Shared post from
Exiting The Cave
Community
Adams Versus Dickinson. Where Do You Fall?

Are you a Dickinson or an Adams? Today, we all think we'd be on Adams' side of the debate. However, given the relationship between the colonies and the British crown, and the people who populated the Continental Congress, I don't think the choice is really all that clear cut.

Imagine it this way: you live in a small territory recently purchased and controlled by the United States. You moved there from your home state where you'd lived most of your life, in order to set up a US outpost, and make a new life for yourself.

Gradually, the federal government starts taking arbitrary liberties with your territory. Revoking constitutionally guaranteed rights, on the basis that it's not "really" the US. Ignoring your pleas for redress. Forcing you to quarter US troops in your home against your will, stationed there because of the strategic importance of the territory.

Then, after a brief protest over these rights violations that gets particularly violent, the US cracks down HARD, and...

Connect with Greg Gauthier and other members of Exiting The Cave community.
See what else the community is up to...

Fantastic article. Pay special attention to the sections on the epistemology of critical race theory, and the idea that "individualism" and "universalism" could only be "white" ideas:

https://areomagazine.com/2020/07/14/the-orwellian-dystopia-of-robin-diangelos-phd-dissertation/

Bioethics as Sociopathy

This video is absolutely stunning in its brazenness. If this fellow is what the academy is producing, then it would seem that the whole job of the bioethicist is to invent new excuses that politicians and bureaucrats can use to expand the harm they do, without pricking their own consciences.

Note the magician's sleight-of-hand trick he's playing, here. His opening gambit is "making risks tolerable". So, of course, everyone goes chasing off after "tolerable". But in actual fact, there is no "risk", here. Risk implies a probability of harm in some action. But infecting everyone means it's not a risk at all: It's a CERTAINTY. These human beings who 'volunteer' to be infected WILL BE HARMED. Whether or not they die from the infection is beside the point. Infecting people IS harming them.

He then compares intentionally infecting people with a virus, to donating a kidney (again, only for the purpose of relative risk comparison). But this is insane. This is ...

Shower Thought - Religions, True and False

The following are things that are presently being informally labelled "religions" by various commentators:

  • Environmentalism (Michael Shellenberger, "Apocalypse Never" )
  • Feminism (Janice Fiamengo, "Daughters of Feminism" )
  • Woke Ideology (James Lindsey, "New Discourses" )
  • Anti-Racism (John McWhorter, "Talking Back, Talking Black" )

There are probably others, but these are the ones I am aware of. Each of these has component features analogous to features of established religions, it is true. Here is an incomplete list that comes to mind:

  • millenarian fatalism
  • original sin
  • salvific rituals
  • blasphemers
  • purity tests
  • sacramental rites
  • priests and theologians
  • saints
  • unquestionable creeds

The point here, is not to try to define religion, or to decide whether or not the various factious movements coming from the humanistic left are indeed religions. Rather, I just want to make the observation, and to ...

post photo preview
Powered by Locals