Tuesday, December 19, 2017

The ole' switcheroo

"The Republican and Democrat parties switched."

I'm hearing this less. What worries me is that I'm probably not hearing it much because it has become an accepted fact (even though it's not true, but we'll get into that). So, I've already asked about the racist Senator Robert Byrd, elected continuously by the Democrats of West Virginia from 1950 until his death in 2010. I can't get anyone to point out when he or, more importantly, when his constituents switched parties.

So I'm going to ask the same of the southern states. In the South, there are many cities which are currently Democrat strongholds. These cities are unlikely to vote in anything other than Democrat mayors. So, if the party switch theory holds true, then these cities must have had Republican mayors during the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Right? And if not then, surely the Republicans had the run of the place after the Civil War ended in 1865. Right? Surely there isn't an unbroken string of "racist-Democrats" in the racist-South up until modern day.

At some point, the constituency voted in the "non-racist-Republicans" who eventually transformed into the "non-racist-Democrats" of today.



From 1855 until today, there have been two terms where the mayor of Atlanta was Republican (1871-1872 & 1877-1879).
157 years Democrat - 5 years Republican

New Orleans:
From 1866 until today, there have been two terms where the mayor of New Orleans was Republican (1867-1868 & 1870-1872).
146 years Democrat - 5 years Republican

Washington D.C.:
From 1910 until today, there have been zero terms where the mayor of Washington D.C. was Republican.
During a period from 1878-1967, the "mayor" was a Board of Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States. The president of the Board, elected by the Board, served as the city's Chief Executive, acting essentially as a "mayor". In all that time, there were only three Republicans who served as the president of the Board.
107 years Democrat

Richmond, VA:
Since 1840 until today, there have been two terms where the mayor of Richmond was Republican (1868-1870 & 1988-1990).
171 years Democrat - 6 years Republican

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

The Myth of the Noble Savage - excerpt

In order for there to be free will in the Garden of Eden, there has to be something that Adam and Eve can choose that's not God. What if every choice Adam and Eve make in the garden gets them back to God; the decision to love each other gets them God, the decision to kill each other gets them God? If that happens, there's no genuine free will.

So it's like it's like saying you have a maze with only one path. It's not a maze, just a corridor.

And so you have one thing that God does. He puts the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden. And Adam and Eve are told, “That way lies death.”

People will come back and argue, “How can you condemn Adam and Eve when they don't know what death is?” I would argue, and I think this is the brilliance of that story; it is so we know that it’s adamant that God walks with Adam and Eve.

We know that God made Adam and Eve in His image. He walks the garden with them. They can converse with God directly. They have absolute knowledge of the good. The only thing they do not know is evil. So when the tree of knowledge of good and evil is put in the garden, the only thing Adam and Eve can gain from it is the knowledge of evil, because they already know the good.

That's brilliant because God has not stacked the deck against them. They know the face of God. They know their Creator. They know his goodness. They just don't know evil, which God characterizes it as death.

So they know that by choosing that tree they will get something that's not God. And so the parameters of freewill are upheld. And God is absolved of being a tyrant because they know him.

What does it say about the god of the ancient Israelites, the god that has carried us through in Western culture for 2,000 years, what does it say about him that he loved his creation so much that their freedom meant more to him than their obedience?

It's one of the things that sets Western culture so far ahead of other cultures is that we choose freedom not obedience; the free market system. The Socialists, the Marxists, the progressives; they want to go back to a world where all human beings deserve the Garden of Eden like Adam and Eve, but they owe God no obedience for it.

The threat of the Old Testament, the First Commandment, is that you'll become God. “If you don't recognize that I am the Lord your God then you will become gods of yourself.”

Not only from the Enlightenment do you get the fallacy of romanticism - the natural goodness of man, and the fallacy of naturalism - morality is irrelevant because we're all animals. You also get Nietzsche. And Nietzsche said at the end of the 19th century, “God is dead. We philosophers have killed him with our knives. But,” he said, “Men must become like God then to be worthy of it.”

The only way modernism exists, the only way all these modern socialist-Marxist-fascist, whatever you want to call it, utopian dreams and schemes exist is if man assumes he's a God, not an animal.

And there's your corruption. There's commandment number one down the drain.
- Dr Duke Pesta

Taken from the YouTube transcript. Edited for readability, not content.

The Myth of the Noble Savage - YouTube - Dr. Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

Friday, August 11, 2017

Bill Whittle on Abortion and Slavery

Abortion and Slavery
I had an interesting thought about the abortion issue, because it got to me the whole question of the "personhood" issue. And maybe this will help those who are on the pro-choice side understand the pro-life position. At least understand it, if not agree with it. I'm certainly not expecting them to agree with it, but at least understand it. And my thought experiment is this:

Whose side were you on in the Civil War? [Most people would say, the North.] As was I; 100%. Now, the South claims that the North launched this "War of Aggression" because they wanted to secede and state's rights and all that. But the reason the South left the Union was they wanted the state's rights, and the state right was the state right to have slaves. So let's just call what it is. They left before even Lincoln was inaugurated.

If you're a southerner, your position was, "This is my property, and they're going to launch a war, come all the way down to my house, and take my property, then of course it's aggression. Of course I'm going to fight it." Right?

The North's position is the same position, actually, as the pro-life crowd, which is, "That is a living person there. And you do not own them, and you do not have the right to determine their destiny. Therefore, we have a right to go down and free the slaves. We have not only a right but we have an obligation."

And so now what you find out is the Civil War comes down to a very simple issue: Are slaves people, yes or no?

Because if slaves are not people, if blacks from Africa are not people, not humans, then they're property like horses and cattle and so on. The war is absolutely wrong. The war is completely unjust and so on.

But if they are people, then the North has the moral right and the obligation to have the government step in on that person's individual choice and protect that individual.

That's the fundamentals of the pro-life position, is that it has it's own genetic code, it cannot defend itself, it is no longer subject to your choice, it's a person, and we're going to protect it.

Is it a person or isn't it?
Bill Whittle on the "Rubin Report" with Dave Rubin