C.S. Lewis on Masturbation

by Limbic on May 17, 2014

“For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.

And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman.

For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival.

Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity.

In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself…After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.”- Personal Letter From Lewis to Keith Masson (found in The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3)

Via http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/c-s-lewis-on-lust-women-and-masturbation 

{ 0 comments }

Revolt of the Right

by Limbic on May 10, 2014

Good Citizens Don't Think by Propaganda Times on Flickr
“Good Citizens Don’t Think” by Propaganda Times on Flickr (CC)

 

Some interesting passages from Tim Black’s review of “Revolt of the Right – Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain by Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin” in Spiked

“What Revolt of the Right captures is a society that, politically speaking, is cleaving along new lines. These lines are not those of nineteenth- or twentieth-century class-based politics; and the political vernacular is not that of socialism and capitalism, of left and right.

The emergent picture, rather, is of a society dominated by a financially secure, university-educated middle class. And more importantly, it is a society dominated by the values of this class. Ford and Goodwin namecheck Adam Przeworksi’s Capitalism and Social Democracy when describing these values as ‘post-material’, encompassing such concerns as the environment, civil liberties and global social justice. But there’s more to this ruling outlook than new left verities. It is seen by its possessors as progressive. They are pro-gay marriage, and against all forms of nastiness. They are cosmopolitan, and against all forms of narrow-mindedness. They are for the European Union, and against all forms of Little Englander sentiment. In short, their values and attitudes are, in the own minds, completely and utterly the right values and attitudes. Their ground is the moral high ground.

But just as this social stratum has come to dominate British public life, to fill public space with its sense of progressive self-righteousness, so other sections of society, from older generations of Britain’s working class to shire Tories, have experienced a shutting out, a quick-quick-slow assault on their values, attitudes and experiences. These people, then, are not simply the Daily Mail-reading Home Counties stereotype, trotted out by too many a complacent London liberal; they number, as Goodwin and Ford make clear, a large section of Britain’s working class, too. And not only do they feel under cultural attack, not only do they feel that even raising the issue of immigration, for example, is ‘politically incorrect’, not only do they feel that they are constantly being told that their values and beliefs are wrong, or backward; politically they have no representation, no voice.

As Goodwin and Ford point out, none of the mainstream parties try to appeal to this ‘left behind’ section of society. More importantly, given the deracinated, relatively memberless nature of the modern political party, which has deeper roots in Oxford University’s politics, philosophy and economics course than in society at large, they have virtually no connection with the so-called left behind. As Ford and Goodwin put it: ‘[The left behind] look out at a fundamentally different Britain: ethnically and culturally diverse; cosmopolitan; integrated in a transnational, European political network; dominated by a university-educated and more prosperous middle class that holds a radically different set of values, all of which is embraced and celebrated by those who rule over them. This is not a country that the rebels recognise, nor one they like.’

What you have, then, is not a political conflict, but a culture war, a face-off between two sets of values and attitudes, with each competing for moral authority. Yet so far it has been a largely one-sided battle, with a self-styled progressive middle class, represented fairly uniformly by a political and media cohort, telling the ‘left behind’ that they’re, well, wrong: that their ‘bigoted’ views are wrong; that their fags and fatty-foods are wrong; that their whole being is, somehow, a bit wrong. The discourse is intemperate and condemnatory, personal and insulting.”

{ 0 comments }

RIP Michael C. Ruppert

by Limbic on April 30, 2014

michael_c_ruppert

Sad to see that Michael C. Ruppert has passed away on April 13th 2014. He committed suicide.

I just finished watching the 6 part series of shorts that Vice did on him, and went to look at Lifeboat Radio when I learned of his death.

http://www.heavy.com/news/2014/04/michael-ruppert-suicide-9-11-conspiracy/
http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/04/mike-ruppert-rip/
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-04-16/in-memoriam-michael-c-ruppert
https://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/news-alerts/item/12454-collapsenets-founder-michael-c-ruppert-has-committed-suicide
http://www.ballerstatus.com/2014/04/15/conspiracy-theorist-michael-c-ruppert-commits-suicide/

{ 0 comments }

Links for April 27th 2014

by Limbic on April 28, 2014

{ 0 comments }

“Set in the year 2038, Earth portrays citizens in that near-future era looking back upon a brutal struggle that took place in the 2020s.

The Helvetian War was unlike anything we’ve seen since the French or Russian Revolutions. A radical rising by a fed-up world middle class, pushed against the wall by cynics and the corrupt connivers.

What they seek – and attain – is not socialism, a discredited foolishness that arose out of silly abstractions that bore no relationship at all to real human nature. Market economies have out-performed socialist or communist or oligarchic ones so overwhelmingly that only delusional fools – or would-be oligarchs – should prefer top-down, bureaucratic control instead of the fluid productivity that we get out of creative competition. (Does that make me sound like a right-winger? Silly. Broaden your memes.)

No, the new radicalism that may be demanded in the 2020s — especially by emerging middle classes in the developing world — is to give all people a chance to compete fairly, free from parasitism by their homegrown kleptocrats and from the rising global variety. Free from the secret, conspiring control of a caste that Adam Smith himself called the oppressors of freedom and market economics across 6000 years.

‘All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.’ –Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations”

CONTRARY BRIN: Will the world’s middle classes rise up, in a “Helvetian War”?

This is similar to the idea that J.G Ballard had in “Millennium People”.

{ 0 comments }

Firoozeh Bazrafkan

by Limbic on April 27, 2014

Passion for Freedom by Firoozeh Bazrafkan

In honour of Danish-Iranian activist and artists Firoozeh Bazrafkan.

{ 0 comments }

The Tree of Contemplative Practices

by Limbic on April 27, 2014

Tree of Contemplative Practices

From http://www.contemplativemind.org/practices/tree

{ 0 comments }

{ 0 comments }

Future Human

by Limbic on April 21, 2014

future_humans

This is the average human face of 2050 (well for women anyway).

Lets hope the mixed humans of the future really are this beautiful!

More at National Geographic’s “Changing Faces of America

{ 0 comments }

Prisoners of Conscience in the The West

by Limbic on April 5, 2014

OKCupid.com with no javascript

“OKCupid needs JavaScript to function”. Why don’t OKCupid also boycott this technology
invented by Brendan Eich, the man they helped hound from his job as CEO of Mozilla?

TL;DR – The resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich is another example of the erosion of civil liberties by those pursuing an ostensibly liberal agenda. They are gnawing at the roots of science and enlightenment values in the name of human rights. Thankfully principled members of minorities whose rights are being fought for are saying “Not in our name”. They understand that freedom – of choice, of belief, of speech – underscore minority rights and are appalled to see them undermined.

I have sitting on a draft post for months on this topic of contemporary Prisoners of Conscience, but have not found the time to write it. I will do a series of posts instead.

It was kicked off by something one of my favourite public intellectuals – Jonathan Rauch – said on an episode of On Being about a year ago (April 2013):

So gay people were the victims of majority intolerance for many, many decades, and public opinion in America is a ferocious thing. Tocqueville wrote about it — “Tyranny of the Majority,” he called it. Something very, very important happened around 2009. The Gallup poll for the first time showed a tie in people saying homosexual relationships were morally acceptable with people saying they were not morally acceptable. And the lines have now crossed. There is now I think it’s like a 9- or 10-point gap of a solid majority of Americans saying it’s OK to be gay. So this is new. This means we’re now the moral majority.

This means the burden of proof is now on the other side. And this means it’s going to be tempting for gay people to press our advantage and try to use the law to make it difficult for people who want to preserve religious traditions that are anti-gay to do so. And we have good reason for that. We have suffered very directly and very concretely and quite often with our lives from religious bigotry. It’s not to say all religion is bigotry. So it is very tempting for us to say let’s drive this out of society altogether. All forms of discrimination, whether religious or not, should be illegal and I’m saying to gay people, no, we’ve got to share the country.

There is a thing called the First Amendment. Religious liberty. We’ll get squashed like bugs on the windshield if we try to go against religious liberty, but more important, we want to be in a live-and-let-live society where no one gets treated as a prisoner of conscience and feels the need to stay in the closet, frightened because of what they believe.

That’s what we fought against all those years, long before marriage, and that’s what we will continue to fight against. And that’s why we need to be champions of all reasonable protections for religious people who may not agree with us and may not want to associate with us, but we need to let them share this country with us.

As a classic non-religious liberal who supports gay rights (including the right to marry and adopt) and all the other enlightenment liberties, Rauch’s comments really struck me hard.

Across the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, And Democratic) countries, in almost every area of politico-social contention (immigration & race, gay rights, gender equality etc) we are creating prisoners of conscience, people “persecuted for the non-violent expression of their conscientiously held beliefs” or forcing people to self-censor out of fear of the consequences of free speech (being fired, prosecuted, publicly attacked, even murdered).

The latest victim of this illiberal enforcement of liberal values – my values – is Brendan Eich.

Eich is a gifted technologist and coder. He was forced to resign from his new position as new CEO of Mozilla because in 2008 he made a private financial donation to Proposition 8, the Californian law opposing gay marriage. Whilst some gay activists were crowing, and online dating site OKCupid was “credited” with being instrumental in forcing Eich to step down after blocking Mozilla Firefox browser (my favourite browser) on this site, many were outraged by the flagrant attack on Eich’s freedom of speech, livelihood, privacy and freedom of conscience.

OKCupid’s publicity stunt was a disgusting exercise in cynical populist bullying. I would boycott it except I would never go near such a site anyway, even if I were single.

Here is Rauch, again, commenting on the affair in the New York Times:

The online campaign that led to Brendan Eich’s resignation was intolerant and obnoxious. Also, stupid. But please don’t blame the gay community. Blame the people who did it and who do not represent or resemble mainstream gay America.

Two things are clear. One, a company is within its rights to dismiss a top executive who does not reflect its values or priorities. Two, activists are within their rights to criticize positions held by corporate executives. So what went wrong in the Mozilla/Eich case? A handful of hotheads forgot what the gay rights movement is fighting for: the embrace of diversity and the freedom for all Americans, gay and straight, to live publicly as who they truly are.

This is why the mainstream gay rights leadership supports free speech. L.G.B.T. people win when both we and our opponents can speak out. It is why most ordinary gay Americans want nothing to do with efforts to silence our adversaries. It is why Andrew Sullivan, a pioneer of the gay-marriage movement, was quick to say, “If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.” That is where gay America’s heart is, even if sometimes the hotheads are noisier.

Lest we forget, the campaign against Eich was not launched by gay rights groups. It was launched by an online dating company called OKCupid. Even OKCupid’s leaders had no plan other than to “raise awareness.” In other words, they were freelance activists engaging in moral grandstanding. Well intentioned? Maybe. Dumb? Assuredly. (Should we boycott every company whose leadership does not support gay marriage? Did these guys think for even 10 seconds?) But, whatever else this may have been, it was hardly the work of the “gay community.”

It’s a big country and there are intolerant and intemperate people on all sides of every issue. This won’t be the last time activists and publicity seekers call for the head of someone they don’t like. When gay-marriage opponents claim that a new reign of terror is abroad in the land, however, please remember that the large majority of gay and lesbian Americans share with the large majority of conservatives and Christians a desire to live and let live, and it is those large majorities that will prevail in our majoritarian country.

Brilliant and undeniably true. Time and again gay activists have shown tremendous integrity and consistency by coming to the moral and even legal defence of people who oppose their (e.g. Peter Tatchell supporting a man arrested for opposing gay marriage).

Rauch also mentions Andrew Sullivan, who I also read and admire. Sullivan was furious about Eich’s treatment at the hands of Mozilla, OKCupid and others.

“The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure…Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.” – “The Hounding of a Heretic”

In a follow-up post

It turns out that Eich might have saved his job had he recanted, like all heretics must. But given the choice of recanting, he failed. Hence the lighting of the fires.

He did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell….what we’re talking about is the obvious and ugly intolerance of parts of the gay movement, who have reacted to years of being subjected to social obloquy by returning the favor

…It is also unbelievably stupid for the gay rights movement. You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christianists? You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it.

The final post in the trilogy has the clincher

Of course Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I’d fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I’m concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

..What if an employee went to a demonstration that his company found objectionable? Would that be a reason to fire him? What we have here is a social pressure to keep your beliefs deeply private for fear of retribution. We are enforcing another sort of closet on others.

…There is not a scintilla of evidence that he has ever discriminated against a single gay person at Mozilla; he was dedicated to continuing Mozilla’s inclusive policies; he was prepared to prove that the accusations against him were unfair, and that his political views would not affect his performance as CEO. But this was not enough. He had to be publicly punished for supporting a Proposition that is no longer in effect. This is absolutely McCarthyism from an increasingly McCarthyite left.

..There you have the illiberal mindset. Morality trumps freedom. Our opponents must be humiliated, ridiculed and “isolated as perverts”. I mean “bigots”, excuse me.

Orwell wept.

Let me finish off this monster post with a video of Jonathan Rauch last year.

 

Also see:

The Mozilla controversy suggests that the sexual revolution is getting ugly » Spectator Blogs

Free Speech Now! | ‘Everything should be open to question’ | Free speech | Interviews | USA | spiked

Against the tyranny of the majority by John Stuart Mill

‘Live by the light of your own reason’ by John Locke

Mozilla’s Gay-Marriage Purge – Bloomberg View

Mozilla and Brendan Eich’s resignation: Why don’t conservatives want to protect ordinary people from discrimination?

Corrosive Conformity – National Review

Mozilla CEO “resigns” after uproar over his opposition to gay marriage « Hot Air

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down – WSJ.com

Bill Maher: “There Is A Gay Mafia — If You Cross Them, You Do Get Whacked” | Video | RealClearPolitics

FAQ on CEO Resignation | The Mozilla Blog

Mozilla’s Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values - Conor Friedersdorf – The Atlantic

Why Gay-Marriage Opponents Should Not Be Treated Like Racists - Conor Friedersdorf – The Atlantic

After Eich resigns, conservatives slam Mozilla—and call for boycott | Ars Technica

MOBZILLA. The Purging of Brendan Eich – The Wilderness

Lesbian Author Tammy Bruce: Mozilla ‘Caved to the Gay Gestapo’ - Truth Revolt

The Ideology Of Totalitarian Humanism  – Radix

 

{ 0 comments }