❝❝There's also climate change. Some treat it very much as a religious issue, right down to attacking dissenters as heretics. Using the law to compel belief is wrong.

After all, if it is Divine Will, how can mere humans dare question it? Which gives non serviam some very interesting implications. By some interpretations, the absolute demands of monotheism may be less about the Divine and more about the political power of princes, potentates, and priests.

It's easy to laugh at those crazy monotheists until you see some demands of the RadFems, the trans activists, the environmental groups, the redistributionists, and anti-hate speech types. Always, Always, ALWAYS there is a Grand Cause that demands total submission and absolutely no denial "for the greater good."

Anytime you see "thou shalt not dissent," it should be a flashing red strobe and a triple siren.

---

Kosher certification for restaurants is one private alternative for food safety that has worked. One author, L. Neil Smith, suggested in one of his novels that insurance companies would do a better job with driver's licenses because they are liable if something happens. Obviously these are not the only possibilities. But with government, we end up with only one Official Solution® allowed.

Personally I prefer the free market and competition. And by free market, I mean no government to pick winners or losers, and no government to give advantages over others. Just voluntary exchanges between consenting adults. Many companies especially international ones owe their competitive advantages to special privileges from governments and/or government regulation and control.

The only times I think government should intervene is to protect life, liberty, and property. Beyond that, the only role I see for government is enforcing contracts and agreements, but even that could be done privately.

But that is just me.

I do believe that Meddling in Other's Lives For Their Own Good is one of the great evils unleashed on humanity.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ religious ∙ beliefs ∙ dissent ∙ Divine Will ∙ non serviam ∙ mere unbelievers ∙ monotheism ∙ absolute ∙ princes ∙ potentates ∙ priests ∙ RadFem ∙ trans activists ∙ environmental crusade ∙ redistribute wealth ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ kosher ceritificaiton ∙ insurance companies ∙ driver's license ∙ food safety ∙ competition ∙ government ∙ winners or losers ∙ voluntary exchange ∙ consenting adults ∙ special privileges ∙ government regulation ∙ life ∙ liberty ∙ property ∙ enforce contracts ∙ meddle ∙ for your own good

❝❝If you wonder where radfems got the idea that they are living in an unforgiving patriarchy, a rape society, a "man's world" that degrades women, it's because that's the way their "allies" have treated them.

They just think it's everyone.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ RadFem ∙ patriarchy ∙ rape culture ∙ man's world ∙ degrades women

Folks probably already know this, but this brand of revisionism uses hard confrontation with constantly escalating stakes. You can't win against it by being loud, that just makes you the closest and biggest target.

---

There have been many terrible things done in the name of an absolute, "transcendent" morality. Many by Christians. Many by Christians to Christians. And many by Christians to Christians in the last century alone.

A label doesn't define morality. In the words of Mark Twain, "Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often."

I'd rather know what someone has done than what they call themselves.

---

I have defended rights for homosexuals in comment threads on this site.

I want to make a distinction here. What the radical feminists are "fighting" for are not rights, but exclusive and irrevocable privileges backed by the force of law.

Rights do not emanate from a state, nor do they require state sanction or approval.

Most importantly, it's not a right unless the other guy has it too.

I tell people that I am not for Native American rights, homosexual rights, "black" rights, or women's rights.

I'm for human rights.

And you should be too.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ revisionism ∙ hard confrontation ∙ constantly escalating ∙ rights ∙ Christians ∙ labels ∙ RadFem ∙ privilege ∙ human rights

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Bernie Sanders ∙ 2016 election ∙ land deal ∙ Democrat corruption ∙ prison ∙ Seattle ∙ income tax ∙ anal sex ∙ teenagers ∙ Massachusetts ∙ secret car compartments ∙ California ∙ socialism ∙ NYPD ∙ Bill de Blasio ∙ FedGovs ∙ Montana ∙ hemp farm ∙ Connecticut ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ decline of marriage ∙ Las Vegas ∙ RadFem

❝❝There's a very real question why there should be any government grants, but I will leave that for another time.

Assume for a moment that you ran a bookstore. Should you be required by law to carry the Bible even though you were not Christian and did not believe Christianity was a valid faith? What if someone complained because you didn't have it?

Should a vegan restaurant be required to sell pulled pork BBQ?

Should a health food store be required to sell pipe tobacco?

---

Except we know that government does mandate that some products and services be sold or provided.

Let's take another example or two, shall we?

Imagine you are a lawyer or accountant. You know a specific businessman is crooked and can't be trusted. Should you be required to provided services?

Imagine you are an employer. Should you be required to verify the immigration status of each of your employees?

Most importantly, why should prior marginalization get a higher priority when it comes to the rule of law? Doesn't that lead to abuse of it's own when the formerly victimized class games the system?

---

Ah, so you are going to stick to "class of people." That's the problem. People aren't their labels. Or at least they shouldn't be.

Someone doesn't have higher moral authority because their group has been marginalized in the past.

And just in case you hadn't noticed, "American identity politics" is all about oppressing everyone else. All of which is predicated on the guilt of the former oppressor.

---

Black Lives Matter. All too ready to go after "white" cops, but doesn't want to address the problem of "black on black" crime. Nor does it want to address the major underlying problem, single parent families. Something that was encouraged by government, effectively relegating inner city families to poverty. Nor do they accept any criticism of their movement.

Much of third and fourth wave feminism. Apparently feminism is no longer about equality, it's about forcing men to sit down and shut up. And if a man complains, he's accused of rape.

The recent kerfuffle over the "redesigned" rainbow flag that put black and brown stripes at the top so that "people of color" had "representation." Literally "my victimhood is more important than your victimhood."

Identity politics is built on a carefully maintained hierarchy of victimhood. You're not allowed to speak unless you rank high enough with your victimhood or have demonstrated sufficient "compassion," usually by drawing attention to the "problem." But never actually solving anything.

And you are not allowed to question the victimhood.

---

Stop.

Step back. You are excusing their behavior.

Look at what has been done, not at the justifications.

Look at what is allowed within the groups.

Your enabling is just one example of what has locked people into their victimhood.

---

What you've given is excuses why people can't be held accountable.

Black Lives Matter is pushing a narrative that all police interactions with minorities but especially with "blacks" are racist. That's not true. And as I said, they overlook "black" on "black" crime that does not fit with the narrative.

It's victimhood I don't like, especially when perpetuated by bad government policy and "community outreach" that exploits the victims by keeping them victims.

---

And the courts were wrong.

Not because interracial marriages were wrong (they aren't). But because government can't be trusted to make individual moral decisions for you.

If you didn't choose your morality and if you do not commit to your morality, is it really yours?

Or did it just get sacrificed for the greater good?

---

Remember, most of the complaints against the current President are because he is doing the wrong moral things. Or at least, according to some people. Such as pulling out of the Paris accord.

Frankly there are people I want to discriminate against. There are evangelical Christians I want nothing to do with. There are radical feminists that I also don't want anything to do with. My list also includes some of the climate alarmists, the man-boy love crowd, anyone associated with a child beauty pageant, the extra-devout followers of Silver Ravenwolf, pretty much any organized political party, and a few dozen others.

Should government protect those people from my discrimination?

---

Actually we don't know that pulling out of the Paris accord is dangerous for the planet.

Here's what we do know. The "debate" about climate change has been heavily weighed on one side. A recent study has some of the most prominent climate alarmists admitting that the predictions didn't match the reality. President Obama committed the US, but the G20 and Obama didn't call it a treaty so it wouldn't have to go to the US Senate for approval. These aren't exactly moral actions.

Commerce is based on voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults. There's no “public service” about it. A company improves it's product or service (and lowers the price) because it wants to keep business from the competition. The "moral good" is based on pure greed. Nothing government demands from a business won't impose greater costs on the customer. Government relies on force. When government acts against people, it distorts the economy and morality.

It's not about public service, and commerce shouldn't answer to corrupt politicos.

---

The data was fudged. The people who fudged it knew it. The people who sought to make it a political issue beyond the control of any single government knew it.

If it's not about "saving the planet," then you have to ask what it is about. Especially when there is an everchanging deadline and No One Is Allowed To Question the failed predictions.

The entire movement is built on computer models, not science. I can't emphasize that enough. Models, not science. If the models have bad assumptions and/or if the data has been changed, the models aren't accurate.

But, "the science is settled." So you aren't allowed to dissent. You wouldn't accept that from a Creationist, why accept it from people who benefit financially and politically from forcing their agenda?

---

That wasn't what I said.

The models haven't been accurate in more than a dozen years. Even before that, the models had to be "goosed" to show a link between the past and the present.

I've said before that I can create a spreadsheet that makes me a millionaire in a week. That doesn't mean that the spreadsheet is accurate. And it sure doesn't mean I should wave cash around.

If the model isn't accurate, if we know it's not accurate, and if the people pushing the model hardest know that it's not accurate, don't you think it's time to ask why we should use the model?

---

No, that is what you have been told that the model is.

I strongly urge you to take a closer look. And I would remind you that there is no science in history that has ever been considered holy writ and beyond criticism.

For example, if I wanted to know the average global temperature right now this very minute, I'd have to accept that most land based measuring stations are in developed areas, many in highly urban areas that influence the readings. Satillite measurements are better, but don't go back further than about sixty years. And most of the ocean is a mystery below a mile deep.

So what exactly is the global average temperature?

---

I'm not shy about it. I don't approve of their life choices. I especially don't approve when *insert group name here* demands that it is not enough for to acknowledge their words and actions, it must be celebrated as the only accepted truth.

I don't want them on the ballot. I don't want to do business with them. I don't want them in my town.

And I think they are corrupting society.

Again, should government protect them from my discrimination?

---

I may not be a pure libertarian when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, but I don't usually initiate force. It's sloppy and takes too much energy.

“How many NAMBLA neighbors do you have, anyway?”

One.

Once.

---

I've been a corporate VP and I've run my own business.

Can you point to the spot in the Constitution where it defines the powers of the Federal government to control who I can and can't do business with? How about the spot where it defines that I must do business with everyone who wants to do business with me? Because under the Tenth Amendment, there isn't one.

If government isn't defending my ability to choose as long as I accept the consequences, then government has failed.

Even if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

Especially if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

If I am not free to discriminate as I choose, then government is discriminating against me. And that is what we see now. Some choices are more equal than others.

---

Not really.

That clause is the most abused in the Constitution, largely because it does not place significant restrictions on the Federal government. By some interpretations, the government can do what it wants when it wants and despite what people want. When you consider that everything from FDA approval to requiring transgender bathrooms is shoved through that loophole, it's a wonder that there is anything left of the rest of the Constitution.

Even in your flawed interpretation, public accommodation only applies in certain cases. Some are more victimized than others, remember?

---

Volumes have also been written against it. For generations in fact, right back to to the Anti-Federalist Papers

And then there is always the practical common sense approach. Here's the clause straight from Article 1 Section 8.

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

I can tell you know many Diné, Hopi, Havasupai, and White Mountain Apache who think that "Great White Father speaks with forked tongue." Just look at what the Interior Department did when it came to mineral rights.

You've tried to tell me what the consensus says, but you haven't disputed my conclusions. The commerce clause has been used to expand Federal power far beyond the scope of the rest of the Constitution. The only other comparable Federal power grab in American history has been the USA PATRIOT Act and the open-ended declaration of hostilities that happened after 9-11.

---

Or we could just stop handing out government grants and do something radically different like lower taxes, reduce government spending, and let people decide what to do with their own money.

---

Church playgrounds aren't national religious issues unless government is funding them.

The First Amendment is very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Neither help nor hinder. It's the only way to win this particular battle. Otherwise you have things like a Faith Based Initiative (for certain faiths approved by law) and school prayer.

---

I think we do. And it's right there in the First Amendment.

Don't.

If there is one thing worse than a politico wrapping themselves in the flag, it's a politico standing on religion wrapping themselves in a flag.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ grants ∙ religion ∙ business ∙ bookstore ∙ Bible ∙ vegan ∙ pulled pork BBQ ∙ health food store ∙ pipe tobacco ∙ government mandate ∙ immigration ∙ marginalization ∙ rule of law ∙ moral authority ∙ Black Lives Matter ∙ third wave feminism ∙ fourth wave feminism ∙ equality ∙ rape ∙ rainbow flag ∙ victimhood ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ identity politics ∙ compassion ∙ interracial marriages ∙ moral decisions ∙ greater good ∙ Paris accord ∙ Christians ∙ RadFem ∙ climate alarmist ∙ man-boy love ∙ beauty pageant ∙ Silver Ravenwolf ∙ discrimination ∙ G20 ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Senate ∙ commerce ∙ commerce clause ∙ improves ∙ competition ∙ voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults ∙ computer models ∙ global temperature ∙ climate change ∙ Zero Agression Principle ∙ NAMBLA ∙ neighbors

The Imperious Leader has is trying to phase out coal

Tags: RadFem ∙ hero ∙ FamousFeminists ∙ Snoopy ∙ Charlie Brown ∙ Peanuts

❝❝First, not all feminists. And not all lesbians.

Now with that out of the way, these particular females (I will not dignify them as ladies) do have a big problem.

It's all about the guilt. If the guys don't feel guilt, there is no way these females will get their way. I for one am tired of it. I've been lectured to about the need for keeping silent when the RadFems are speaking. I've been lectured for pointing out that environmentalism makes no sense while ecology does. I've been lectured for saying #AllLivesMatter. And I have been lectured to when I refused to change my lifestyle because it is not acceptable to feminism.

KYFHO.

I make the same stand against them that I make against some of the conservative Christians. My life is my own. My choices are my own. My responsibility is my own.

---

Unfortunately, that's not enough for some conservative Christians.

They want to meddle. For the greater good, of course.

And that means taking lives and responsibility away from other people.

---

If you bother to read my comments, you'll find I don't try to hide what I am saying. After all, I am a pagan libertarian posting openly on a conservative mostly Christian board.

If you had asked me about the "culture wars," I'd tell you that war is the wrong way to think about it. War is backed by force. If you can't convince someone that your way is right without resorting to force, you're doing it wrong.

What you believe isn't important to me. Your freedom to choose what to believe, that is vital. That is what I will defend.❞ class="ghoster">❞

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

❝❝I'm not familiar with the work, but we've seen these discussions far too often. Take the allegation that the United States is a "rape culture." Or the notion that anyone who says "all lives matter" instead of "black lives matter" is a racist.

In this specific case, look at the mindsets involved. One wants validation and their demands enshrined in law and regulation. The other wants a better world for them and theirs. Yet both are treated as if the RadFem ideology is dominant.

There are women who consider themselves feminists that think wife and mother is a valid choice and don't want anything to do with the RadFems. But these are not the ladies doing it for attention. They won't be published. They won't be picketing. They won't be giving soundbites for the news or YouTube. That's not how they believe lasting change happens.

Words matter. Actions matter more. Intentions don't.❞ class="ghoster">❞

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

❝❝Perhaps we could just say stuff happens and individuals need to be held responsible.

The trends argument is the same justification that the RadFems use against males in general. You can pick and choose bad examples and ignore the good examples. That way, you never need to talk about individuals, it's about trends and statistics and who is the greater "danger to the community."

Why is it better when conservatives use that justification against whatever Label X is this week?

Until and unless you can show that all of Label X engages in Action Y AND no one who is Not Label X engages in Action Y, the argument falls down. Which means maybe, just maybe we should look at something other than the label.❞ class="ghoster">❞

Certainly not all women are like that. What we have is a very small group that wants political power and public validation in the worst way. Yes, it’s another case of Those Who Want To Be Noticed.

Tags: The Other McCain ∙ reluctant advocate ∙ sex ∙ feminism ∙ RadFem ∙ Manosphere ∙ rights ∙ vote ∙ RSM

More than one stream.

Tags: personal choice ∙ personal freedom ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ RadFem