Video reel. Peter Schiff, OWS, and Herman Cain.

I don't think Peter Schiff had everything right, but he handles some of the OWS people pretty well.
And speaking of the Occupy Wall Street croud. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this picture is all that is needed to describe the muddled thinking between both TEA Party supporters and the OWS one's.    From Proph:
















And while I've started relaying the visuals, I can't help but pointing this one out to those Herman Cain fans out there.

Whatever faults Ron Paul might have, he is clearly the best candidate as he is the only one out there with a clue.  Cain's desperate excuse that he didn't the good economic advisers he has now and that he just read what everybody else read is exactly why he shouldn't be president.  We don't need a president that knows what the Wall Street Journal says today; we need a president that knows what the Journal will say TOMMOROW.

I think the problem with Cain is that he is exactly what he claims to be: just a business man.  The same can be said about Mitt Romney to a lesser extent.  I'm sure they know how to create a business friendly ecosystem (i.e reduced regulations), but they have little understanding of economics.  Hence, they are weak on both fiscal and monetary police

But I like that.  Maybe the next time I make a wrong prediction, I'll just restore my credibility by pointing out that I wasn't a slave to a good enough master.

How Soccer Explains the World Part 1

Its almost hard to articulate a review of Franklin Foer's book How Soccer Explains The World, simply because it is a series of anecdotes whose relationship to each other is there, but hard to capture. But I will settle for a synopsis. The title of the book is meant to be hyperbole, as the subtitle an {unlikely} theory of globalization indicates.

But Foer does not disappoint in showing the significant influences the game has on culture, particularly in the areas where soccer is the most popular sport - like in Europe and Brazil - and how it has stood firm under the waves of globalization.

Foer is a world-class journalist who has traveled to ten different countries to examine the role of soccer. His outstanding narrative abilities leap out as he weaves through interviews of soccer aficionados through all echelons of fandom, from average fans to team owners to actual players, provides historical background, and recounts his own experiences.  In doing so he reveals a world that so few Americans have any idea about.

He devotes one chapter to each of the places he traveled to.  Below are short recaps of the first three chapters, more of which will be forthcoming:
----------------------------------------------------------
His first chapter "How Soccer Explains The Gangster's Paradise," goes over the Ultra Bad Boy, the hooligan gang of Red Star, a team in Serbia.  Under the Serb Arkin's leadership, what became known as the Tigers developed into a paramilitary unit that would fight the Croatians.  If Sports have traditionally been a metaphor for war, then Arkin blurred the two into the same thing.  He was merciless in his behind-the-scenes threats to opposing teams, even going so far as to shoot an opposing player's knee if he did the unthinkable and scored on them.

After reading about the corruption and violence that characterizes the milieu of the Serbian soccer complex, it becomes forcibly clear that it is not an equivalent to the NBA or NFL.

But such circumstances are not confined to Serbia.  In his second Chapter, "How Soccer Explains the Pornography of Sects" Foer travels to Scotland, where the conflict between the protestant Rangers and the catholic Celtics can be just as violent and passionate.  The vulgarity and fervor exhibited in the fan standoffs make the historical contention between the L.A Lakers and Boston Celtics look like a conversation among tea party ladies. No one donning a Celtic jacket can make it through a Ranger bar unmugged. And visa-versa. 

Turning away from the theme of violence, Foer proceeds to discuss the role soccer has played in restoring Jewish pride, in his chapter "How Soccer explains the Jewish question."  Max Nordau, one of the architects of turn-of-the century Zionism, said that the victims of antisemitism suffered from judendot, meaning "Jewish distress." He wrote: In the narrow Jewish streets, our poor limbs forgot how to move joyfully; in the gloom of sunless houses our eyes became accustomed to nervous blinking: out of fear of constant persecution the timbre of our voices was extinguished to an anxious whisper. 

To combat this Jewish distress, he  formed the doctrine of Muskeljudentum, which can be translated into "Muscular Judaism."  In order to recreate their body politic, Nordau argued, the Jews had to recreate their bodies.  Nordau proposed creating athletic facilities where the Jews could play sports.  And to a certain extent, they thrived; out of the fifty-two Olympic medals won by Austria in the forty year period between 1896 and 1936, eighteen of them were awarded to Jews.
--------------------------------------------------------------

In all of these cases, the three that have been outlined as well as the other seven, soccer acts as an object people latch on to to satisfy their innate tribalistic needs.  Especially in the European Union, where nationalism has given way to incipient globalism, people gravitate toward their soccer teams as a source of identity.  This human inclination to associate itself by groups has been confirmed time and again by history, observation, introspection, and studies.

The problem with Herman Cain

After the last three years, you would assume that the Republicans would have learned something.  Their sudden support for Herman Cain is appalling, as he is easily one of the worst candidates on an already wanting list of nominees.  Even Bachmann, Santorum, Gengerich, and Perry are better than Cain.  Heck, even Romney is better than the object of the conservative's post-racial tribute.

 As I was telling a friend earlier today, there is simply nothing good about Herman Cain.

First, he has no economic recovery plan. Instead, he touts out his 999 like it is some elixir that can solve all problems.  But despite advertising it as his de facto economic plan, he goes into great pains demonstrating that it is "revenue neutral." Now, I'm no tax attorney like Michelle Bachmann is, but my guess is that something that is "revenue neutral" does not lower taxes in the aggregate, only to the extent that it weedwacks the inefficient tax bureau, and thus will not significantly improve the economy. (I am aware of the Laugher curve and the potential increase in revenue by tax reductions.  But this only occurs in the medium to long run and I suspect  the figures Cain's staff used do not take it into account, at least if they're honest).  Redistributing the tax burden from one income bracket to another will not solve anything.

Second, he remains undeclared on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.  For the Commander in Chief this is simply unacceptable.

And third and most dooming of all, Cain's views on the Banks and the Fed are so naive that they are either indicative of blatant corruption or willful ignorance.  The nature of the financial system and the Fed is the biggest problem daunting America's economy today.  And yet, its not that Cain has not turned his head the other way; he has looked straight into the financial system's eyes, and saw them as the lovely, harmless eyes of an innocent child.

Conservatives really need to get their heads out of their arses if they think Herman Cain would make a good president.

There is an ominous ring to the Republican primaries, bells booming of a foreboding tone.   

British Identity and Multiculturalism

In keeping with their tendency to maintain contradictory notions and construct indefensible contortions, left-liberals have continued to attack the British singer Steven Morrissey for being insufficiently enthusiastic about Britain’s multicultural experiment. HT: The Alternative Right.

In 2007 [the British singer] Morrissey was quoted by the NME as saying
Although I don’t have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears. So the price is enormous.
If you travel to Germany, it’s still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity.


But travel to England and you have no idea where you are


Lawyers for the former Smiths frontman told the high court on Monday that the singer “continues to suffer” reputational damage from a controversial interview he gave to NME magazine four years ago in which he complained about an “immigration explosion” leading to a loss of British identity.
In a written submission, Morrissey said his comments received “a barrage of press” at the time, and added: “Question marks over my being a racist have never since receded”.
bitter standoff that spans almost two decades – in 1992 NME accused him of “flirting with disaster” and racist imagery after he wrapped a union flag around himself while on stage in Finsbury Park, north London . . . .

The funny thing is that these vibrant lefties should being agreeing with Mr. Morrissey, not vehemently opposing him.

Multiculturism is wholly incompatible with any particular ethnic nationalism. Fans of racially and culturally diverse societies should relish the expiration of “British identity.”

While one can certainly decry Morrissey’s implicit disapproval of such a loss of British identity, one cannot reasonably dispute his simple statement of fact that British identity is dying while clinging to the belief that globalization and multiculturalism are prevailing.  Nor can one rejoice in glee over the emergence of diversity while lamenting the very phenomenon the British singer mentioned.  

And racism, as per the usual definition of belief in racial superiority, isn’t required to uphold WASP nationalism, as the common aphorism of the HBD sphere demonstrates:

Diversity + Proximity = War

As western civilization continues to be flooded by exogenous racial and cultural groups, social tension and friction will increase. The observable clashes in the U.S and Europe are lending empirical support for what the HBD’ers have been saying all along.  No belief in inherent racial superiority is necessary.   

But the reason left-liberals invariably shout “racist!” is a simple matter of projection.  Leftists really are the true racists.  Much of their motivations are based on race, so they project that same racism onto everyone else.  

The Bane of Science Hopefuls

From the Black Gate:

Back in 1977, science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov wrote a piece for Advertising Age predicting, among other things, that consumers would opt to receive ads personalized to their interests as well as the role of “persuasion techniques developed by advertology (sic)” to promote social change. While Asimov got the general idea right, he was wrong on the delivery channel for target marketing (he thought it would be television, having no notion of the Internet) and the evolution of political advertising (he thought it would be for the purpose of “battling ignorance and folly” as opposed to most political messages today that’d rather promote ignorance and folly).
Asimov was from a generation of SF writers who saw their avocation in part as to predict the future as a positive, better place to live. In the same article, Asimov conjectured that by 2000, “Energy will once more be relatively plentiful, and it will be used more wisely, we hope, by a world that has been taught by the events of these recent decades to cooperate for survival.” Good luck with that.

How surprising that scientists and science-lovers would make predictions based upon their own wishful thinking.  There is also a post-facto rationalization involved here. For why would scientists, who ostensibly facilitate the advancement of science, want to work on something that will not bring everlasting benefit to mankind?

The futurist Ray Kurzweil comes to mind. Predicting the singularity will arrive at 2045, the 63 year old Kurzweil is doing everything he can to squeeze in another 44 unassisted years so that he can live to the moment he predicts the singularity will empower mankind with functional immortality, among other things.

But this will probably never be. His fixation on the future blindsides him of our evolutionary past.  In his book, “The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life: How to Reduce Fat in Your Diet and Eliminate Virtually All Risk of Heart Disease and Cancer” he calls for a diet that, against every evolutionary argument and medical study to the contrary, should consist of a mere 10% fat, with less the better.  Anyone cognizant of the merits of the paleo diet would know that Kurzweil will probably not make it to 97.

That doesn’t stop him from believing he can, of course, but had he entertained a more pessimistic outlook regarding the singularity, no doubt he would be pushing the date farther down the line past his projected death, probably in the 2060’s.

Science and technology have ameliorated the burden of poverty and disease, at least in some parts of the world.  But it cannot fundamentally alter human nature to create a poverty-free and violence-free technotopia. It cannot transform the vast sea of idiots into informed, rational, purely-productive individuals.

Yep, "one great leap for Mankind"

Walking up to the podium was a grotesquely obese female figure.  Her dumpy clothes and preternatural blond hair generated a nimbus that lacked all class and authenticity. Her topic proved to be just as insubstantial as her appearance: 1969, the year.  And while the last thing I wanted to do at the moment was to listen to some college kid talk about the year 1969, the circumstances rendered it necessary for me to listen and provide some feedback.

Apart from her lamentable appearance and over-reliance on notes, her presentation wasn't terrible. The actual information given, on the other hand, bordered on the self-parody.  But because I was there to critique the presentation, not content, I refrained from jotting down the obvious stupidity riddled in the info.  And now I know why I started a blog.

She starts off by voicing the oft-quote, "one small step for man, one giant leap for Mankind." Strangely, she neglects to talk about either Neil Armstrong or NASA, but instead uses the quote to characterize the entire year.

She supports her assertion that the year 1969 was "a giant leap for Mankind" by adducing three points.  The first was that the gay activists in some bar stood up to the local policemen.  The second was that the ladies started wearing some clothes that my mind prohibits me from remembering.  And the third was the rising phenomenon of married divorcees; to paraphrase her, "for the first time, it was now a common occurrence that a man with three children will get divorced and marry a women who also has three children and is divorced."

I looked around the room to see if anyone had the same reaction I had.  If the audience was flabbergasted, then they didn't show it.  But I was comforted by the low volume applause she received once it was over.

But after having some time to think about it, I guess she really wasn't so wrong after all.  Gay activism and increased divorce rates really were a great leap for mankind.  Just not in the direction she hinted at.

The lovely Apple Conspiracy

In looking at the vast scope of outlandish ideas generated by all spectrums of the political and socioeconomic sphere, there lays a conclusion that cannot be denied: there is a part of the brain that gravitates toward conspiracy theories. And utterly preposterous ones at that.

First you have the Nationalists, accusing environmental globalists of using Government to materialize their green-envirotopia they’ve been envisioning since the 70’s. 

The TEA party doesn’t subscribe to a conspiracy theory per se, but their constant blathering about how Obama is “trying to destroy this country” may as well be one.

And then you have the Ron Paul supporters, the most naïve of them all, who characterize the great leviathan that is the Federal Reserve as a boom-bust machine that can single-handly drive the economy into the third-world abyss of grass huts. 

And yet we all know these conspiratorial musings are nothing than fabrications that contradict everything we know to be true.

What the real truth is, a truth that is every bit as conspiratorial but with the added benefit of actually having veracity on its side, is Apple co. plotting World Domination.

Unlike the three above, Apple PWD is actually proven by the relevant facts as well as being a theory that is approved by the great arbitrator that is common sense. 

Nothing looks the same once one has adopted the APWD paradigm. Steve Jobs, being every bit as brilliant and  geniuslike as Apple fanboys make him out to be – the smartest man of all time if you asked them -  knew that advancing technology would endow for the first time the capacity for one man, or one company, to rule the world.  Steve Jobs’s ultimate goal was to infect the love of his technology upon the rest of the world.  He has done exceptionally well in this regard, as apple has garbled up the market shares of the techno-world like a shark taking over a pond consisting of a few gold fish. And everybody loves the shark too, as the cult of Apple is without a doubt the fastest growing religion of all time. (Now you have the Cross, the Crescent, and the Bitten Apple, could this be a sign of the end times?)

In order to capitalize on an increasing market share, Fruity Steve had to make sure that he and his company, not the individual owner, could control the millions of devices out there, so he locked all apple products into a closed system. 

This was a critical step in Apple’s World Domination Plan.  As you cannot control the world with devices you do not have control of. 

As anybody with an intelligence surpassing that of Al Gore – which is to say, everyone – knows, technology is advancing with an ever increasing apace.  Apple fanboys are mesmerized by the new Siris feature of the iphone 4s.  But just as someone from the nineties would go into shock were he transported into the future twenty years later, these apple fanatics haven’t seen the vast horizons of future technology.  Soon, the singularity will be materialized as artificial intelligence will surpass humans in every single way.

This is the next critical step in Apple’s World Domination Plan: develop sufficiently advanced technology to control other people.   The iphone, considered now to be a great liberator, allowing its owner to do a whole host of things, will be the enslaver of mankind. It will be Steve Job’s one ring to rule them all. The iphone will monitor your every move. Heck, it will control your every move.  Everyone sucked into iphone’s grip will be a pawn to Apple headquarters.  Its technology will render it possible for it to determine the victim’s brainwaves and states of mind, which lead inevitably to his actions.  Everyone, from the unwashed masses to the political elite will be a slave to every Apple whim. But considering the fervent dedication Apple fanboys have for their slick, handsome devices, Apple may not have to exercise coercion at all; and that may be the scariest part about it.

No wonder Steve Jobs never gave to charity; he had to spend every last penny in creating the New Apple World Order.  George Orwell didn’t have a clue.   

And the best part of it all: no one will be able to stop it because Apple products cannot broken into.  How lovely of Steve Jobs to create his Technofascist vision. 

Refuting Christian Socialism

The Apostle Paul:.

 ⁶ In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching^[a] you received from us. ⁷ For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, ⁸ nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. ⁹ We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. ¹⁰ For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” - 2 Thessalonians 3: 6-10

Christian Socialism was always a theological and philosophical joke. For one thing, socialism doesn't help the poor. And moral exhortations aren't legal mandates.

It is also difficult to imagine Jesus having any sympathy for the guy who squanders his money getting himself drunk, while gambling the rest. And then goes into debt to buy a plasma TV and a new car. 

 Far too many of the lower-class have too much of a destructive mentality to merit being considered victims of Nietzche's Ressentiment. The lower-class need their lives changed through the spirit of God, not be inundated with free money.

The movie Courageous: what it was, and what it wasn't

I watched the Christian movie Courageous last weekend. It was a great movie with an extremely important and pressing message; it certainly isn’t hard to imagine thousands of viewers leaving the theaters inspired and motivated to improve their family lives.   And the acting wasn’t as forced as that of its predecessor in kind, Fireproof.  But while my Christian friends are all singing eulogies to the movie and labeling it as a desperate need fulfilled, replete with individual commitments to the resolution contained within, I see this movie less for what it was than for what it was not.

Courageous is a movie about fatherhood, the deleterious effects of fatherless homes, and the Biblical approach to being an effective one.  It is utterly refreshing to hear proper appreciation of the importance of fatherhood, especially in contrast to the Hollywood and liberal subculture feministing about the dispensability of fathers.  In that regard, Courageous can only be considered anti-feminist.  But the question inevitably arises: why is this movie, and fireproof before it, about the pitfalls of men, and not of women? Why is there no other equivalent?

Anybody who has been to church on each respective parent’s day knows that women get flowers and odes while the men are bombarded with admonitions and exhortations to step their game up.  Mothers are regarded as pretty little angels; men are treated as objects needing improvement.

We all hear about the destructive effects of men not being good enough fathers. And yet, little to no attention is paid to the pitfalls of mothers.  How deeply ironic this is, since it is these very pitfalls that will herald the end days of America. 

As enlightened mothers are pushing papers and developing power point presentations, kids are super-sizing themselves with fast-food french fries and dominoes pizza, all because mommy didn’t have time to cook a decent meal.  By the age of three, the kids are shipped off to the nearest – and can you say safest? – Marxist propaganda central aka day care center aka public school, because mum needs to focus more on her professional career. The typical modern mother, “liberated” from the oppressive shackles of historical revisionist patriarchy, is every bit as destructive to society as the father who left home.  A hobbling land whale, carrying the excess triglyceride of his own lack of discipline and poorly rewarded choices of his mother, that sucks up tens of thousand dollars in medicare costs and is mentally dumbed down to the level of the most retarded kid in class is not a citizen that can survive the Information Age, and a society built upon such morphological and mental zombies cannot survive for long. 

How morbidly obese do these kids have to become, and how stupid do they have to get, till somebody notices and puts an end to this [terd]-stained mound of fetid plight? At the very least, film a [freaking] movie about it.

But we all know that won’t happen.  Instead you have loners such as yours truly and other daredevils of the anti-misandry blogosphere (there’s a reason most of us go anonymous) warning about the imminent dangers of the feminist dystopia, only to be promptly ignored.  The American people continue to get swallowed up by the forces of sexual incongruity and the purveyors of falsehoods engulfing the conventional way of living.  And once the American populace perishes from its morbid obesity and inchoate psyche, as I predict, my conscious will be clear.   

Over history, the Church has proven itself to be one of the most powerful bulwarks against evil in society.  But it cannot be an effective bulwark against the world if it is head-deep in it.  In the 1920’s, Christians became enamored by “the social gospel,” labeling themselves “Christian Socialists.”  Of course, there was never any Biblical justification for socialism so the social gospel diminished into relative obscurity. Now in the twenty first century, Christians are flirting with feminism.  If the Church truly seeks to serve its divine purpose, then it cannot be a passive accomplice, much less an active proponent, of society’s war on men.  Yes, the Church must urge its men to step it up. Courageous does a remarkable job in that regard. But it must also urge women to do the same.  It must systematically uproot the pedestal it has erected under the collective feminine gender.  All are fallen.  And it was Eve who took the fruit of the forbidden tree first.

If you want to play the game

then you have to play by the rules. Support the cause of the HBD'sphere by clicking "thumbs up" on definition number 7 over at the urban dictionary:

An acronym that stands for human biodiversity. It is the acknowledgement and study of how humans differ from each other on both the individual and group levels because of differences in genotype. Differences include, but are not limited to, personality traits, athletic ability, intelligence, height, health, and physical appearance.

"What are some things that HBD informs us on?"

"Why professional sports leagues like the NBA and NFL are dominated by people of West African descent, why blacks and Hispanics consistently perform more poorly on all forms of cognitive testing than whites and Asians do, and why the Amerindian immigrants mowing lawns in the suburbs are so much shorter than the residents of those suburbs, just to name a few."

It's take some effort to surpass "Happy Birth Day" though.

Not even close: How not to argue for the arbortionst position

A facebook friend put out a question for his friends to answer. Some answers were logically and factually sound.  Others, not so much: 

So, just a question. Who of my friends is pro-choice (for abortion) and who is pro-life? and why?

Anonymous: [P]ro choice all the way. if its pro life, we will one day end up like a 3rd world country with all these unneeded kids running around, starving, dying becuse we cant afford to feed them. if you just have an abortion, you wouldnt have to worry about financial struggle in the first place.

Anonymous is so locked up inside the feminist propaganda box that he doesn’t realize that it is the very ideology that the pro-abortion position champions, not a single mother refusing to have an abortion, that will secure the U.S with third world status. The demographic erosion of the white middle class, the rising phenomena of single motherhood, and increasing male unemployment, all ripe conditions for a devolution into the third world, can be directly connected with the spread of feminism.  While the freakonomic logic displayed here is sound - although nobody knows to what extent teen sex would decline if abortion was outlawed – the potential impoverishing effects of making abortion illegal would pale in comparison to the havoc the feminist dystopia is wreaking right now.  

While most pro-lifers on the thread responded with arguments about the immorality of abortion or the logical consequences of the pro-abortion position, such appeals will work to no avail to the average leftist.  I think it was Ann Coulter who said that the problem with liberals is that there is no reductio ad absurdum with them.You could conclusively demonstrate that legalizing abortion invariably leads to the genocide of the unneeded, and the leftist would not budge, firmly cemented in the pretty lies of the leftist hivemind.

Luckily, there aren’t many genuine leftists out there: just thoughtless proletariat fooled by populist rhetoric advertising free lunches and left-leaning propaganda saturated in our culture.  And that bloody word tolerance.

Berg's sixth argument and concluding thoughts

I am almost in awe of Berg's sixth argument.  In a sense, I don't really understand it - to the extent that there is something to understand. Either I am missing something important or the argument has literally no substantive support. If the former is true, I trust that Berg will debug my case of any presumptuous errors it contains..  His argument:

Argument 6: The ‘Some Of God’s Defining Qualities Cannot Exist’ Argument

1. God must have certain characteristic qualities (such as providing purpose to life), otherwise he would not be God.
2. But it is impossible for any entity to possess some of these qualities (such as providing purpose to life since we can find no real purpose and therefore we in practice have no ultimate purpose to our lives) that are essential to God.
3. Therefore since some of God’s essential qualities (such as being the purpose provider to life) cannot possibly exist in any entity, God cannot exist.

Berg obviously doesn't know what Deism is, since he cannot imagine a God existing without imbuing a purpose to life.  But that is neither here nor there for the majority of atheists who just don't want a God giving them a purpose and thus being held accountable for not living up to that purpose.

To the point: Berg fails to understand a central component of teleology; endowing purpose is not an impossible task, but rather an intrinsic part in the act of creation.  Regardless of whether the universe was created for fun and amusement, or was designed for agents of free-will to obey their Creator, it is nonetheless imbedded with a purpose.  All acts of creation involve purpose-giving. Automobile engineers design vehicle engines with the purpose of propelling a car.  Authors write books with the purpose of informing, persuading, or [insert motivation here].  When I play Starcraft, I manufacture marines and siege tanks with the purpose of destroying my opponent. There is simply no room for dispute here.

In refuting Berg's Six Ways of Atheism, I have developed great sympathy for Bertrand Russel when he said that the ontological argument was intuitively false but difficult to identify how it was false. Without exception, Berg's arguments are mere exercises in philosophical sophistry, propped up by logical errors and neglect for basic observations. Its poor performances like these that cause most folks to dismiss philosophy with scorn.  But hey, philosophers have got to do something. Even if that something is completely ridiculous, right?

Berg's fifth argument: The Universal Uncertainty Argument

Weeding through Geoffrey Berg's Universal Uncertainty Argument, I asked myself whether any atheist, much less an agnostic, would believe such nonsense. But then I remembered: atheists, at least the internet, asperger atheists, will seize any argument, however dissonant to the intellect, to rationalize what is ultimately an emotional plea. However, it must be recognized that all I'm am doing here is systematically pointing out the errors that any individual with a 90 I.Q or over would intuitively know were there, but may not be able to articulate them.

Berg's argument:

Argument 5: The Universal Uncertainty Argument

1. An uncertain God is a contradiction in terms.
2. Everything in the Universe must be fundamentally uncertain about its own relationship to the Universe as a whole because there is no way of attaining such certainty.
3. Therefore even an entity with all God’s other qualities cannot have the final quality of certain knowledge concerning its own relationship to the Universe as a whole.
4. Therefore God cannot exist because even any potential God cannot know for sure that it is God.

Note: Stated as a logical paradox this argument is ‘God cannot exist because God cannot know for sure that it is God’.

 The fundamental problem with the argument is that, contrary to the second and third premises, an omnipotent God who is the ultimate Creator CAN know His his relationship with reality, for the very reason that all manifestations of reality are ultimately derived from Him. Absolutely no evidence is adduced when Berg asserts that "there is no way of obtaining such certainty." I'm pretty sure that I cannot ascertain my holistic relationship with reality, but it is a far cry to assert that God, who Berg defines as omnipotent, omniscience, and the ultimate reality, among other things, cannot do so.  

To make matters worse for Berg, his argument would prove nothing even if it were true.  Perhaps God couldn't ascertain His comprehensive relationship with reality - again, a stupid point, but lets assume it for the sake of the argument - but he could no doubt acquire part or even most of it.  It wouldn't take ten seconds for an omnipotent God to realize that He is extremely powerful and can rule over anything. If mere mortals in the past (and present) have believed they are god because of their power, then it is not hard to imagine that an infinitely more powerful being than Alexander the Great would arrive at a similar conclusion, with the added benefit that it would be a correct conclusion.

Berg trying to argue that knowing with 100% certainty is an essential but impossible attribute of God is tantamount to arguing that 100% certainty is a logical contradiction.  But most theists would admit that God cannot perform logical contradictions.  His argument is no more sound and applicable than the argument that God cannot be God because He can't create a circular triangle or a married bachelor.

It's bad enough that Berg's argument is incorrect, but to advance something that proves absolutely nothing makes Berg able to live up to the lofty standard of nonsense he set with his other arguments. It'll be difficult for him to outdo his poor performance with the next one.

Herman Cain as a real conservative?

Captain Capitalism embarks with a good start when he correctly labels liberals as the most racist people in the country. But he blows it when he offers an explanation as to why conservatives are so enamored with Herman Cain:

The reason Herman Cain is very popular amongst conservatives is not the color of his skin. It's his character. He is the only non-politician out there. He is a real man who has had a real job. He didn't inherit the world like Romney. And he speaks bluntly and truthfully and doesn't sugar coat anything. He is honest. And it is because of these things he SHOULD be the Republican nominee.

 Sort of.  The real reason conservatives support Cain is because he is the perfect embodiment of their dimsighted emphasis on Washington while being blindsided of the Governments partner-in-crime: Wall Street and the Federal Reserve.

I can see how Cain appeals to the moderately intelligent with good intentions.  His 9-9-9 plan is a good effort to significantly reduce taxes, though the inclusion of a national sales tax is unfortunate.

His views on Wall Street and the FED, however, are simply unacceptable and are sufficient to rule him out as a viable candidate.  It is not that he is ignorant of the fundamental problems with the financial system, but that he explicitly supports them!

His statements on the Federal Reserve have to be heard to be believed. His eulogy to Alan Greenspan in the debate last night is revealing. And this guy is supposed to be a conservative? Or does he just have sympathetic feelings toward his old boss? Cain-supporters love to boast of his "business background" and that he is "not a politician." And yet, he worked for one of the most nontransparent and corrupt agencies in America, supporting it as if it was innocent witness to a murderous event.

Ultimately, widespread support for Herman Cain is a sign of myopic focus on Washington - justifiable, but myopic nonetheless - but neglect for the other half of the problem.

The left, the decline, and the wanted

Awakened from, not argued out of. A self-confessed apostate of liberalism reveals the inner-mentality of leftists. More evidence that demonstrating their intellectual futility should be more for show and sport than for proselytizing.
--------------------------
More evidence of the West's economic decline, although not in the form you would expect it in. Sometimes you need a little of that to supplement dry economic statistics. Hey, its right-brain approved.
--------------------------
Two conditions is all Karl Denninger is asking for in the next president. Stop the looting and start prosecuting. And that the Constitution is a written document of enumerated powers and limited Government.

We have heard many odes to the constitution - no proof that they are genuine though - but we haven't even heard the kind of anti-banking sentiment that would demonstrate authenticity on the matter. Herman Cain is blatantly pro-bank, Romney supported the Bailouts, and the rest with the exception of Ron Paul have voiced nothing but silence on the matter. Their quietness speaks volumes.
---------------------------
Hedonism is not enough. Dennis Mangan searches for alternatives to the hedonism of the manosphere while avoiding the hazards of the feminist dystopia. I think there are. Hedonism is susceptible to the economic law of diminishing marginal utility; enough is never enough. Exercising discipline, being responsible, growing as a person, finding meaning in a higher power, and following your internal moral compass are still the most effective ways of finding fulfillment. The Church is still a prevalent and accessible force for good, both for society and the individual.And I think it would behoove the MRA to think of himself not as a victim of feminist injustice - although he certainly is - but as a real man that can strive to meet the challenge, and win it.
----------------------------
Probably one the most scientifically unwarranted tenets of Objectivism, Greg Nyquist: "Rand, in effect, implicitly suggests that man is not essentially an animal. His animalistic characteristics are mere accidents. Man's essence is his "reason" and his volition. These elements supercede the natural or animalistic characteristics. Man has no "instincts" or innate predispositions, only such acquired dispositions as he imbibes from the people around him or his own thinking."

The idea that human nature is devoid of any material predispositions is the philosophical opposite of the strict materialist model of Man, and even far less tenable. If I were a Randroid, I would be deeply embarrassed about some of Rand's views regarding human nature and would do my darn best to rationalize my way out of accepting them. And yes, Objectivism is a failed philosophy, its belief in free-market capitalism notwithstanding.

Berg's fourth argument: "This is not the best possible world"

Berg's fourth argument is riddled with many of the same errors as the previous three contain. So, rather than pointing out these errors again and again, I'll focus on the flaws unique to the present argument.

Argument 4: The ‘This Is Not The Best Possible World’ Argument

1. God if he exists must be omnipotent, supremely good and our ultimate creator.
2. Therefore an existent God (being supremely good and competent) would have created the best possible world (if he created anything).
3. As the world is inconsistent (between ages and people) it cannot all be the best possible world.
4. Therefore as the world is not the best possible world, God cannot exist.

Again, lets take a look at this one point at a time.

1. God if he exists must be omnipotent, supremely good and our ultimate creator.

I just have to note the double standard required to insist that God HAS to be the ultimate creator while subscribing to the favorite atheist argument of "who made God?" It’s one or the other; if you accept the former, then you have to throw away the latter. In fairness to Berg, I have never seen him reiterate the who-made-God talking point, but other atheists would do well to consider this fundamental dichotomy.

2. Therefore an existent God (being supremely good and competent) would have created the best possible world (if he created anything).

No, not at all. That is simply a baseless assumption rendered meaningless due to our inability to define what is “best.” If Berg would like to provide a definition of what constitutes the best world and demonstrate that this is God’s standard, let him roll in the mud with it. But for some reason, I don’t think he’ll try.

Moreover, nobody is saying that God never created the best possible world. Atheists retreat to the multiverse hypothesis whenever convenient, but fail to consider the possibility that God has made many other universes, with one as the best (could be what Christians call heaven.) Although we don’t know what He has or has not made, we can be reasonably sure that while this may not be Berg’s perfect world, it could be the world He intended to create: agents possessing free will do to good, or to do evil.

3. As the world is inconsistent (between ages and people) it cannot all be the best possible world.

Berg here assumes that the best cannot be dynamic. What evidence does Berg have that the best world has to consistent and monotonous – even having to be exactly the same between ages and people?! The notion directly contradicts numerous teachings in the Bible, from the concept of original sin to the eschatological future of mankind. If God can’t create a dynamic world while adhering to Berg’s definition of “supremely good,” then Christians will just have to accept the fact that God is not Berg’s “supremely good.” Moreover, if God is the ultimate creator with the omnipotence to define what is “good” and “best,” then by Berg’s logic this would be the “best” world (if God had to create best world.) Rather than proving that God does not exist, Berg has simply demonstrated the optimal nature of this world. But of course, God’s arbitrary goodness has nothing to do His existence.

4. Therefore as the world is not the best possible world, God cannot exist.

In order to arrive at this conclusion, Berg has made the faulty assumptions that God must create the best possible world, that the best cannot constitute inconsistency and even that his definition of best is relevant here, that God must be supremely good by an external metric in order to exist, and that God can omnipotent yet be unable to create a nonbest world. Since these assumptions are predicated upon extremely narrow conceptions of God, and the relevance of Berg’s standards of the best and the good, it should be obvious to the objective reader that the conclusion is unwarranted and incorrect.