Here's a definite Robert O'Brien Trophy candidate, Linda Kimball. She is the author of this hilariously ridiculous essay. I found out about it because Gerard Harbison, the self-proclaimed Right Wing Professor, linked to my debunking of the famous Patrick Henry "founded not by religionists" fake quote, which Kimball uses. But using that fake quote is about the least objectionable idea in the article. It's so bad that it's not worth fisking, it should just be set in a museum case somewhere for those with an IQ above room temperature to stare at with their jaws agape at the notion that anyone could write something so mind-numbingly idiotic. Go read it. I promise you, it's worth it.
Totally, thoroughly and completely off topic, but I wanted to bring this to your attention, in case that you might want to comment on it in a post
European visitors drawing US scrutiny
Fingerprint file is considered
If you do, I'll have other comments.
More than just not being worse fisking, I feel you might have wasted your time by even mentioning it. By brain hurts just trying to keep up with what he's even talking about, as he goes to Stephen King lengths with his adjectives used to describe his utter hate for his political opponents. See:
Megalomaniac Darwinian globalists are in the process of creating a new world order in which the Masters (themselves) will be served by scientifically-re-engineered "Un Man." The stumbling block is Christianity and the individualism that naturally occurs from belief in God as Sovereign of the universe. Hence the unrelenting and increasingly virulent hatred being spewed at Christians, Christmas, and all things relating to Christianity.
I fail to see how this crank is any different from reptoid conspiracy theorists.
I suggest clicking on her name and reading through a couple of her other articles. Lot of rage in that woman.
Her article should definately be included in some form of internet scrapbook on inane arguements. "Darwinian collectivism?" Has she confused common descent and common ownership? And what, pray tell, would the common agenda of secularists, pantheists, technocrats, and anarchists be? I shall have to agree with Matthew. A giant conspiracy organized by Satan to destroy Christianity is the only possible explanation.
Interesting. I never knew that hardcore Christians -- or strongly religious people of any stripe, for that matter -- were exemplars of independent thought.
Also, I wonder if these braying, cross-eyed lunatics realize how transparent the source of their anger toward Darwin (clearly seen as the "founder" of evolution) is. They'll never forgive the poor guy for singlehandedly exposing the Book of Genesis as a fable. I mean, without ol' Chuckie D's input, the story would have made perfect historical and factual sense right up to the present.
And what, pray tell, would the common agenda of secularists, pantheists, technocrats, and anarchists be?
They are all anti-individualists -- which is obvious from their refusal to toe the traditionalist Christian line.
Remember: Either you are with the individualists or you are against them!
"Thus the putrescent illness of Capitalist States, spreading its pus and bacteria...would not do otherwise than to bring about Earth's death unless these ill organisms are brought into loyalty and obedience."
You know, I can see why that comment might piss off a rightie, religious nutjob. Rather nauseating peice of rhetoric all told but I can see some coralation between the way "free" trade spreads and the ways bacteria spread.
Darwinian global collectivists
I'm afraid my brain glazed over right there.
Anarchists are anti-individualists?
Who, pray tell, is in charge when there are no authorities in charge?
Back when I staffed a senator's office, I was in the state office one day when the daily scold phoned in. The Senate had been in deep debate on some issue, and I had literally flown all night to get to the state -- this scold had one of our staff pinned down on that very issue. She insisted that our boss, the Senator, was an idiot because he had announced general opposition to whatever the issue it was; but just before I left Washington one of his amendments had been accepted and he had voted to pass the bill, and it was off to the president that day for signature, though that news hadn't made the morning papers. I listened to the conversation for a while (I could easily hear both sides), and suggested to our staffer that he tell her the Senator agreed with her ultimately. "Mrs. Jones" paused, and asked for a repeat of the explanation, and he obliged.
She immediately took off on another tirade about how stupid our boss was for proposing the amendment and voting for the bill . . .
Sometimes the anger isn't really directed at anything at all. What was that Shakespeare line that Faulkner used so well? "Full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing . . ."
Sadly, Part I of Faulkner's book, The Sound and the Fury, makes more sense than this woman's rants.
Remember: Either you are with the individualists or you are against them!
I'm still trying to get over the concept of Al Gore, perhaps the most boring man in politics, as a neo-pagan. I always thought he was a mainline Protestant, which is probably the same thing to some fundies (who often forget their "religion" is about 200 years old, pretty young in the grand scheme of things).
I actually could not read the entire thing because I could not make any sense of it. A mishmash of quotes, most undated, from people who probably never spoke to one another, much less formed any kind of "collective," that are supposed to imply that anyone who doesn't sign on to a specific brand of Christianity is helping lead the world to utter destruction. Not that there's any paranoia here.
The entire thing reads like a collection of random catch-phrases she read in other writings and strung together. Wasn't there a jail-house philosopher on "In Living Color" who would do the same thing - just string together meaningless intellectualisms in an attempt to sound like he was saying something? That's the level of quality in this woman's writing.
I took another shot at reading the thing -- I can't do it in one sitting, and think that this passage makes it a strong contender for the year's O'Brien, not just the January award.
Another neo-pagan, and contemporary of Beria is Al Gore.
In addition to CPT_Doom's criticism, Gore was five when Beria was shot.
"...Gore was five when Beria was shot."
Just the right age-range for Beria to indoctrinate Gore by means of subliminal mind-control signals bounced offa one'a'them Spudnik satellites! Use your imagination, Pieter, doncha know nothin'?
Geez-la-weez, I gotta do everything around here? A paranoid's work is never done...
"Another neo-pagan, and contemporary of Beria is Al Gore."
Both CPT_Doom and Pieter found that line in her piece to be an exemplar of inspired idiocy too. So much hate and bitterness in one person, again as Matthew observed. I was surprised i didn't find the phrase "unrepentent stalinist" in it. In fact there doesn't seem to be any person or group worthy of her respect except for the conforming like-minded traditionally protestant fundamental and/or evangelical faithful. And i suspect there are many of those that she would find filled with fault as well.
Just the right age-range for Beria to indoctrinate Gore by means of subliminal mind-control signals bounced offa one'a'them Spudnik satellites!
Now Raging Bee, you know perfectly well the signals had to have a receiver - Gore must have had braces or fillings when he was five.
This is totally anecdotal, but I saw something today that reminded me of this article so I'll pop in again...
Outside McChord AF base in WA there's a sign for a church called "One Mind Presbyterian Church".
Just let that name sink in for a while.
Kimball's not just claiming that Christanity is a defender of individualism in the face of Pago-Darwinian-Humanistic collectivism, but that individualism originated with Christianity (with foreshadowing in Exodus).
While it's probably unfair to say that Christianity is anti-individuality, it certainly is individuality-neutral and has shown itself to be able to be comfortable with unindividualistic mentality, whether in the form of those collectivist communes known as monasteries, various purges of apostates, or churches with names that evoke that Star Trek episode with the cowled acolytes brainwashed by a megalomanical computer.
(Well, that's what it evoked for me... either that or something out of Lovecraft.)
Wow. What can one say but...wow.
I'd also like to point out that her misquotation/misrepresentation of Aristotle is downright criminal. I'm not sure whether it's due to her extreme ignorance, utter stupidity, or baseless venality, nor do I really care. I must say though, it drives me almost to despair to see any kind of forum provided for such mindless drivel.
Thanks Ed, this is glorious. I think we have a winner! Her other columns are good too - check out "Pavlov's Dog versus 'The Spirit of Truth and Freedom'" for instance.
In the Name of Science, Amen!