Don't Denouce Behaviours You Engage In
By now, we know about the story about the anti-gay priest who had sex with a male prostitute. And of course, the left screams - actually snickers - hypocracy.
For them, this is a happy day. They are now hoping that gay marriage will be approved. The opposition to gay marriage is nothing more than a stop-gap measure, and will eventually become reality. Gay marriage is what happens in a declining civilization - it was permitted during the Roman Empire, when it started it's decline - and our civilization has been declining since 1914. And it lasts a few hundred years, and terminates when society can no longer afford it. Indeed, there is no other civilization where same-sex marriage was allowed.
But enough about the gay bashing. I am here to write about something else.
It turns out that some of the most prominent gay bashers are themselves buttfuckers. Like they are trying to prove something. Not only this pastor, but also, the head of Exodus, an organization that claims you can cure homosexuality, John Paulk, seems to like to hang around gay bars "to check the scene out." Now, I'm not gay, but I certainly have never been to a gay bar, a meat rack, a tea room, a bathhouse, a "book store," or any other such place. And I have no desire to "check the scene out" - I would probably get grossed out. And there are many people who preach tolerance toward gay behavior, who are straight, who also have never been to such places.
And, yes, I do believe that most gays - but not all (remember "progressives" - that's an absolute) - are "born gay." The problem Christianity has with homosexuality is not some person who has an interest in the same sex, but that they carry out their temptations. Denunciation of homosexuality comes primarily from the Abrahamiac religions. Some gay activists, in arguing for churches to accept them, say "how can you deny your feelings?" Well, actually, the big thing Christianity teaches is to resist temptation, and that means denying your feelings. The late Sam Kinnison was quite clear - you suck the dick, you lose the Kingdom. No ifs, ands, or, well, forgive the pun, butts.
There are some sects of Christianity that both recognize and reconciliate this fact. They accept gay individuals as members. As long as they are celibate (or marry the opposite sex, and have no extramariatial sex). For the Bible - and the Quran, and the Talmud - repeatedly condemn this action. I believe that God gives us our own temptations, as part of our test in life, and we need to be able to overcome them to pass. Anything else is sophistry.
Now, I was once a real homophobe. That is when I was a leftist. But ironically, I became more tolerant the summer I became a conservative. Now, I really don't care if two guys want to engage in such behavior. The reason why I write about it so much is because radical gay activists have pushed their own gay causes so much, that it has pretty much become a top issue. It wasn't W who made it a big issue in 2004, it was Gavin Newsome, who married gays at City Hall. And they have constantly been pushing their agenda since Stonewall.
In any case, now that I have outlined my belief, I will outline the other moral of the story. If you are going to voicifirously condemn something, don't engage in that behaviour yourself.
It turns out that, often, the most ardent opponnents of a behaviour are secret - or not so secret - practitioners of that behaviour. As I mentioned about some bigtime homophobes above. But it is not only on the right.
You see, the left engages in major hypocracy too. Especially the leadership. Because to rise to the top, you need money. And lots of it. And, often, it is unearned.
Who is the biggest opponnent of tax cuts? Ted Kennedy. And how much wealth has he created? Less than I have - and I don't have much. But his wealth is the result of the hard work of four previous generations. Now he gets to live like a degenerate, and denounce low taxes.
You might not grasp how a rich person who denounces tax cuts would be a hypocrite. But that is because you probably do not have the intelligence, or an open-enough mind, to grasp a critical fact. It has to do with a basic economic law, about the value of something.
It is outlined in the diamond-water paradox. Water, essential for life, is very cheap - unless you are snooty and pay $5.00/gallon at PCC markets (see P.T. Barnum). Diamonds, on the other hand, are essentially worthless, and you pay several thousands of dollars for a tiny spec of a glass-like material. (There are diamonds that have value, like in cutting things, but those are not shiny, and are pretty cheap). So why are diamonds worth a ton, and water is very, very cheap? Not only does it have to do with supply, but also in the way people perceive the value of each item. Indeed, if we based something on need, water would still probably be pretty cheap due to supply, but diamonds would be just as cheap, per volume, because they have no real worth whatsoever.
One can extend this to wealth. Someone who is born to tons and tons of wealth have a low marginal value per dollar. On the other hand, someone who does not have a lot of wealth has a high marginal value per dollar. A person who is earning $40,000/year, whose has no real assets, is obviously going to value $500 much more than a person who makes (such person certainly is not doing anything to "earn" this money) $160,000/year and is worth several hundred million dollars. Indeed, the former person is going to value $500 much more than the latter person would value $20 million. Because the former person needs the $500 much more than the worthless, degenerate bum who has spent his life trying to destroy this country and tries to live off of the legacy of a dead brother. Not only is there the supply side argument about creating jobs, there is also this argument that tax cuts benefits average individuals like me much more than drunken politicians who have never earned a dollar in their life.
This is partially where hypocracy comes in. But there is more. If they do not get born into money, they marry into it. They refuse to expose their wealth to the tax collectors by purchasing municipal bonds. Or they set up "trusts." Yes, they might sacrafice by getting a "lower rate of return," but they are still coming out way ahead of most individuals. In a twisted way, maybe WPPSS was a fair way of getting some money back. As we can see by the latter generation of the Kennedys, they certainly have benefited from, and sensually enjoyed, their wealth. The Kennedys have not given all their money to the poor, or lived monk-like lives. If taxes go up, their lifestyles do not change. That is because they have so much wealth, they can still afford to purchase whatever they desire (legal or non-legal). But they advocate that we engage in "sacrifice," by cutting back our consumption, so we can pay more in taxes. As is, the savings rates of Americans may now be nil. A few years ago, it was 2%, which does not allow for much cutting back.
This is not practicing what you preach. This is why rich liberals are much bigger hypocrates than the occasional degenerate conservative. While a degenerate conservative might lobby against gay marriage while buttfucking a male prostitute, at least a studmuffin can still go down to the local bathhouse and have sex with eight men a night. When a leftist pushes for higher taxes, and still continues with their lifestyle, we average folks have to cut back on our consumption to pay for these taxes (as well as the other economic problems created due to high taxes).
Thus, if the left wants to push for higher taxes, I think we conservatives should start publically asking if the Kennedys will cut back on their very high level of consumption to show that they actually empathize with those who work for a living (and do not make a lot). Or if George Soros will give all his wealth to food banks or NGO relief agencies so they can buy food for destitute individuals.
There was one modern individual who tried hard to do this. He preached for the destitute, and he was rich. However, he knew his own hypocracy, so when he couldn't give all his wealth away, he simply left it behind. His name was Leo Tolstoy, and I think those redistributionists need to learn from his example.
I think we conservatives have ammo here, just like the left has ammo against homophobic buttfuckers. We also have ammo against those leftists with armed bodyguards who preach gun-control (they can get serious about this issue when they give them up and live in the real world). Engaging in behaviour you work to prevent ends up in a loss of credibility.
Which is why the pastor not only gave up his position as head of the organization, but as head of his church. Because he really did engage in the behaviour - although the ho failed his lie detector test. Had he engaged in moral activity, he could have withstood those attacks on his character, and if he had backbone, come out with even more credibility. If he truly only wanted massages, he could have legally found one very easily, especially in Colorado Springs. There are tons in that town, because the people there are all fat and unhealthy, and get soft tissue injuries quite easily, creating a lot of demand for their services (and no, I don't mean "services." I'm talking about the legit ones). I know, because over half of my Colorado claims come from that one city, whose metropolitian area is much smaller than that of Denver. And fat people need massages much more than not-fat people. Once I dated this obese chick who "woke up wrong" and had to postpone going out because she needed to massage her condition away. Not only is obesity a turn-off for me, but so is someone who gets injured all the time.
Now, if you do not condemn a behaviour, but get caught doing it, you will not lose face. The best example is Rush Limbaugh's pill behaviour. While the left was complaining about his "hypocracy," they had no basis to so argue. The last time Rush had denounced drugs was in 1996 - two years before he even tried Oxycontin. And he only very sporadically denounced such activities before then. Because he did not denounce a behaviour in which he was engaged, when he was caught taking drugs, his audience did not flee in disgust, but stayed with him. And the left looked silly.
So, if you are a preacher who likes buttfucking, do not volunteer to lead the fight against gay marriage. Or, if you are a rich person who enjoys your wealth, do not denounce tax cuts. Because by doing so, you not only have no credibility, but you also look like a buffoon.
For them, this is a happy day. They are now hoping that gay marriage will be approved. The opposition to gay marriage is nothing more than a stop-gap measure, and will eventually become reality. Gay marriage is what happens in a declining civilization - it was permitted during the Roman Empire, when it started it's decline - and our civilization has been declining since 1914. And it lasts a few hundred years, and terminates when society can no longer afford it. Indeed, there is no other civilization where same-sex marriage was allowed.
But enough about the gay bashing. I am here to write about something else.
It turns out that some of the most prominent gay bashers are themselves buttfuckers. Like they are trying to prove something. Not only this pastor, but also, the head of Exodus, an organization that claims you can cure homosexuality, John Paulk, seems to like to hang around gay bars "to check the scene out." Now, I'm not gay, but I certainly have never been to a gay bar, a meat rack, a tea room, a bathhouse, a "book store," or any other such place. And I have no desire to "check the scene out" - I would probably get grossed out. And there are many people who preach tolerance toward gay behavior, who are straight, who also have never been to such places.
And, yes, I do believe that most gays - but not all (remember "progressives" - that's an absolute) - are "born gay." The problem Christianity has with homosexuality is not some person who has an interest in the same sex, but that they carry out their temptations. Denunciation of homosexuality comes primarily from the Abrahamiac religions. Some gay activists, in arguing for churches to accept them, say "how can you deny your feelings?" Well, actually, the big thing Christianity teaches is to resist temptation, and that means denying your feelings. The late Sam Kinnison was quite clear - you suck the dick, you lose the Kingdom. No ifs, ands, or, well, forgive the pun, butts.
There are some sects of Christianity that both recognize and reconciliate this fact. They accept gay individuals as members. As long as they are celibate (or marry the opposite sex, and have no extramariatial sex). For the Bible - and the Quran, and the Talmud - repeatedly condemn this action. I believe that God gives us our own temptations, as part of our test in life, and we need to be able to overcome them to pass. Anything else is sophistry.
Now, I was once a real homophobe. That is when I was a leftist. But ironically, I became more tolerant the summer I became a conservative. Now, I really don't care if two guys want to engage in such behavior. The reason why I write about it so much is because radical gay activists have pushed their own gay causes so much, that it has pretty much become a top issue. It wasn't W who made it a big issue in 2004, it was Gavin Newsome, who married gays at City Hall. And they have constantly been pushing their agenda since Stonewall.
In any case, now that I have outlined my belief, I will outline the other moral of the story. If you are going to voicifirously condemn something, don't engage in that behaviour yourself.
It turns out that, often, the most ardent opponnents of a behaviour are secret - or not so secret - practitioners of that behaviour. As I mentioned about some bigtime homophobes above. But it is not only on the right.
You see, the left engages in major hypocracy too. Especially the leadership. Because to rise to the top, you need money. And lots of it. And, often, it is unearned.
Who is the biggest opponnent of tax cuts? Ted Kennedy. And how much wealth has he created? Less than I have - and I don't have much. But his wealth is the result of the hard work of four previous generations. Now he gets to live like a degenerate, and denounce low taxes.
You might not grasp how a rich person who denounces tax cuts would be a hypocrite. But that is because you probably do not have the intelligence, or an open-enough mind, to grasp a critical fact. It has to do with a basic economic law, about the value of something.
It is outlined in the diamond-water paradox. Water, essential for life, is very cheap - unless you are snooty and pay $5.00/gallon at PCC markets (see P.T. Barnum). Diamonds, on the other hand, are essentially worthless, and you pay several thousands of dollars for a tiny spec of a glass-like material. (There are diamonds that have value, like in cutting things, but those are not shiny, and are pretty cheap). So why are diamonds worth a ton, and water is very, very cheap? Not only does it have to do with supply, but also in the way people perceive the value of each item. Indeed, if we based something on need, water would still probably be pretty cheap due to supply, but diamonds would be just as cheap, per volume, because they have no real worth whatsoever.
One can extend this to wealth. Someone who is born to tons and tons of wealth have a low marginal value per dollar. On the other hand, someone who does not have a lot of wealth has a high marginal value per dollar. A person who is earning $40,000/year, whose has no real assets, is obviously going to value $500 much more than a person who makes (such person certainly is not doing anything to "earn" this money) $160,000/year and is worth several hundred million dollars. Indeed, the former person is going to value $500 much more than the latter person would value $20 million. Because the former person needs the $500 much more than the worthless, degenerate bum who has spent his life trying to destroy this country and tries to live off of the legacy of a dead brother. Not only is there the supply side argument about creating jobs, there is also this argument that tax cuts benefits average individuals like me much more than drunken politicians who have never earned a dollar in their life.
This is partially where hypocracy comes in. But there is more. If they do not get born into money, they marry into it. They refuse to expose their wealth to the tax collectors by purchasing municipal bonds. Or they set up "trusts." Yes, they might sacrafice by getting a "lower rate of return," but they are still coming out way ahead of most individuals. In a twisted way, maybe WPPSS was a fair way of getting some money back. As we can see by the latter generation of the Kennedys, they certainly have benefited from, and sensually enjoyed, their wealth. The Kennedys have not given all their money to the poor, or lived monk-like lives. If taxes go up, their lifestyles do not change. That is because they have so much wealth, they can still afford to purchase whatever they desire (legal or non-legal). But they advocate that we engage in "sacrifice," by cutting back our consumption, so we can pay more in taxes. As is, the savings rates of Americans may now be nil. A few years ago, it was 2%, which does not allow for much cutting back.
This is not practicing what you preach. This is why rich liberals are much bigger hypocrates than the occasional degenerate conservative. While a degenerate conservative might lobby against gay marriage while buttfucking a male prostitute, at least a studmuffin can still go down to the local bathhouse and have sex with eight men a night. When a leftist pushes for higher taxes, and still continues with their lifestyle, we average folks have to cut back on our consumption to pay for these taxes (as well as the other economic problems created due to high taxes).
Thus, if the left wants to push for higher taxes, I think we conservatives should start publically asking if the Kennedys will cut back on their very high level of consumption to show that they actually empathize with those who work for a living (and do not make a lot). Or if George Soros will give all his wealth to food banks or NGO relief agencies so they can buy food for destitute individuals.
There was one modern individual who tried hard to do this. He preached for the destitute, and he was rich. However, he knew his own hypocracy, so when he couldn't give all his wealth away, he simply left it behind. His name was Leo Tolstoy, and I think those redistributionists need to learn from his example.
I think we conservatives have ammo here, just like the left has ammo against homophobic buttfuckers. We also have ammo against those leftists with armed bodyguards who preach gun-control (they can get serious about this issue when they give them up and live in the real world). Engaging in behaviour you work to prevent ends up in a loss of credibility.
Which is why the pastor not only gave up his position as head of the organization, but as head of his church. Because he really did engage in the behaviour - although the ho failed his lie detector test. Had he engaged in moral activity, he could have withstood those attacks on his character, and if he had backbone, come out with even more credibility. If he truly only wanted massages, he could have legally found one very easily, especially in Colorado Springs. There are tons in that town, because the people there are all fat and unhealthy, and get soft tissue injuries quite easily, creating a lot of demand for their services (and no, I don't mean "services." I'm talking about the legit ones). I know, because over half of my Colorado claims come from that one city, whose metropolitian area is much smaller than that of Denver. And fat people need massages much more than not-fat people. Once I dated this obese chick who "woke up wrong" and had to postpone going out because she needed to massage her condition away. Not only is obesity a turn-off for me, but so is someone who gets injured all the time.
Now, if you do not condemn a behaviour, but get caught doing it, you will not lose face. The best example is Rush Limbaugh's pill behaviour. While the left was complaining about his "hypocracy," they had no basis to so argue. The last time Rush had denounced drugs was in 1996 - two years before he even tried Oxycontin. And he only very sporadically denounced such activities before then. Because he did not denounce a behaviour in which he was engaged, when he was caught taking drugs, his audience did not flee in disgust, but stayed with him. And the left looked silly.
So, if you are a preacher who likes buttfucking, do not volunteer to lead the fight against gay marriage. Or, if you are a rich person who enjoys your wealth, do not denounce tax cuts. Because by doing so, you not only have no credibility, but you also look like a buffoon.
posted by EricMatthew at 9:29 PM
<< Home