Posted on 04/19/2009 5:46:40 PM PDT by GoldStandard
Charles Johnson of LGF, or the “Second Coming of Andrew Sullivan” has become somewhat of a mad raving lunatic of late. Railing against Christians, God, and anyone who fails to worship his ‘god’ Barack Obama. He also picks on Glenn Beck and calls him a “punk”. Funny that should come from one who’s way of discourse is to ban or resort to juvenile name calling.
But then again Beck is the star and Johnson, well he’s known for some clique albums on an for exposing faked Bush memos.
Here’s Beck giving Johnson the proverbial stick in the ribs. (Ht STACLU).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34EM0QwZyZk
(Excerpt) Read more at macsmind.com ...
LGF is hands-down the gayest site I’ve ever been to. I used to think it was bad how people kissed JimRob’s ass around here, but the deification of “Charles” over there is downright creepy. And the guy seriously sucks at arguing his points.
"LGF? Is that thing still around?"
My Farewell to Little Green Footballs
Charles Johnson was a major contributor to exposing the Dan Rather memos as fakes.
He is the guy who exactly duplicated the memos in MS Word on the default settings and then produced an animated gif that toggled between the CBS docs and the dummies he had just created, showing they are almost perfectly identical.
That animated gif may have been the single most succinct and persuasive internet post on the CBS memos in the entire affair. It received incredibly wide exposure. It was simple and absolutely devastating.
He deserves all due credit.
But listen, the documents were obvious fakes and there were millions of people who could tell that within 5 seconds of first seeing them. So, if it hadn’t been me or Charles Johnson it would have been somebody else.
Regards,
He started attacking some anti-Jihad site (I admit I don't recall its name at the moment) and lately has been spending a disproportionate amount of time attacking creationism. Between the bailouts, Obama in general, the Pakistan attacks on Mumbai, Somali pirates, and the rest, I don't see why creationism is so high on his list.Obviously, creationism is a *much bigger threat* than Islam. ;')
“Used to post at LGF. There were lots of quick minds there. I wrote Johnson off some months back when he wouldn’t quit obsessing over Creationists. Seems he thinks they are more dangerous than Islamo-fascists. He has apparently continued downhill.” ~ SaxxonWoods
Then I’m pretty sure you’ll remember this quick mind who also used to post there:
Gagdad Bob (Robert Godwin, PhD - Clinical Psychologist)
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Missing Strawberries, or Ten Vicious Attacks on Charles Johnson Before Breakfast
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8580258&postID=673607770924485254
Sources inform me that I have been banned from commenting at LGF for making a vicious — vicious, I tell you! — comment about Charles the other day.
BabbaZee linked to the post, the hyper-vigilant Charles noticed it, and he immediately capped his most amusing and self-aggrandizing commenter.
So at least old yellowstain puts principle — or paranoia — above self-interest, as his blog continues to auto-Sullivanize into a monolithic right-wing frat of anti-intellectual jihadis who know as much about theology and metaphysics as I do about web design and bicycling.
Imagine if I banned all of the people who make vicious comments about me, such as, “Bob, I disagree with you.” To be honest, I’ve never banned a single person, although I have asked a couple of them to go away, mainly because they are just too stupid and/or annoying to understand what is going on here. I’ve never banned anyone for criticizing me, because in nearly every instance, the criticism is self-refuting, especially as it moves up the hysteria scale or down the materialist scale. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t even like it when other Raccoons reflexively defend me from these folks, unless they do so in a way that is funnier than the criticism — which is almost always intrinsically funny if looked at from a sufficient height. In fact, I would be honored if Charles would link to this post, so we can see on a first hand basis how funny his dopey commenters would be!
Being that cyberspace persecutors are everywhere sapping his precious bodily fluids, Charles is a busy man, and can’t possibly have noticed my previous vicious comments about him — about his increasingly anti-intellectual rabble of illibertarian commenters and about what LGF has turned into, with its irrational lurch into a scientistic wacko chamber of substitious idolaters.
Therefore, I’ve extended the courtesy of assembling them all in one place, so he can ban me retroactive to June 14, 2008, when I began addressing the subject.
This is only the first ten. I’ll post some more on the weekend.
1) As Charles Darwin wrote, “While nature, making procreation free, yet submitting survival to a hard trial, chooses from an excess number of individuals the best as worthy of living, thus preserving them alone and in them conserving the species, man limits procreation, but is hysterically concerned that once a being is born it should be preserved at any price.”
Nah, just pulling your leg. That was Adolf Hitler explaining his values — which he derived from immanent nature, not the transcendent Absolute — in Mein Kampf. As someone once said, fascism in all its forms is the violent resistance to transcendence. Therefore, Charles at LGF, or the goons at dailykos, or any other flatland guardians, are not Nazis, since they engage in non-violent resistance to transcendence, as do the ACLU, or People for the American Way, or any other anti-religious activist and/or bigot or plain old ignoramus.
2) You see, the blinkered Lizard thinks that life only points down and back to the dead matter out of which it was magically given birth. But for the Raccoon, life is a symbol (symbol meaning “thrown across”) that again points “up” and “in.” We do not see life as a circular series of lateral mutations, but an open spiral that ultimately rejoins whole and part, absolute and relative, time and eternity, center and periphery, man and God.
And human beings are the “axis” or “pivot” of the whole existentialida. Deep down we all recognize this, albeit often in a garbled and perverted manner, for example, the environmental hysterics or the pompous and deluded LGFers who know they are superior to biology, but have no idea how or why.
Life! If Darwinism is all there is, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. I have no respect for a reductionistic Lizard who is not a nihilist and a sociopath, for he is merely a weakling and coward who lacks basic intellectual honesty and the courage of his convictions. He has his feet planted in the soil of Judeo-Christian values, even while he has his head planted in his ass.
3) Again: to have the courage of one’s convictions and to fully inhabit the Darwinist world of the scientistic imagination would be to live as an animal, not a human. Remember, to a Darwinist, a human being can be nothing other than an animal, pure and simple. Along the lines of our last couple of posts, there can be no radical discontinuity between human and animal — or matter and Truth, behavior and Virtue, accident and Beauty, etc. It is a subhuman world unfit for Man. Which is again why none of them actually live there. They’re all frauds, phonies, and crude loudmouths, including, sad to say, the Head Lizard.
4) Any Lizard who claims their life is meaningful in the context of reductionistic Darwinism is strictly fooling themselves. I won’t argue with them, because there is no reason to take them seriously for even a single moment. If they don’t understand this, they are either stupid or intellectually dishonest. The same applies without qualification to morality, beauty, and truth. Obviously, I will not waste my time “debating” someone who simultaneously believes in Darwinism and truth, as if the transcendent absolute could ever be derived from matter.
I notice that the unsophisticated commenters at LGF also have a caricatured view of the scientific endeavor, as if it is a strictly mechanical process that results from “facts + induction” — as if it requires no imaginative leaps, or an overarching paradigm in order to even perceive a fact! I cannot see that any of them are the least bit acquainted with the philosophy of science, e.g., people like Whitehead and Polanyi.
One stupidly arrogant Lizard even said in response to one of my queries that he believed in “absolute facts” but not “absolute truth.” How to even begin to respond to such sophistry? There is no fact that “speaks for itself,” no experience that tells us what we are experiencing. To paraphrase Weaver, only by knowing little may we know much; logic depends on our “metaphysical dream,” not vice versa. And it should go without saying that it is this Dream that unites men, not the logic. Nazis and Islamists are rational within the logic of their sick dreams.
5) Horizontal folks — flatland materialists, secular pneumapaths, left-brainers, MENSA members, Lizards, et al — love to sneer at religion and exalt the superiority of science or mere reason in understanding the world. But when they do this, they always deal with a caricature of religion based upon their own limited horizontal understanding. In this regard, they are very much like children or primitive people who cannot transcend their narrow cognitive horizons, and mock what they do not understand.
Science can never account for the scientist, that is, for the human subject capable of knowing real truth. Again, it simply assumes the existence of truth-bearing scientists, as if this is not deeply philosophically problematic. How can the watered-down evolution of reductionistic Darwinism ever account for that? It can only pretend to do so, again, by confusing the rays with the sun. But to understand Darwinism is to have transcended it.
6) The problem is, Darwinism should be taught as science, not metaphysics, but virtually all of the middlebrow Lizards absurdly elevate it to a quasi-religious metaphysic that is logically self-refuting at every turn. In turn — and I have noticed this, for example, in many threads at LGF — militant atheists do indeed confuse Darwinism with metaphysics, and blindly defend it with the same belligerence as any “fundamentalist.” Light simply cannot break through their hardened defenses.
Religion easily accommodates science, while the reverse can never be true. Religion accommodates science for the same reason that our minds do. For our minds are designed to know truth, pure and simple, whether it is empirical truth, rational truth, artistic truth, moral truth, or metaphysical truth. Intelligence itself is prior to what it knows, and what it knows is truth (otherwise, “knowledge” is a meaningless, even absurd term). Therefore, intelligence is truth itself implanted within our being, or a prolongation of the Absolute within the relative.
7) Yesterday while commenting at LGF, I couldn’t help noticing how the reductionistic Darwinists practice a sort of inverse mysticism, in that they elevate what can only be ceaseless change into eternal truth. With reductionistic Darwinism, all is change; everything is “on the way” to something else that is equally temporary. In such a paradigm, not only can truth not exist, but we couldn’t know it anyway; the quantification of knowledge undermines its only meaningful measure, which is the intellect in light of the Absolute.
In a way, this is a caricature of Buddhist metaphysics, as it too advances what amounts to a paradox, i.e., “all is flux,” so that it is folly to become attached to the passing stream of maya. However, the ignorant Lizards are missing a very important point, that being that it is possible to escape maya both from “above” and “below,” and this makes all the difference, as the latter is actually a deeper plunge into its snares, a point that the — let us say, less spiritually gifted — LGF commenters never stop proving.
8) In other words, the Buddhist transcends the flux of maya in order to know the eternal, the transcendent Absolute, whereas the Darwinist Lizard goes the other route and identifies eternity with matter. Naturally this makes no sense in a cosmos that is itself contingent and evolving, but there you go. Metaphysically consistent they are not. There is a rebellious streak in them that is very similar to the left (who also escape reality from “below,” except in their case, instead of becoming Darwinist “monotheists” they descend into the fragmented polytheism of multiculturalism, moral relativism, deconstruction, etc.).
In reality, they are two sides of the same worthless coin, just as, say, the Semitic and Eastern religions are two sides of an infinitely precious coin. I am disappointed that Charles can fall for this junk metaphysics — just as he expressed disappointment in me — but in my case I have an excuse, because I only want to be disappointed by the best. I do note that he clearly possesses a kind of peerless left brained, technological kind of lizardy wizardry, and that may be the issue, for every gift carries a potential curse. Every savant is an idiot in certain areas.
9) The scientific reductionist, like a machine, “has reversed the roles, turning its creators into its own creatures; it escapes the control of intelligence as such from the moment that it claims to define the nature of intelligence from the outside and below” (Schuon). People forget that the quantification of all knowledge “necessarily entails an inward impoverishment, unless accompanied by a spiritual science that re-establishes unity and maintains equilibrium.”
This is one of the points I attempted to make at LGF, but to no avail. The bulk of commenters there seem to think that the “wall of separation” between church and state (itself a willful disunderstanding) must somehow extend to science and religion. Talk about a “wedge strategy”! But American schools are not failing because of “too much religion” (and by this I do not mean a religion, but simply a more sophisticated transcendental viewpoint that easily accommodates religion as such). To the contrary, our schools only began to fail after they were taken over by the radical secularists of the left. It could hardly be otherwise. What did you expect, wisdom?
10) Scientistic materialists — including Lizards and other radical Darwinists — are like defoliants, or people who would take an axe to this beautiful tree that has organically grown over the past 2000+ years. When you mess with the fundamental vision that holds a culture together “from the inside,” you are messing with the equivalent of nuclear physics on the collective human plane: an Adam smasher, if you will. You just have no idea what you will unloose from the bowels of hell.
Human beings do not live in world of sense-data. But the postmodern vertical barbarians do. In their small Lizard minds, they are “liberated” from the “childish mythologies” of the past. In my opinion, Charles is quite naive about the inevitable implications of such an intrinsically anti-human ideology. The other day, one of the mutual readers of LGF and One Cosmos was also commenting on the increasing lurch into anti-intellectualism of the former, noting that his rabbi — an eminent scholar — had spent his entire life studying the Torah, and yet, had not even scratched its surface.
But it takes no learning — let alone, wisdom — for a jackbooted mob of metaphysical yahoos to, as the reader put it, “pontificate with grand self-assuredness that they know fully what is meant in all the intricacies and layers of Torah and the rest of us believers are a bunch of deluded dummies. There’s nothing to be said to such people.” Indeed, like gleeful, deicidal three year-olds, these Lizards can tear down in the space of five minutes what it took 3000 years of spiritual genius to build, from Moses to Sandy Koufax.
posted by Gagdad Bob at 7/24/2008 08:07:00 AM 131 comments links to this post
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.