Top conservative blog?

John Hawkins of the Right Wing News has VP at #16 on his list of the 40 Best Conservative Blogs. I’m flattered, of course, but just a little confused given my decidedly non-conservative views on a whole panoply of political issues. Although perhaps this is a sign that conservatives are moving in a more libertarian direction after that whole experiment in Big Government Conservativism didn’t turn out so well.

The glorious return of Uber Dawks

Speaking of social autism, Uber Dawks offers this timely reminder that atheists who believe in reason don’t actually tend to utilize it well:

I see that your and fellow idiot fundies at WND who are somehow trying spin the Florida School Board shooting story into an anti-atheist screed because the shooter listed his religion as “Humanist” and was obviously ultra-liberal. I am now anxiously awaiting the typical Vox Day commentary bereft of logic and reason, much like your belief in Jesus.

This is typical conservative bait and switch and it disgusts me. You and your WND comrades should be ashamed. The world would be a better place if you idiots would just realize that you are fighting a losing battle against progress, including atheism and social equality. You just don’t understand that the human society is evolving into a better social construct, much like humans themselves have evolved into creatures that transcend racial inequality and sexual biology. We are no longer driven by the need to herd and procreate but have progressed into a society where freethinking is encouraged and sexual preference has transcended basic biology.

I’ve said it before an I’ll say it again – YOU IDIOT FUNDIES ARE LOSING! Humanism is a philosophy that will take over because it is based on REASON – and no smear campaign against it like linking a crazed Florida shooter to humanism will change that. Learn to give up your myths and this season celebrate reason. You people infuriate me and I anxiously await the day that you have been pushed out by science reason and are gone from our society.

Ah, yet another atheist arguing that the actions of a humanist [and probable atheist] should not be cited as an argument against atheism even though he has cited the actions of religious individuals as an argument against religion in the past. No doubt he would similarly argue that mass murders committed by atheists cannot possibly be attributed to their atheism even as he “anxiously” awaits the day that “science reason” has pushed theists out of his society. No doubt that’s just a coincidence and has nothing to do with his own atheism, right?

And who but an atheist would ever think to take the example of a humanist committing suicide and attempt to spin it into evidence for the ultimate triumph of humanism. Remember, these people genuinely believe they are more intelligent than you are.

UPDATE: Uber Dawks adds the following: You are missing the point entirely. The man did not shoot at others and then kill himself BECAUSE he was a humanist or an atheist, which is the same mistake you make when you mention Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. The conservative media is already pointing to his atheism/humanism in order to paint the same sort of idiotic argument you make when mentioning the atheism of Joseph Stalin, etc. Epic fail.

Interesting. And leads to the question, would Uber Dawk hate “IDIOT FUNDIES” and dream about “Science Reason” pushing them from his society if he were not an atheist? Isn’t it his atheism that is behind his hatred? Some people really need to stop deifying reason and start using it.

Men’s rights and historical realism

In Mala Fide lays heavily into The Thinking Housewife, but to my mind, the primary criticism should be the way in which she missed the point of the reader’s question as well as the larger issue underlying it:

We don’t live in a culture where responsibilities can be ‘imposed’ on persons outside of voluntary choice. So, my question would be, how can you possibly speak of men possessing ‘responsibilities toward women’ (and therefore reject the MRM’s self-focus approach) as a group when our culture doesn’t even recognize ‘groups’, it only recognizes individuals?

Men’s rights advocates say they seek equality with women and aim to redress the inferior status feminists have imposed on them. They seek to counterbalance feminism with “men’s rights,” envisioning some hypothetical state of fairness and justice, or at least saying they envision some hypothetical state of fairness and justice. Feminists also claim to seek fairness, but this is a dishonest pose, a cover for the pursuit of superiority for women. Men’s rights advocates say they want equality too and generally do not argue for patriarchal authority. This may be because they labor under a sincere, but misguided belief in radical egalitarianism or because they know that an explicit affirmation of male leadership entails some formal recognition of male responsibility. Some seem to detest the notion of male responsibility because they genuinely detest women and want to owe them nothing.

Male authority, on a practical level, is necessary. But it is more than a practical necessity. It is rooted in human nature and in the nature of God. Men’s rights advocates do not seek the restoration of the traditional father or male head. That generally does not seem to be their goal although certainly there are men who do advocate this, men who do criticize feminism and who do not fit into the mold of the typical men’s rights supporter. Typical men’s rights supporters speak of equality with women, but at the same time relentlessly assert the morally superiority of men. They offer some token acknowledgement now and then that women may be capable of good, but mostly they demonize women and offer virtually no acknowledgement of the good women may do or the harm done to women by feminism. They would just as soon see women sink or swim their own. Just like feminists, they say women should have a choice to be either careerists or homemakers. This is true. Women should have some choice, but our culture must affirm one of these roles as superior since they are mutally exclusive. Men’s rights advocates will argue that women are not very good at being careerists, but they are remarkably silent on the subject of what women are good at and how they might be enabled to do what they are naturally good at doing.

The Thinking Housewife summarizes the matter by naming her post Does Society Need Men’s Rights. Now, regardless of whether one interprets this question overly literally or with regards to the sense in which she and the reader refer to “Men’s Rights” as the male egalitarian response to the legal overreach of the feminist movement, I tend to see the entire discussion as somewhat beside the point. I am not a men’s rights activist nor a men’s rights supporter for the obvious reason that I do not believe in the existence of equality before the law or any other kind of equality. I would simply describe myself as a historical realist, which is why my general sympathies are with all three of them despite their differences.

The simple fact is that restoring Western society to a genuinely equalitarian state will change nothing about its trajectory, it will merely provide for a nominally more equitable period of decline and collapse. Neither MRA atomists nor traditionalists under the influence of quasi-egalitarianism are relevant to the larger scale problem, which is more related to demographics and debt than who gets what after the divorce or whether men should avoid marriage. That doesn’t make the personal issues any less important to the individuals concerned, but let’s not have the discussion under the illusion that it’s actually significant on the societal level.

At this point, I am skeptical that even banning women’s suffrage tomorrow would suffice to salvage the Western society. And that’s not going to happen until Western democracy collapses as completely as Athenian democracy did.

Living on sufferance

And at the will of your own government. Nat Hentoff rightly decries the federal government’s assertion of its Constitutional license to freely and legally murder American citizens:

On Dec. 7, the case before U.S. District Court Judge John Bates in Washington was described by him as presenting “stark and perplexing questions.” Can the president, the judge continued, “order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization?”

What did Judge Bates decide? He dismissed the case!

Thereby he greatly pleased the defendants: “Barack Obama, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Robert Gates, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; and Leon Panetta, in his official capacity as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Now, MPAI is no secret. But I am increasingly convinced that so long as the mainstream media uniformly pushed the idea that it was necessary for national security or good for the economy, it would be possible to sell the American people on anything from gassing Jews to gang-raping schoolchildren.

And for a judge to declare that it is a purely political matter – not a Constitutional one – for the Executive branch to unilaterally decide to execute an American citizen without so much as an arrest, let alone a trial, means that the Constitution, especially the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, is de facto defunct. And liberals, how can sodomy, homogamy and abortion possibly be considered Constitutional rights when not being murdered by the federal government without due process of law isn’t?

I guess they had better hope Americans never elect a president who really dislikes gays or women who murder unborn children. Or anything else, for that matter. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law… with due regard for the man giving orders to the guy controlling the Hellfire-armed Predator circling over your house.