and right there we've formed a philosophy of complete non-involvement and utter tolerance of the negative right. Zero force, zero projection, zero real judging in the sense that we cannot hold others to a standard we can't observe ourselves.

That, then, roughly hews to at least some of what Christ was on about. And that, then, indicts the vile secular religion of Progressivism. Because it is those bad things and because being unaccountable about them, it is a mechanical and robotic pseudo-virtue. It doesn't care about results, it cares about inflicting polarities onto cultures and it does that with political power. It's the collective, the hive. It is force and oppression.

Something along those lines is the problem with all organized mindsets; with the collectivization not of the independent and accountable spirit and heart, but of the outward collective appearance as if it were a membership (which it is), and any competent clinician in the mental health field I think can say that all that dishonesty and that fealty to appearance is an defect. A dysfunction.

So this is never really about Luther or the Church and it's really never about irrational, parasitic Progressivism, and when you see it narrowed down to a weaponized rhetoric - that idiotic, eternal goalpost-racing fisking that accounts for nothing that really matters anyway - you know it has no intent to elucidate. It aims to dominate, for force is its currency.

Obstruction is, as the left well admits, a proper form of resistance, and no better place then in the Nihilistic "conversation".