Buckle Up!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2019-12-03 10:31

We're back, after I took time out to try to come to grips with the enormity—by which I had become beyond-gobsmacked—of the evil prowling through the universe in the form of Soros, Schiff, ARI and its puny apologists, Pelosi, Nadler, Romney, Stelter, Chuck Todd, Jihadi Jacinda, Winston Global Migration Soros-Peters, all the screeching fry-quacking females on the "mainstream" networks, et al. Not to mention the Islamosavages stabbing people on London Bridge, and Sinosavages promoting the triumph of Chinese totalitarianism worldwide by 2049—Islamo-Marxists in general—whom all of these sub-maggots enable.

I still can't come to grips with any of it, except to think there has to be a force for evil at loose which is greater than the sum of parts such as this parade of cockroaches. I realise this is Platonism on my part, hence the time out for re-evaluation. I draw people's attention to the disclaimer at the bottom of every page here re whether the opinions expressed align with Objectivism. Among the people to whom I have personally expressed these opinions I have received only splutterings to the effect of, "How can someone so intelligent believe in a devil?!" I reply, "ostensively!" Just look!

I don't mean an Occasional Cortex look-alike with a pitchfork. I mean an incomprehensibly, cosmically vicious antecedent force into which such sub-maggots gleefully tap.

Debate welcome!

A couple of music reviews from the last month will follow. A bit of catching up to do.


Bruno's picture

You comment:

All their soldiers are sexually blackmailed, mostly pedophiles. They will fight to the death because the cult will kill them promptly if they don’t and because they don’t want their grandchildren learning what they are really all about and because they know they have passed the Rubicon and Trump is coming for them and will not stop.

That is certainly seeming more and more plausible by the day, as more and more is being revealed (to name a few, Epstein, Prince Andrew, Joe Biden).

From Catholic Encyclopedia 1913, Demonical Possession:

.. the influence of the demon, as we know from Scripture and the history of the Church, goes further still. He may attack man's body from without (obsession), or assume control of it from within (possession). As we gather from the Fathers and the theologians, the soul itself can never be "possessed" nor deprived of liberty, though its ordinary control over the members of the body may be hindered by the obsessing spirit (cf. St. Aug., "De sp. et an.", 27; St. Thomas, "In II Sent.", d. VIII, Q. i; Ribet, "La mystique divine", Paris, 1883, pp. 190 sqq.).

Full text: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm


Just listen to this creature speak. What is he trying to say?



Bruno's picture

Actually, evil is not considered "real", as you can see in Aquinas below.

It is considered a privation. A nothingness. The absence of good.

However, the existence of purely spiritual beings is considered actual, namely angels and demons (soul without body).

The aforementioned can be considered coming from "another dimension" if you will, namely heaven.

The devil and his demons (thrown back to earth) are then presumably at work to trick and deceive people into sin, and the angels to help and show truth.

The devil is referred to as "the father of lies" and "the prince of this world", so he has great power to deceive human beings, seeing how he was able to deceive many angels, purely spiritual beings, who are now demons; he also has great power in this world, seeing that Jesus would address him as the prince of it.

This is exactly why...

Olivia's picture

This kind of lying behavior can hardly be explained by "irrationality", since we find very purposeful and calculated lies.

...why Jefferson said 'the price of liberty is eternal vigilance!'

Conservatives and liberty-minded people have been asleep in their Republic - in fact the Christian Right, while claiming to believe that “evil” is real and pours in from another dimension via demons and Satan and all that guff, failed to deal with it in the human dimension of the real world and those who came to power in their Republic.
It emboldened the other side and just when they thought they had it all in the bag, until the last election.
Now, they are literally fighting for dominion over the realm of man (the Left) - and their enemies have at last realised they need to be more vigilant or they will lose their liberty.

They worship Satan

Jon Letendre's picture

Hi Linz,

They and their bosses worship Lucifer/Moloch/Baal/Satan. Recognition of this fact does not imply belief in deities, only an understanding that they do believe.

The greater-than-sum aspect, Linz, is their inestimable group cohesion. Liddle’ Schitt and the others, they are in a mutual blackmail society. They don’t have to wonder for they know what happens if they become a problem, indeed Brother Jeffrey provides a recent example: They will be arrested and then murdered, whether held at a highest security facility or anywhere else in the world.

All their soldiers are sexually blackmailed, mostly pedophiles. They will fight to the death because the cult will kill them promptly if they don’t and because they don’t want their grandchildren learning what they are really all about and because they know they have passed the Rubicon and Trump is coming for them and will not stop.

Aquinas - Evil does not exist independently

Bruno's picture

Aquinas offers a somewhat similar analysis to Rand's:


"I answer that, It must be said that every evil in some way has a cause. For evil is the absence of the good, which is natural and due to a thing. But that anything fail from its natural and due disposition can come only from some cause drawing it out of its proper disposition. For a heavy thing is not moved upwards except by some impelling force; nor does an agent fail in its action except from some impediment. But only good can be a cause; because nothing can be a cause except inasmuch as it is a being, and every being, as such, is good.

And if we consider the special kinds of causes, we see that the agent, the form, and the end, import some kind of perfection which belongs to the notion of good. Even matter, as a potentiality to good, has the nature of good. Now that good is the cause of evil by way of the material cause was shown above (I:48:3). For it was shown that good is the subject of evil. But evil has no formal cause, rather is it a privation of form; likewise, neither has it a final cause, but rather is it a privation of order to the proper end; since not only the end has the nature of good, but also the useful, which is ordered to the end. Evil, however, has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.

In proof of this, we must know that evil is caused in the action otherwise than in the effect. In the action evil is caused by reason of the defect of some principle of action, either of the principal or the instrumental agent; thus the defect in the movement of an animal may happen by reason of the weakness of the motive power, as in the case of children, or by reason only of the ineptitude of the instrument, as in the lame. On the other hand, evil is caused in a thing, but not in the proper effect of the agent, sometimes by the power of the agent, sometimes by reason of a defect, either of the agent or of the matter. It is caused by reason of the power or perfection of the agent when there necessarily follows on the form intended by the agent the privation of another form; as, for instance, when on the form of fire there follows the privation of the form of air or of water. Therefore, as the more perfect the fire is in strength, so much the more perfectly does it impress its own form, so also the more perfectly does it corrupt the contrary. Hence that evil and corruption befall air and water comes from the perfection of the fire: but this is accidental; because fire does not aim at the privation of the form of water, but at the bringing in of its own form, though by doing this it also accidentally causes the other. But if there is a defect in the proper effect of the fire—as, for instance, that it fails to heat—this comes either by defect of the action, which implies the defect of some principle, as was said above, or by the indisposition of the matter, which does not receive the action of the fire, the agent. But this very fact that it is a deficient being is accidental to good to which of itself it belongs to act. Hence it is true that evil in no way has any but an accidental cause; and thus is good the cause of evil. "

From the Summa Theologica, Question 49, The Cause of Evil

What is a lie in the first place?

Bruno's picture

Relevant to the discussion, what is lying?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (the real thing, 1913) - link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathe...


Lying, as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, is a statement at variance with the mind. This definition is more accurate than most others which are current. Thus a recent authority defines a lie as a false statement made with the intention of deceiving. But it is possible to lie without making a false statement and without any intention of deceiving. For if a man makes a statement which he thinks is false, but which in reality is true he certainly lies inasmuch as he intends to say what is false, and although a well-known liar may have no intention of deceiving others — for he knows that no one believes a word he says — yet if he speaks at variance with his mind he does not cease to lie.

Following St. Augustine and St. Thomas, Catholic divines and ethical writers commonly make a distinction between (1) injurious, or hurtful, (2) officious, and (3) jocose lies. Jocose lies are told for the purpose of affording amusement. Of course what is said merely and obviously in joke cannot be a lie: in order to have any malice in it, what is said must be naturally capable of deceiving others and must be said with the intention of saying what is false. An officious, or white, lie is such that it does nobody any injury: it is a lie of excuse, or a lie told to benefit somebody. An injurious lie is one which does harm.

It has always been admitted that the question of lying creates great difficulties for the moralist. From the dawn of ethical speculation there have been two different opinions on the question as to whether lying is ever permissible. Aristotle, in his Ethics, seems to hold that it is never allowable to tell a lie, while Plato, in his Republic, is more accommodating; he allows doctors and statesmen to lie occasionally for the good of their patients and for the common weal. Modern philosophers are divided in the same way. Kant allowed a lie under no circumstance.

Paulsen and most modern non-Catholic writers admit the lawfulness of the lie of necessity. Indeed the pragmatic tendency of the day, which denies that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and measures the morality of actions by their effect on society and on the individual, would seem to open wide the gates to all but injurious lies. But even on the ground of pragmatism it is well for us to bear in mind that white lies are apt to prepare the way for others of a darker hue.

There is some difference of opinion among the Fathers of the Christian Church […]

Let's take a step back

Bruno's picture

Let's take a step back, because frankly I don't know how to "go on" much yet as far as the Christian doctrine and I would certainly make a mockery of it if I tried to pontificate on it - pun intended.

What I think we can all agree on is that this kind of lying is evil, and that it makes deformity out of what ought to be a rational being.

What I mean though by the fact that "irrationality" can hardly explain this evil, I should make clearer.

I agree that evil is irrational, if by irrational we mean contrary to the proper course of Man.

However, take Rand's explanation:

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.”

She is saying here that root of all evil is "the refusal to think", but how to reconcile this assumption with the kind of "purposeful and calculated" lies we are talking about?

Is that the root of Soros' evil? An unfocused mind? He seems pretty focused to me, too much so.

This Book

Grant Jones's picture

Michael Walsh's "The Devil's Pleasure Palace" explains how we got here. Well worth a read.


It gets worse...

Mr_Lineberry's picture

This kind of lying behavior

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This kind of lying behavior can hardly be explained by "irrationality", since we find very purposeful and calculated lies.

Quite so. Adam Schiff, Yawon Sowos, Joe Biden, Crooked Hillary, Jerry Nadler, Mitt Romney, Jihadi Jacinda ... It's way more than mere "irrationality."

There is however the Christian explanation.

Please go on!!

Father of Lies

Bruno's picture

Dear Linzio,

Welcome back! Glad to see SOLO back online.

In the last few years we've been uncovering lies and more lies, and more lies on top of that. I am speaking of a big "us", all the truth-seekers in many fields.

Lies within the objectivist camp, lies in politics, in education, in science, in nutrition, lies everywhere.

It was quite astonishing at first, although my surprise-ometer isn't quite as excitable now.
I have started expecting lies everywhere I look.

This kind of lying behavior can hardly be explained by "irrationality", since we find very purposeful and calculated lies.

There is however the Christian explanation.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.