Friday, May 23, 2008


...ya just gotta read this and see your arguments built on wax foundations melt to the ground. I mean it!!! Aren't you cowering in shame already???


Anonymous said...

Oh really? Why is someone who disagrees with you a "phony"? What is it you have against atheists and agnostics? Are you a Christian? Who are you to make moral judgments regarding aborting an unborn (disabled) child when you've never been in that situation yourself?

Christopher said...

Oh really? Why is someone who disagrees with you a "phony"?

In many cases (judging from experience), many people who DO disagree with me are. Not all, but a good portion of people who think that they are somehow anointed to pass judgement or worse yet "rule" lesser ethnic class types most certainly are the phoniest of the lot.

What is it you have against atheists and agnostics?

Judging from the actions of such athiests and agnostics as Josef Stalin and Mao, plenty. However, I am a great admirer of H. L. Mencken as my writings will bear out.

Are you a Christian?

Proud Romanist. However some might not consider me one because of that which is their problem. I'll comply with them this one time. Love the tone of your inquisitive question!!!

Who are you to make moral judgments regarding aborting an unborn (disabled) child when you've never been in that situation yourself?

Are you saying that I can't use my mind to make judgements based on my own beliefs regarding any moral situation at hand? Wow, you really are a throwback to those early-twentieth-century eugenicists who seemed to know better than the rest of us! I guess your solution to a sticky situation (after all one less disabled child means one new rumpus room in the abode) would be offing the child. Give me some time and I can line up a whole slew of people who didn't abort their Downs Syndrome children, and are might glad they did!

Anonymous said...

The inclusion of this hate piece admist the Soggy and Groundhogs love fest saddens me greatly. The day of the liberal/conservative christian/atheist pissing contests has past. People who live one one or the other side of this starved argument are things of the past. Today's challenge is to not force one's beliefs down the throats of those who may be open to exploring new ones. The last eight years of deception and hate have only de-escalated any intelligent discussion. Your inclusion of the scurrilous article solves nothing but to insult the intelligence of those who lay eyes upon it. Serves no other purpose but to expouse hate and division.

Christopher said...

Hate piece??? Not to be offensive or anything but how can you see what John Zmirak has written as being hateful? Pointed and damning perhaps, and most certainly controversial, but there's nothing hateful about what was written on the always hopping Taki's Top Drawer site. A downright WOWZER if you ask me, which is naturally why I found it something that needed to be said and especially to be read, even by left-leaning do-gooders and bandwagon-jumping hipster types who normally would not be exposed to Mr. Zmirak's usually on-target views. And I'm sure that you must admit that this article was a lot less, er, acidic than the opinions that are usually written about right wingers of varying stripes (usually portrayed as beneath-contempt ogres or in sickeningly patronizing ways just so's Big City elites can prove they can also like southerners and polish plumbers as much as they like blacks, and coax 'em to vote their way) in the pages of every liberal and mainstream publication (and website) these days! And really, it was nothing near the sort of "pissing contest" that you allude it to have been, but maybe you just haven't kept up with the far left morphing into the center and its various mouthpieces lately, most of whom I find greatly beyond the pale.

As to your comment about the lack of what you might consider honest political/societal dialogue these past eight years, I would beg to differ with you and say that the open discussion of subjects on ALL levels has only grown to levels never before seen since the start of the decade. You obviously know all about internet and weblogs. I mean, can you find a better format for the free exchange of ideas that never could take place either on left-leaning television programs where ten liberals try to convert the sole conservative on the panel, or on neocon radio shows which seem to have forgotten all about what the conservative movement was before it began morphing somewhere in the seventies.

(And in case you were making references to the last eight years of the Bush presidency, well personally I was and still am a Ron Paul man though I gotta say that for shame there are things that Bush Jr. has done that I'm mighty glad he did...not the Iraqi War mind you, but the fact that he put smart judges like Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court has me begrudgingly liking the guy at least a smidgen bit! Still, my sympathies lie with the right-libertarians and paleo-conservatives of whom Taki Theadoroacoplous is but one...all hail his site, and while we're at it all hail Pat Buchanan!)

Sorry the article offended you so (well, not really. as I'm sure you probably wouldn't mind if I was offended by an extremely pornographic gay rights manifesto)...personally I found it exhilarating! to lay eyes upon, especially after being inundated with so much hard-left anti-individualistic spew that I have to endure whether I want to or not, stupid little self-loathing peon that I am! But different strokes eh?

Anyway, thanks for writing...most of the people who hate my blog tend to let their emotions get the best of them and leave the most raving, anger-filled posts, but you at least had the guts to keep cool and play by the ruls. If you have any other comments you would like to make, feel free to leave 'em!

Christopher said...

...and only an anal retentive would nitpick over the spelling of "rules" amongst other things, but I guess that's what internet's there for.

Anonymous said...

All I see in that article are a whole bunch of stereotypes and sweeping, broad statements about liberals and the left which don't necessarily hold up at all. Chris, your whole way of thinking, which appears to be "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is pretty childish, and - quite literally - reactionary. Does being a proud Romanist mean that you are a believer in God? An omniscient and omnipotent being who looks after you as you pray? A rationalist such as yourself actually believes in that kind of absurd mysticism? That's a real leap of faith. Or do you see yourself as a Romanist in a cultural sense: not really a believer in God, but a believer in belief, and one who believes that Christianity has actually played a positive role in the development of Western civilization? Really, judging atheism or atheists on the standards of Mao, Hitler and Stalin says a whole lot more about you than it does about the fundamental argument. In essence, it said absolutely nothing.

Christopher said...

Maybe they are stereotypes, but they are ones I happen to find accurate, at least from the experience I've had associating going to school and working with liberals, two things which I believe helped me swing towards the kind of anti-interventionist rightism that I adhere to these days. Of course not all libs drive Priuses and drink lattes, but I knew a whole lot who really had deeply-felt hateful attitudes towards the same NASCAR fans and ethnic lower/midclass types who don't quite happen to share their views on a wide variety of issues. Some were even dyed in the wool black-haters which might figure in considering how the liberals of the early-twentieth century weren't exactly that much concerned over the plight of the blacks no matter how much people tell you they were these days. I guess these people have every right to be closed minded about whatever they want to, but maybe they shouldn't be pointing fingers at others for wanting to adhere to a more traditional set of values. But yes, like you were alluding to there are liberals who do go against some of the major tenents of modern liberalism, and I sure remember the grief that some of them got for doing so! (Such as Barbara Grizutti Harrison's article on how she sympathized with a woman's concern on gays taking over her neighborhood and the effect they would have on her children...I don't think she ever lived that one down!)

Personally, I never believed that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and to the contrary might hate my enemy's enemy for whatever reason I may have to. You can call me reactionary if you will (and for a good reason, after all, more than a few elders have told me how much they preferred life as it was before the great social upheaval of the sixties hit this area sometime about ten years too late and how friendly neighbors have turned into suspicious strangers as crime skyrocketed in once nice neighborhoods), but why do you call me one merely for allegedly thinking that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Where do you find this idea in my writings?

Being a "Proud Romanist" means believing and worshipping in accord with the Roman Catholic belief. Simple as that. Dunno how to take the line about "an omnipotent and omnipotent being who looks afte (me) as I pray" but you're entitled to your ideas. As well as your definition of "rationalist" as if I exactly adhere to any current day useage of the term (nor would I want to).

And finally, what is wrong with judging athiesm by the standards of Mao, Hitler and Stalin as you say? It only shows that unbridled statism and yet another attempt to create "the new man" only ends up in total disaster. As Bernard Stolinsky once wrote in a fantastic article for THE NEW OXFORD REVIEW entitled "Is America Still a Christian Country?", true there were violent outbreaks against the Jews in Europe, but Christianity kept them in check. Only when the concept of God was twisted and tossed aside did widespread chaos ensue as it did in a good part of Europe throughout the last century. In essence, that says a pretty darn lot.

And I guess I could line up a whole number of non-believers and the like whose writings and opinions I do value. I like what I've read of Murray Rothbard, Justin Raimondo and Charley Reese (although he says he's just not religious though his columns do show a great understanding of just what Christianity at its best should strive to be). And I'd vote for a non-believer if I thought he would be a good candidate as well. You are right in the regard that the athiest/Christianity arguement can be passe in at least one respect, for I'd take the former over the latter if the former had ideas I thought were good for my own benefit, and that he wasn't going to spend his hours in office trying to show me a fool like way too many soapboxing Bill Maher-ish nonbelievers seem to do nowadays. So yes, I would take a Murray Rothbard over a frothing Trotskyite like Christopher Hitchens anyday which I don't think will earn me any brownie points with the current crop of "freedom from religion" zealots (as if someone's forcing them to go to church!) but what do I care.