Tag Archives: humor

The Rise Of The Pinkie Pie State

Towards a Rescued Responsible Masculine Libertarian Utopia

pinkypie balloons

Today dear audience I wish to present before you the awful truth about our society. Through a lengthy nuanced, incoherent political screed, I plan to provide more pop culture references than actual facts to prove that America has gone downhill. America has exchanged pearls for pig slop, cultural and political freedom for limited personal freedom in the name of being squeaky clean and, ew, having fun! The current disaster I bring to you I have named the Pinkie Pie State. The Pinkie Pie State is completely unlike the campaign versus HillaryCare and the concept of the Nanny State of the in the 1990’s. The Pinkie Pie State must be resisted at all costs. We can’t have too many girls hosting parties. in addition to referring to movies you may or may not have seen, I am also going to name drop a few great philosophers from the Western Canon in order to prove that I have transcended today’s shameful habit of playing Identity Politics.

The new world order that we see today has more affinity to the democratic socialist dystopian reality of the world of the Hunger Games. Rather than Katniss Everdeen having the target on her back, it is Peeta and Gale who’s lives are at risk. Given the fact that Johanna Mason is one of the leaders of the “revolution,” she is the actual ideal player for the Pinkie Pie State. Johanna is oppressed by the Motherly bureacrats, and given the fact that President Snow symbolically represents the emasculated man currently running our multinational corporations and universities, the elevator scene highlights just how immoral Johanna is. One should not mistake the rise in the popularity of the Hunger Games trilogy based off of Greek mythology as a mere coincidence. Johanna Mason IS The Pinkie Pie State.

According to the ancient Stoics, the World had a soul on the inside of it. If there was a group of women who had too much fun, then the World’s soul would experience an imbalance. The World’s Soul needs to be saved, and what it suffers from is what I diagnose as The Pinkie Pie State. The Great Western Tradition was built on the backs of, YES, CALL ME POLITICALLY INCORRECT, White Men who believed in the virtue of getting others to do hard work for them, responsibility, and persuading others to take risks for them. As Poulos said yet so eloquently,

“But unlike Adolph Hitler, Andrew W.K. is an American, and one of the great blessings visited upon America is the naiveté about power found in its origins as a new country in a new world. To be sure, native Americans and African Americans have suffered grievously under that naiveté. But it has also spared America from the cataclysmic oscillations between reactionary re-enchantment and revolutionary disenchantment that ruined European civilization and plague it still. From the standpoint of Plato’s fable, America’s residual innocence about power has arrested democracy’s decay into tyranny.”

America’s innocence has prevented Her from becoming an oppressive nation-state. If indeed ignorance is bliss, then America has truly been blessed with a bountiful helping of happiness. Reverse Racism poses as the greatest threat to our national joy, wouldn’t you agree? Reverse Racism and racial violence became popular right around the time that Edward Norton’s American History X debuted in theaters. Whites receiving racial discrimination because of the Black thugs in power became the prevailing unjust philosophy of the day. Thus, American History X made way for the Pinkie Pie State to publish a record number of texts on Critical Race Theory. Bigotry and anger now reigns in the current Era of Twittervists Gone Wild. What we need is a return to Augustine, Plato, Tocqueville, and Hayek and banning the work of Thomas Paine and Frederick Douglass in public and private schools.

There’s absolutely no question that the nuanced difference between the Feminist socialism of Hillary Clinton and the Lean In feminism of the Pinkie Pie State is where women and effeminate men is whereby the women are making more money and therefore having too much hedonistic fun. We must look for a Third Way, a Third Way that will challenge the Pinkie Pie State, and rescue men from Misandrist policies. Protest if you will, but We ARE ALL GILMORE GIRLS NOW, AND ALL MEN ARE LUKE. Like at the end of the episode “Too Many Pinkie Pies,” only a nuanced Western, Responsible, risky rescued Christian Masculinity can prevent Lorelai Gilmores from cloning herself into more Rory Gilmores.

sarcasm: a Christian perspective

Okay, so I have sort of a satirical side to my blogposts from time to time. My sarcastic humor does come out at work occasionally, but it was not until recently I came across the fundamentalist idea that sarcasm was a “sin.” Here’s for example this post by a Thomas Umstattd. But I think that anyone after weighing the Bible’s witness, I must say that what the writer Thomas Umstattd is promoting legalism. Just because he does not understand how something works within the biblical narrative, and because there’s an overuse with a practice, does not in anyway make sarcasm a sin. If I may, one of my favorite stories growing up (and still is) is the story of Elijah confronting the hundreds of prophets of Baal. In 1st Kings 18:27, Elijah is LYING to the prophets of Baal, he ponders, “Is Baal using the restroom? Maybe he has fallen asleep?” In this instance, between the believing audience (us) and Elijah, we know that Baal is just an idol. In the context of confronting idolatry, Elijah insists on using sarcasm to get his point across. This is a man inspired by God, who is carried away in the chariot of fire. The Bible is filled with other stories that involve wordplay and riddles, men of God using mockery and we US American Christians work so hard to sanitize this. God sends lying spirits in the Old Testament. Our God is sovereign, our God is free to use whatever genre He chooses to confront the Enemy. God cannot be contained–which is the goal of legalism. In the moment that Elijah was confronting the prophets of Baal, was he insecure? Nope. Was Elijah demonstrating good leadership? Yes, and he was confronting bad leadership. More importantly, Elijah was not using sarcasm against the persons of the prophets of Baal, notice that. He was critiquing their ideas. So when sarcasm is used to cut at a person personally in their representation of God’s image, that is mockery, and that is wrong and sinful. Yet when sarcasm is used to criticize ideas, this is okay, it is biblical. Lies as Mr Umstattd said are indeed the language of Satan, but so also are half-truths. Truth can be delivered in the form of irony, especially since TRUTH is a Person, the 2nd Person in the Trinity (John 18:37-38). So when one examines the use of saracasm, it should be utilized against problematic ideas that oppress people, for instance.

For more Christian perspectives on sarcasm and its usefulness, see for example this article by Rachel Marie Stone from Christianity Today’s Her.Meneutics: In defense of sarcasm.

Do You Hate Your Enemies Enough To Love Them?

A VERY QUICK THOUGHT EXPERIMENT USING RIGHT WING CONTRARIANISM

In the latest edition of What Nonsense Is NeoCalvinism Preaching today, an employee for John Piper’s Desiring God, referring to Piper’s works, Do You Love Your Enemies Enough to Hate Them?| Desiring God, wants Christians to believe Jesus told us to hate our enemies. A hate, which in turn, will enable Christians to adopt a Crusader theocratic mentality to enact violence upon those we disagree. HATE IN THE NAME OF LOVE YALL. Enter Mr. Parnell:

“And when Jesus said “love,” we should be clear that he didn’t mean hollow good will, or some bland benevolence, or a flakey niceness that hopes our enemies stop being so cruel. Jesus never talks about love that way.”

Good will? Benevolence? Flakey niceness? “Surely now goodness and mercy will FOLLOW me all the days of my life” or “Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you”; the concept of forgiveness means nothing but fire insurance? Oh Parnell probably just means any worldview that endorses nonviolence over bloodshed, and any man (literally) who isn’t a Just War Crusader is probably lacking in the area of masculinity. Did I get that right? Wanna know how many times Mr. Parnell quotes Jesus in his post? ABSOLUTELY ZERO! That’s right! Let’s talk about how Jesus discussed love without actually referring to the Gospels. Makes sense to me.

The one passage from John 5 that the author refers to is concerning the resurrection of the dead, and was completely irrelevant to the subject of Jesus “teaching hate.”

Parnell continues:

“Evil belittles God’s holiness and evidences that his name is not hallowed. We hate evil because it is wrong. But on the other hand, if this hatred is part of loving our enemies, we must hate the evil of our enemies because of what the evil means for them.”

If evil “belittles” God’s holiness, what an absolute puny god you must believe in.

HULK smash PUNY DETERMINIST GOD-LOKI!!

HULK smash PUNY DETERMINIST GOD-LOKI!!

Parnell’s theology (NeoCalvinism) is a god that remains distant, aloof, far above us, with a holiness that stresses separation rather than acts of goodness and redemption. What Piper and other NeoCalvinists are trying to do is to co-opt a set of harmful words usually geared toward the LGBTQIA community, and also apply them to radical Muslims. In both instances, they fail and will continue to fail. Love the sinner but hate the sinner is not only an unbiblical concept, but within the context of NeoCalvinist theology and its view of Total Depravity, it is incredibly harmful. Total Depravity is the extreme version of Augustine’s concept of Original Sin. If we are born inherently sinful, and that sinfulness is (as Original Sin argues) is passed down BIOLOGICALLY, then there is no separation between the sin and the sinner. Since then human fallenness is a natural phenomenon, a person who hates the sin also hates the sinner in Original Sin logic.

Now, not only does Jesus actually talk about what enemy-love looks like, the earliest followers of Christ like the apostle Paul did too. Let’s take a glance, shall we!

Jesus: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:43-48 NIV)

I know Calvinists love Romans a lot, except for that 12th chapter thing. Ethics just gets in the way of everything. Here’s the apostle Paul, as recorded by his secretary, “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] says the Lord” (verse 19). Say it isn’t so! Pauline Christianity also means really trusting in YHWH’s justice rather than our own. Looks like Paul takes his cues from Judaism rather than pagan practices. The living, sacrificial love that Piper and NeoCalvinists completely get wrong is not about calling evil good, (warmongering, violence versus Muslims as a necessary evil to bring about “the Gory Glory of God,” but it is overcoming evil with good. It is engaging the defeated powers of death with the awesome, life-giving peacemaking of Christ Jesus. “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head”

Well, now, that’s awkward. Seems like the apostle Paul is saying we are hoping for our enemies’ wellbeing.

Lastly, let us never forget that God does not die for His enemies (the ungodly as Romans 5:6 says) in Calvinism; since the Elect are predestined, they were chosen to be God’s friends since the beginning of time. So God in Christ cannot exhibit love for his enemies in the least, especially since the reprobate have not a chance in hell of getting into heaven (it’s been foreordained, folks!). Enemy-love as defined by Christ and the Good News gets redefined as worldly acts of needless retributive violence in PiperCalvinism.

God loves the righteous and the unrighteous. I mean, if Romans 3 is understood to be saying that we are all sinners, the logic of “love the sinner, hate the sin” turns on itself. I love myself but I also hate myself, and yet there is not one Bible passage that tells us that we lose the Image of God in us during or after “the Fall”? Even in the context of Matthew 5 (verse 22), Jesus condemns his followers if they rely on namecalling (distorting the Image of God in others)to the pit of Hell. Jesus seems pretty intent on us loving others, yes in a BENEVOLENT, HOPEFUL manner. It really shouldn’t come as a surprise that NeoCalvinists would prefer to affirm a god as hateful rather than any form of divine benevolence. They’ve held that error for well over five centuries, and they can keep it!