To be civil, or not to be civil: that is the question

(NOTE: The video linked to the thumbnail image of Bill Maher below has been taken down by YouTube. But you can still read the transcript of Maher's remarks if you CLICK HERE.

I forgot where I found this sentence, but I love it: "If Christianity is about anything it is about the fact that the awakened consciousness of one human heart can change the entire course of mankind." I sincerely believe that. The question of when to be "civil" (courteous and kind) and when to be "uncivil" (blunt and confrontational) in discussing politics and political strategies is not an easy one. It is true that people never improve out of hatred, contempt and/or scorn; they improve out of love. It is also true that there are adamantly "reprobate" (Jer 7:27-30, Ro 1:28, 2 Cor 13:5-7, 2 Tim 3:8, Tit 1:16) "many-there-be-who-choose-destruction" or "scumbag1" individuals who have no intellectual curiosity, no intellectual honesty, and who delight in trying to destroy all that is good in the world for their own selfish purposes. In such cases, the question arises: should one attempt to "overcome evil with good" (Ro 12:21), in such an ineffective "namby-pamby" way as to merely enable the evil, or, per such scriptures as Amos 5:15, Isa 5:20, Lu 17:3, Pr 28:23, Eph 5:6-7, Eph 5:11, Gal 6:7-9 and 1 Thes 5:21, should one rebuke the evil openly and bluntly so that it may be plainly seen and understood by those who have not yet made up their minds which path they want to follow (or align themselves with "politically2"?

After much study, thought, prayer and meditation, I have come to a conclusion that when dealing with an individual in person and on a personal level, kindness, grace and mercy should be a Christian's default demeanor. In other words, one must be very careful to notice when a good-faith honest discussion or conversation is starting to get emotionally overheated. It is crucial that a Christian take care to avoid doing anything that would function as a stumbling block and drive a person farther from God (aka "enlightenment" for our atheist friends).

On the other hand, in an atmosphere of rudeness and demonization as preferred strategies, inherent evil and inevitable corruption such as politics2, especially when combined with the anonymity and impersonality of the Internet, I suspect it is probably more effective, and a better idea, to be blunt and confrontational. Because, in that context, one is operating strictly in the realm of ideas against wannabe-clever scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners, "eat shit and die" adversaries; and because some ideas are so utterly evil, so deceptive, so manipulative, so destructive, so UNsustainable, and/or so seriously devoid of the remotest shred of logical merit, that they deserve to be openly ridiculed and warred against for exactly what they are.

I especially love it when PhD professors at major universities are either too ignorant or too dishonest to admit to the historical truth about the PROVABLE DOCUMENTED intent of the Founders regarding paper money, yet they call other people "wing nuts." That's right: in reality, they don't give a damn about the U.S. Constitution or rule of law, but they have the unmitigated gall call other people (probably including people like me) "wing nuts". Well, I'm calling you out, Richard: you're a manipulative wannabe-clever douchebag who refuses to talk about certain inconvenient historical FACTS. That's why it's perfectly fine with me when I see Christians such as Andrew Klavan using ridicule as a tool against the sophistry and propaganda of the so-called "Left". Considering the behavior of the Left, it seems perfectly appropriate. See the videos below.

One must never lose sight of the fact steal-and-redistribute libs' manipulative inventions of "tolerance" and "diversity" are expressly designed for nothing more or less than to steal your labor. One must also never forget the fact that neither the "Left" nor the "Right" will talk about the historical truth about the mechanics of money, because "money" is their main tool for stealing your labor, albeit in very different ways. See the essays linked to the following banners.


SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

Goudy-Bachman, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. - U.S. District Judge Christopher Connor shoots down Obamacare's individual mandate.

Andrew Klavan: Shut Up - YouTube video

PJTV's Andrew Klavan: Political Correctness Kills

Andrew Klavan, Liberalism Exposed: Beyond the Elitist, Preening America-Hating Stereotypes

Afterburner: The Truth Is Out There - YouTube video

Bill Whittle does a fine job of deconstructing lib sophistry and "polemic" strategies, then he turns right around and misuses that wonderful deconstruct to pooh pooh what he disingenuously calls "conspiracies" — actual provable historical truths — as being lib constructs. I've got news for Bill Whittle: the bullet that killed JFK came from the front. That's not a lib argument — I'm the farthest thing possible from a prog — that's a self-evident fact, something guys like Bill Whittle, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the right wing talking heads don't like to talk about. Of course the left won't talk about it either, which is why I say a pox on both their houses. Saying all that, however, in no way detracts from the wonderful Socratic job Whittle did deconstructing lib BS. Whittle is like a guy writing two paragraphs, the first of which is brilliant and right on the money, and the second of which is total propagandistic BS. One can still use the brilliant paragraph for educational purposes regarding left-wing BS while using the second paragraph for eduational purposes regarding right-wing BS. Another thing you won't hear guys like Bill Whittle talk about is the fact there were 15 slugs in the walls of the room where RFK was killed, yet Sirhan's gun only held 8 bullets. The left needs powerful gubmint to steal and redistribute labor. The right gives lip service to "smaller" gubmint, but does everything they can to preserve the raw power of gubmint to carry out its agendas in secret. The FED/IRS must be abolished. It is also time to abolish the corporation. It might have been useful during the establishment of railroads across the country, but its time has passed. The combination of corporate law and bankruptcy law allow a man to own several corporations, transfer the assets of B, C & D to A and tell B, C & D creditors to whistle for their money. Individuals, partners & share holders can jolly well be responsible for their own businesses without hiding behind political2 cover. The corporation (especially the "Federal" Reserve) is a giant obfuscation. As a general rule, especially in gubmint, I very much prefer transparency and accountability to obfuscation and thievery.

Ex-liberal comedian, writer, lecturer and pundit, Evan Sayet's brilliant 3/5/07 speech/analysis on how so-called "liberals" think and why they think the way they do" was captured on a video uploaded to YouTube. Although the visual quality is poor, the audio is sufficiently adequate to enable the listener to easily hear what is being said. The video is old, but the material is both morally and intellectually timeless.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION: "How Modern Liberals Think" - YouTube video

For your convenience, I have taken the time to transcribe some of Sayet's remarks with which I completely agree:

"The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success . . . The question becomes 'why? How do they think they're making a better world? . . . If they're not stupid and they're not evil, then what's their plan? How do they think they're making a better world?"

"What I discovered is . . . that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with, none of the religions, none of the philosophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government, none have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime and injustice. So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, poverty, crime and injustice must be found, can only be found, in the attempt to be right."

"See, if nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn't disagree, surely we wouldn't fight. If we didn't fight, of course, we couldn't go to war. Without war there would be no poverty. Without poverty there would be no crime. Without crime there would be no injustice."

"It's a Utopian vision. And all that's required to usher in this Utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality and decency — all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right, and moving towards it."

"What's so Orwellian — and virtually everything about their philosophy is Orwellian — is that the 'liberals' are as illiberal as you can imagine."

"What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate rational thought, the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove what is right isn't right, and to prove that wrong isn't wrong. To bring about a philosophy . . . where anything and everything that mankind values is devalued to the point where there's nothing left to kill or die for."

"Everything they believe is designed, everything they teach in our schools, everything they make into movies, the messages of the movies, the TV shows, the newspaper stories that they pick, and how to spin them, have but one criterion for truth, beauty, honesty, etc., etc., and that's does it tear down what is good and elevate what is evil? Does it tear down what is right and elevate what is wrong? Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the ones that lead to falure, until there's nothing left to believe in?"

"The way the elitist does this is by teaching our children, starting with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry. That no matter how sincerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your personal bigotries . . . that no matter what your conclusion, it is useless. It is nothing other than a reflection of your bigotries. And, therefore, the only way to eliminate bigotry is to eliminate rational thought."

"In order to eliminate discrimination, the modern liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate."

"The problem, of course, is that the ability to discriminate, to thoughtfully choose the better of the available options, as in 'she's a discriminating shopper', is the essence of rational thought. So quite literally we are dealing with the whole of Western Europe and today's Democratic Party, dominated as it is by this philosophy, that rejects rational thought as a 'hate crime.'"

"Indiscriminateness of thought doesn't just lead to sometimes being right. It actually is a philosophy that has an inevitable conclusion [that there is no good] . . . Without a recognition of good, then how do you progress towards good? Which puts the lie to the concept that modern liberalism is progressive in any fashion. If they have nothing to progress towards, if there is no good, then they are forcing every single generation to not only reinvent the wheel but to fight every battle we've ever fought to get to this great nation and this great time that we're in."

"One of the big canards of modern liberalism is this notion of diversity, as if diversity is a virtue. Diversity is not a virtue. Diversity is meaningless. Diversity just means different. Without the critical and moral judgment to say 'yes, it's different and good, you're not only not supporting good, but, quite literally, in a good society, your are inherently supporting evil, [most] failed and wrong."

Billionaire Jim Rogers and Glenn Beck discuss a
possible economic collapse. Stock up!
- GBTV video

RANDOM FRIVOLITY: Following is a good way to make meatballs for spaghetti and meatballs. I learned about an old general rule: one egg per about one pound of meat. Of course you can experiment with the recipe and do it your way. Bobby Maroni uses only ground chuck. Bobby Flay used a combination of pork, beef and veal, but he thought the meat, although perfectly flavored, was a little too dry. I had excellent results with a pound of homemade Italian sausage, and I'd like to try chicken as well. The quality of meat is crucial in cooking, so I like to grind (the British say "mince") my own ground meats. what type of meat you use makes a noticeable difference in rolling the meatballs. You may want to adjust the other ingredients (e.g. eggs, milk and bread crumbs) accordingly.

Grandma Maronis Meatballs - See Maroni Cuisine - See also the recipe "Grandma Maronis Meatballs 100 Year Old Recipe"


1. As I said in the "Welcome" section of this website, (it bears constant repetition): Regarding the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads work. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling reprobate, treasonous-to-the-U.S.-Constitution "scum" what it is.

2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. After all, the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David, were murderers. In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to individual freedom.

Under construction . . .