Skip to content

Author: Briggs

September 26, 2018 | 103 Comments

Why “I Believe Survivors” Is Asinine: Kavanaugh vs. Ford, Realists vs. Fantasists.

We’re interested here in why people believe this female Ford’s charges against male SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh. Many progressives say Ford’s evidence, even at this late date (I’m editing this on the morning of 25 September) is “credible.”

What could they mean by this word? And what could they mean when they chant “I believe survivors”?

In the old days, credible, a belief word, meant “appearing to merit belief or acceptance”. This word applied to the evidence used to support a conclusion — such as the conclusion “He’s guilty” — and not the conclusion itself, which here are details of the accusation.

It’s clear, back then, that accusers meant their conclusion to be deducible from the evidence (the details of the accusation). So it was always a question of how reliable the evidence was. We examined the evidence, in each part, and verified whether each part was true, false, or in between.

If the evidence was faulty, lacking, false, uncertain, tainted, or otherwise corrupted, it was tossed. The conclusion could then no longer be deduced, because, obviously, the conclusion was deduced from the evidence. This led to the conclusion being set aside (the conclusion could still be true or false, which we could only know with reference to different evidence than the discredited evidence).

That was then. These days, the conclusion is taken to be true because the charge was made or, rather, because of the “seriousness of the charges.” (Remember Anita Hill?) The charge itself is taken as sufficient evidence. The other evidence, the details in the accusation, are incidental, almost beside the point.

This is why you see people still, right now, saying Ford’s accusations are “credible”, even though her evidence has fallen apart (e.g., all the people she said were at her party under oath swore they were not present). They still say “credible” because the main evidence is the accusation itself; those details about who was where when are trivial distractions. It doesn’t matter if the details are true or false.

This new interpretation is everywhere. Global warming is true because of the seriousness of the charges. Incidentals like failed climate models are dismissed. The charge — or theory — is true because of its inherent importance.

I am a woman because I say I am. The biological evidence that I am a male is incidental, and dismissed, because of the seriousness of the charges.

This new definition of credible therefore represents a true Triumph of the Will. Reality itself must bend to our desires. Let me explain that, too.

Substituting fantasy and desire for Reality has, of course, always been with us. But it is only now that it is becoming institutionalized, the default reaction. “The law of the land,” and so forth.

The divide is between Realists and Fantasists. In Ford’s case, the Realists are frustrated Fantasists still believe even though all Ford’s direct evidence has been proved faulty; therefore the conclusion does not follow. “Why can’t they see that?” Realists ask.

The Fantasists do not care about the incidental evidence. The charge is too serious in all its consequences. Therefore the conclusion must be true. “Why can’t the Realists understand this?” they counter. (Some hovering between Reality and Fantasy try to make hay of highly circumstantial evidence, such as that some witnesses reported seeing Kavanaugh drunk before.)

The only sole lone thing that could “destroy” Ford’s conclusion is that if she publicly, forcefully, and loudly declares, “I lied.” The charge will have been removed; therefore, the conclusion no longer follows, even for a Fantasist.

This same battle takes place everywhere the Culture War is fought. This is why it always appears the battle over direct evidence never goes anywhere. It can’t. It’s ultimately a battle of who has True Authority. Nature, and Nature’s God, i.e. Reality, or Man’s Will.

This explains why charges of sexual assault do not (often) work against progressive politicians. Fantasists, which are most progressives, use seriousness of the charges as their main evidence, ignoring, when convenient, the details of the accusation. When a progressive politician is accused, and the charges bear up, the Fantasist fallacy works in the opposite direction.

First there are the ends-justify-the-means crowd, the pure Machiavellians. Liars all. There isn’t any need to explain this. But this group, once the largest, is about even with pure Fantasists. These folks actually believe. The Machiavellian knows he’s lying, but the Fantasist does not. The consequences of losing the progressive politician because of the charge are so serious (and this varies by the person under consideration, of course) that the Fantasist cannot believe the charges against the progressive politician are true, not really true.

Of course, when the politician is of no more use, or is otherwise a liability, the charges against him are treated just like charges against a Realist. Even Bill Clinton is still believed.

Finally “I believe survivors”. Why wouldn’t a “survivor” be believed? A survivor is a person who was almost killed only to be saved by some thing or event. Only kidding: “survivor” means victim of some sort, even where the threat of death was low or non-existent. Skip that.

The only reason not to believe a “survivor” is because it is suspected the “survivor” is lying about being a “survivor”. To issue the blanket statement “I believe survivors” thus discounts any possibility, or rather any interest, in whether the “survivor” is lying (or mistaken). It is to say the consequences of the “survivor’s” charges are too serious for their accusation not to be believed. A “survivor” who lied is not a survivor.

“I believe survivors” is thus pure Fantasist thinking.

Addendum As evidence how bad it’s getting, this: BOY, 13, ARRESTED, CUFFED AND DRAGGED FROM SCHOOL OVER #METOO ALLEGATIONS.

September 25, 2018 | 5 Comments

Cardinal “Soupy” Cupich Tries To Wrap Straight Jacket Around Faithful Priest For Burning Pervert Pennant — Updates

So this Soupy Cupich, cardinal of the Catholic Church, appointee of the Worst Pope Ever, has sicced men in white coats after a faithful priest, a priest who allowed his parishioners to burn a Pervert Pennant.

If the strong arms catch this Rev Paul Kalchik, 56, they’ll wrap him in a straight jacket and toss him to the shrinks for an “evaluation.” More about this not-so-subtle form of torture in a moment—the main point of this post.

First, here’s what happened. Kalchik was 11 when a “gay” neighbor raped him (young boys are a favorite of this set: keep yours away from them). And when he was 19, a homosexual priest went after him.

Kalchik recovered from these attempts at re-orientation and, as is obvious, became a priest himself. A faithful one, by all accounts. All accounts except those put out by Soupy.

Some of Father’s parishioners found an old Pervert Pennant in storage, this one with a cross superimposed on it, and asked to burn it. There was some back and forth on this, as you can read, but eventually the parishioners (not Kalchik) did what was right and torched the unholy cloth.

Soupy found out, became angry, and released the goons.

According to Church Militant, two capersome-merry-lighthearted priests threatened Kalchik with jail and with being sent to the “St. Luke Institute for his ‘psychiatric issues.'” (I loathe the euphemism issues.)

St Luke’s is “a treatment center with a notorious past, whose former CEO was convicted in 2014 of embezzling $200,000 dollars, which he spent on gay lovers.”

Kalchik blew off the devil-may-care-colorful-exuberant goons, who had by then become crude and threatening. “That’s a nice neck you have there, Father,” they in effect said. “Be a shame if anything happened to it.”

Here is what may be Kalchik’s real secular sin, as quoted in the Sun Times: “Of gays in the church, Kalchik says ‘scripture is crystal-clear. It’s against God’s law.'” It is, too. But don’t remind Soupy, who thinks such talk leads “down a rabbit hole.” Soupy would rather talk about global warming.

Kalchik, as of this writing, has gone into hiding. Incidentally, if any reader knows any clear and true ways to getting funds to Kalchik, please let us know.

Now to the point.

Soupy in a letter said he wanted to slip the straight-jacket on Kalchik “out of concern” for his “welfare.”

We earlier met Fr Edwin Palka who told us how threatening and using psychiatric evaluations was a common tactic to keep faithful priests in line. I’ve heard from other priests and rad other material that it’s not uncommon.

Here’s what you should already know: psychologists and psychiatrists and other mental health “workers” have no special expertise in knowing right from wrong, nor in discerning good versus evil, nor in dividing moral versus immoral. None. No shrink is better equipped than the next (educated) guy to tell you if sodomy is sinful or celebration-worthy.

To believe otherwise is to embrace scientism in the wickedest way.

What shrinks can do is after a man has been seen to go wrong, and where right and wrong are externally defined by sages (I trust you understand this word), the shrink can give us clues why the man did what he did. Maybe he had (is this still a euphemism?) a chemical imbalance, or a brain injury, or maybe he’s merely under the sway of idiotic ideas, such as Equality. Or maybe, in the case of a good man, the shrink can tell us what sustained this good. But that’s it. About why good is good, and bad bad, the shrink must defer to his betters—as we all must.

The danger is allowing shrinks, or their fans, to believe they know what is good and what is bad defined by their own terms. If we allow the medical profession to define evil we are doomed (we probably are already).

Professional groups of shrinks famously voted to declassify love of sodomy as a mental malady. That vote was only possible after deciding that love of sodomy is good and not evil, right and not wrong, moral and not immoral. Those shrinks learned that false lesson from the culture—which is now the worst teacher. Shrinks act as if their judgment has scientific merit. It has none. None.

Psych evals were a popular form of threat and punishment in communist countries, all of which were in thrall to scientism. As are we. A tranny on Twitter, whose call about Kalchik was received by Soupy, said “Cardinal Cupich went on to announce that Fr. Kalchik was being removed and sent into a program of pastoral care where Cupich hopes Kalchik will get the help and guidance he desperately needs. Cupich said there is no home for hate within the Roman Catholic Church.”

Soupy is wrong. There is plenty of room for hate. All sin should be hated. And no shrink can tell us what sin is.

Addendum Look for the Update in Dreher’s piece from a priest on how psych evals are weaponized.

Update Father Z’s take: Read and weep: Soviet style “psych” tactics used against priests by bishops.

The pattern is alarmingly similar. The priest has some sort of dust up in the parish (or wherever). For example, a woman gets angry because he preached about contraception, someone claims that he as “boundary issues”, somebody on the staff says that he is “cold” or “remote”. They complain to the bishop. The bishop tells the priest — pressures the priest — to go for “evaluation”. With great trepidation the priest obeys (an important point). He goes for a week or two of evaluation, at the end of which he is told that there isn’t much wrong with him. He goes home, thinking that all is well. Shortly thereafter, he is called in to the bishop’s office, where he is told that the clinic sent the bishop a very different assessment. The priest is diagnosed — and it is always about the same — narcissism and borderline bi-polar. The bishop then really puts the screws to the man to go back that clinic for “treatment”. He is told for three months or so. But when he gets there, and they confiscate his mobile phone and even his shaving kit, and start pumping him full of drugs and monitoring/controlling email, he is told that he’ll be there for six months. The horror show begins.

Go and read the rest.

Update Google “St Luke’s Institute” and look at the pics. Place looks like some kind of psychic abattoir. Google shows a pic from a 2016 gala showing a smiling Cardinal Wuerl (a.k.a. “The Girl”) with others, but it has gone missing from the St Luke website.

Update Church Militant scores an interview with Kalchik.

Update A priest tells of his recent stay at St Luke’s. Must read! “Specifically, one of the doctors evaluating me mentioned how strange is was that I was not sexually active during high school and had not experimented with homosexual acts. He said that such behavior was a normal part of development.”

September 24, 2018 | 21 Comments

I Am About To Destroy The Government — And You Can Be A Witness!

Younger readers may wish to the leave the room. Older ones will want to check that their wills are in order. For I’m about to astonish and amaze with a demonstration of pure political power that will be shocking in its extent. There is a serious risk of damage to your health.

You have been warned.

Ready? Here it comes. This is your last chance to turn back!

I hereby remove my consent to be governed by government of the United States of America.

There! I did it! I have just broke irreparably the entire government!

The reverberations will take some time to filter through the system, it’s true, but it’s a mega Richter Scale 10-point-oh political earthquake that’ll take out everything in its path. And it’s coming your way. Some of you may not be able to avoid the wave. For those “innocents” who are taken out, well, you have my pity. But you should have seen it coming.

“Briggs! What did you do! More importantly, how did you do it?”

What I did was to remove the foundational support of our liberal government. Without that foundation it, of course, cannot stand. It must fall. And it was easy.

“Yes, but how?”

Well, you understand our government derives its legitimacy—this is something they themselves claim, now; they tout it—they derive their legitimacy from the consent of those governed. Isn’t that so? Isn’t that what they claim?

“I suppose so, but I’m not sure what you mean.”

What I mean is easy. If the government bases its legitimacy on the consent of those that it governs, then if that consent is removed, so is the legitimacy of the government. You can’t find a flaw in that argument.

“Don’t be so silly. What they mean by consent is that you live here, so you give your tacit consent. Besides, there’s voting. You can vote for or against what you don’t like, or for or against the people who you think will best represent you. If the vote doesn’t go your way, that’s tough cookies for you. But the vote process remains.”

You’re not following me. Let me try this. First, I have removed any tacit consent overtly. Besides, so-called tacit consent can be used to justify anything. Plus, that we vote on anything is a rule, or law, imposed by those that govern us, yes?

“I suppose so.”

And in order to create legitimate rules or laws the government itself must be legitimate, yes?

“Of course.”

So what makes our government legitimate so that it can create these voting rules and laws? Our consent. That is the definition of the liberalism that the government says it swears to. But I have removed that consent. Therefore, I have removed the government’s legitimacy. Votes don’t count because they are not constituted legitimately.

“Don’t vote, then.”

I won’t do anything, then. At least, I won’t do anything I don’t want to do. That includes forking over my money to an illegitimate government.

“Ha ha. Stop paying taxes and they’ll come after you. You’ll be lucky if all they do is take your money. You could easily end up in the hoosegow.”

You’re saying they would rob me of what’s mine and take away my liberty?

“You know they would.”

Even though I have removed their legitimate authority for doing so?

“You can say you did that. But I don’t think they’ll listen. They certainly won’t believe it. They’re in charge. They’re they ones with the cops and guns. Do you think you’d be able to stop them?”

Now that you mention it, no. Not really. I’m only one guy. I don’t know how I could hold out against their onslaught if they refused to honor their commitment and confess that their only logical justification for punishing me has been removed.

“Face it, Briggs. They have the power and you don’t.”

So my consent has nothing to do with who holds power?

“Not hardly.”

There you have it, friend. You have made the point I really wanted to make. Liberalism is based on a lie.

This post is in honor of Zippy Catholic’s memory. I pray that he is now looking down on it with favor. To all critics: yes, I meant these 680 words to be a complete, exhaustive theory of government, including all possible nuances, shades, and exceptions.

September 23, 2018 | No comments

Summary Against Modern Thought: How Angels See God

Previous post.

Back into some technicalities this week. But with some insight into cause and effect.


1 Moreover, we must inquire whether this knowledge whereby the separate substances and the soul after death know God, through their own essences, suffices for their ultimate felicity.

2 The first thing to be done, in investigating the truth of this question, is to show that the divine essence is not known through such a type of knowledge.

3 In fact, it is possible to know a cause from its effect, in many ways. One way is to take the effect as a means of finding out, concerning the cause, that it exists and that it is of a certain kind. This occurs in the sciences which demonstrate the cause through the effect.

Another way is to see the cause in the effect itself, according as the likeness of the cause is reflected in the effect; thus a man may be seen in a mirror, by virtue of his likeness. And this way is different from the first.

In fact, in the first way there are two cognitions, one of the effect and one of the cause, and one is the cause of the other; for the knowledge of the effect is the cause of the knowing of its cause.

But in the second way there is one vision of both, since at the same time that the effect is seen the cause is also seen in it. A third way is such that the very likeness of the cause, in its effect, is the form by which the effect knows its own cause. For instance, suppose a box had an intellect, and so knew through its form the skilled mind from which such a form proceeded as a likeness of that mind. Now, it is not possible in any of these ways to know from the effect what the cause is, unless the effect be adequate to the cause, one in which the entire virtuality of the cause is expressed.

Notes The second way is somewhat formally neglected in the sciences. It’s there, all right, and must be. But it’s not so much acknowledged.

4 Now, separate substances know God through their substances, as a cause is known through its effect; not, of course, in the first way, for then their knowledge would be discursive; but in the second way, according as one substance sees God in another; and also in the third way, according as any one of them sees God within itself. Now, none of them is an effect adequately representing the power of God, as we showed in Book Two [22ff]. So, it is impossible for them to see the divine essence itself by this kind of knowledge.

5 Besides, the intelligible likeness through which a thing is understood in its substance must be of the same species or, rather, of an identical species; as the form of the house which exists in the mind of the artisan is of the same species as the form of the house which exists in matter, or, rather, the species are identical; for one is not going to understand what a donkey or a horse is through the species of a man.

But the nature of a separate substance is not the same in species as the divine nature, not even the same in genus, as we showed in Book One [25]. Therefore, it is not possible for a separate substance, through its own nature, to understand the divine substance.

Notes The joke has been resisted.

6 Furthermore, every created thing is limited to some genus or species. But the divine essence is unlimited, comprehending within itself every perfection in the whole of existing being, as we showed in Book One [28, 43]. Therefore, it is impossible for the divine substance to be seen through any created being.

7 Moreover, every intelligible species whereby the quiddity or essence of any thing is understood comprehends that thing while representing it; consequently, we call words signifying what such a thing is terms and definitions. But it is impossible for a created likeness to represent God in this way, since every created likeness belongs to a definite genus, while God does not, as we explained in Book One [25]. Therefore, it is not possible for the divine substance to be understood through a created likeness.

8 Furthermore, divine substance is its own existing being, as we showed in Book One [22]. But the being of separate substance is other than its substance, as we proved in Book Two [52]. Therefore, the essence of a separate substance is not an adequate medium whereby God could be seen essentially.

9 However a separate substance does know through its own substance that God is, and that He is the cause of all things, that He is eminent above all and set apart from all, not only from things which exist, but also from things which can be conceived by the created mind. Even we are able to reach this knowledge of God, in some sense; for we know through His effects, that God is, and that He is the cause of other beings, that He is supereminent over other things and set apart from all.

And this is the ultimate and most perfect limit of our knowledge in this life, as Dionysius says in Mystical Theology. “We are united with God as the Unknown.” Indeed, this is the situation, for, while we know of God what He is not, what He is remains quite unknown. Hence, to manifest his ignorance of this sublime knowledge, it is said of Moses that “he went to the dark cloud wherein God was” (Exod. 20:21).

10 Now, since a lower nature only touches with its highest part the lowest part of the next higher nature, this knowledge must be more eminent in separate substances than in us.

This becomes evident in a detailed consideration. For, the more closely and definitely we know the effect of a cause, the more evident does it become that its cause exists.

Now, separate substances, which know God through themselves, are nearer effects and more definite bearers of the likeness of God than the effects through which we know God. Therefore, the separate substances know more certainly and clearly than we that God is.

Again, since it is possible to come in some way to the proper knowledge of a thing by means of negations, as we said above, the more a person can know that a large number of closely related things are set apart from an object, the more does one approach toward a proper knowledge of it. For instance, one approaches closer to a proper knowledge of man when he knows that he is neither an inanimate, nor an insensitive, being than when one merely knows that he is not inanimate; even though neither of them makes it known what man is.

Now, separate substances know more things than we do, and things that are closer to God; consequently, in their understanding, they set apart from God more things, and more intimately related things, than we do. So, they approach more closely to a proper knowledge of Him than we do, although even these substances do not see the divine substance by means of their understanding of themselves.

Also, the more one knows how a man is placed in authority over people in higher positions, the more does one know the high position of this man. Thus, though a rustic may know that the king occupies the highest office in the kingdom, since he is acquainted only with some of the lowest official positions in the kingdom with which he may have some business, he does not know the eminence of the king in the way that another man does who is acquainted with all the leading dignitaries of the kingdom and knows that the king holds authority over them; even though neither type of lower office comprehends the exalted position appropriate to the dignity of the king.

Of course, we are in ignorance, except in regard to the lowest types of beings. So, although we may know that God is higher than all beings, we do not know the divine eminence as separate substances do, for the highest orders of beings are known to them, and they know that God is superior to all of them.

Finally, it is obvious that the more the large number, and great importance, of the effects of a cause become known, the more does the causality of the cause, and its power, become known. As a result, it becomes manifest that separate substances know the causality of God, and His power, better than we do; even though we know that He is the cause of all beings.

Notes It’s good to be the king.