The Four Color Media Monitor

I don't get it. Why do you think that the PC crowd are against brightness and optimism? And why do you think that it is PC to like Batman?The guy is an urban vigilante who doesn't exactly read people his rights before attacking them. He has been portrayed as a liberal, especially during the Silver Age, but not for quite a while now.

While I agree the PC crowd are ultimately against brightness and optimism, they are for a perverted version of pollyana stuff, and often tend to exploit wholesome elements specifically to outright manipulate audiences into supporting far-left and depraved causes with sunshine and rainbows, like with Return of the Jedi and Peace Walker and their support of the Vietcong (yes, George Lucas made it VERY clear in various interviews and commentary the Ewoks in that movie were specifically modeled after the Vietcong; and Peace Walker by Kojima, aside from the Che Guevara praises by most of the main characters, also had glorification of May 1968, Mao Zedong, the FSLN, and demonization of the CIA and even implying that the West and East were no different and shouldn't bother fighting Communism a'la Howard Zinn. Bear in mind both instances were explicitly aimed at children and clearly marketed as being for such, including having a very light-hearted narrative compared to usual for better or for worse. Don't even get me started on Supergirl, either.).

As far as Batman's concerned, I'd argue even the PC crowd doesn't really like Batman that much, since they deem him fascist for even trying to adhere to some degree of law and order at all (even if he's technically a vigilante, he made sure to avoid killing his foes, and explicitly stated the death penalty is reserved for the courts to decide in one of the DCAU episodes). If anything, the PC crowd's more likely to support the likes of the Joker for mindless anarchy. Besides, you want a true reflection of PC thinking? Try the Jedi with their moral relativism and, heck, even moral nihilism in ROTJ and to a greater extent the prequel trilogy, or how about how Metal Gear Solid 2 had Solid Snake outright saying absolute reality doesn't exist in the ending to that game?

Fascists believe in power, not law and order. The rule of law is a liberal ideal. But all those old hippie ideas of peace and love and brotherhood are genuinely left wing, not cosmetic propaganda.

"The rule of law is a liberal ideal."

Classical liberal, perhaps (though even that's debatable since Thomas Jefferson supported the anarchistic and murderous leftist Jacobin movement during the French Revolution), but certainly not modern liberalism, which instead advocates for absolute anarchy and chaos. Basically, modern liberalism is akin to Ocelot's desire for no law or order at all.

"Fascists believe in power, not law and order."

Technically, it's not just fascists who believe that. Michel Foucault also believed in power alone and desecrated law and order as a concept, and he was more of an anarchist than a fascist. Same goes for Jean-Paul Sartre. They certainly believe in pure lawlessness and chaos, though. Destruction for its own sake. A'la Kefka Palazzo from Final Fantasy VI or the Joker from Batman.

I don't think Foucault believed in power in the sense that he would have thought it was a good thing; it was more that he believed power relations were the reality of the world, and that liberals' belief in the rule of law was a lie used to cover it up.

Jefferson was a revolutionary, and he was inspired and excited by democratic revolution. He was an idiosyncratic thinker who cames to his own conclusions, not an ideologue, and he embodied a lot of contradictions.

Which modern liberals do you have in mind when you say they are for anarchy and chaos? Even anarchists are not for chaos - they believe that true order comes from people working things out for themselves rather than having people in uniforms impose it. They are very optimistic about human nature.

"I don't think Foucault believed in power in the sense that he would have thought it was a good thing; it was more that he believed power relations were the reality of the world, and that liberals' belief in the rule of law was a lie used to cover it up."

Actually, Foucault welcomed the very idea of the left imposing a bloody, dictatorial power, even admitting he saw nothing wrong with that in a debate with Chomsky. And even Chomsky, who was very far to the left himself (singing praises for the Khmer Rouge of all people), was downright disturbed by him.

"Jefferson was a revolutionary, and he was inspired and excited by democratic revolution. He was an idiosyncratic thinker who cames to his own conclusions, not an ideologue, and he embodied a lot of contradictions."

He literally was in Paris when the raid at Bastille happened, and most likely saw the Parisian mobs parading around with severed limbs from the guards they murdered. Yet was singing praises for them and blindly comparing them to the American Minutemen. Not to mention clearly continued shilling for them even after clear and irrefutable evidence to them being much worse than Louis XVI ever was came into effect, and he even got snookered by Napoleon. He was actually closer to being an up and out ideologue. The only ones who actually CAME to their own conclusions were Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams. In fact, Adams despite never even setting foot in France before then actually ended up being far more correct about what the Jacobins were truly like than Jefferson was.

Not to mention the entire POINT of democracy is mobs killing each other for a laugh. Just look at the Jacobins for example. They're democratic, and they raized churches and committed a lot of rapes and murders for a sheer laugh.

"Which modern liberals do you have in mind when you say they are for anarchy and chaos? Even anarchists are not for chaos - they believe that true order comes from people working things out for themselves rather than having people in uniforms impose it. They are very optimistic about human nature."

Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement (who, BTW, outright said they didn't want any law and order at all, and without law and order, is chaos), ANTIFA, BLM, Occupy Wall Street and its various branches, etc., etc. And let's not forget that aside from Foucault, who is anarchistic enough that he literally wanted absolutely NO courts of law whatsoever, not even socialist People's Courts, wanting something akin to the September Massacres (yes, he actually used that comparison), there's also Sartre and his explicitly wanting Dostoevsky's dictum/warning of "if there is no God, then everything is permitted" to be a reality, and even Karl Marx, who formed Communism, specifically wanted not just the class systems to be abolished, but also the state itself, wanted anarchy in other words (and Marx specifically wanted to reenact Robespierre's Reign of Terror and make it an even gorier remake). And Bakunin, he wanted Europe in complete and utter rubble, wanted constant destruction for its own sake, as Wagner observed.

We can also list Somalia, the closest we've got to a true anarchistic nation. And Pierre Joseph Proudhon when creating anarchy wanted to reenact the French Revolution as well, which was filled to the brim with chaos, people slaughtering each other on the streets for a sheer laugh. Just read up on Abbe Barruel, or even Timothy Dwight.

Not to mention, God Himself was against Democracy, hated it even more than the idea of a human king instead of himself. God never tried to slaughter anyone who demanded for a human king despite trying to reason how they shouldn't have one (not to mention probably secretly WANTED a human king anyways precisely to ensure his plan of Jesus being born and ending sin with himself as total victor was an absolute success), while God DID in fact ended up slaughtering Korah and his followers when they tried to do a democracy, basically cooked the leadership alive, and then sent out a plague to the rest until they cried uncle and submitted to him. Look up Korah's Rebellion.

Democracy didn't exist in Biblical times, so God didn't really have much to say about it. He sometimes cherished people who challenged his words, especially early on in patriarchical times; later he could get very indignant about it, like with Korah. But when it came to human governments that were not directly appointed by him he was kind of, well, agnostic. Nothing to indicate that he hated democracy.

This article seems to indicate God did in fact utterly hate the concept, especially when he did to Korah and his followers essentially the same thing he did to Sodom and Gomorrah: https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2020/06/18/clergy/korah-democracy-divine-aristocracy-israel/

And use your head, God's omniscient, meaning he'd know about democracy long before it even existed.

"not to mention probably secretly WANTED a human king anyways precisely to ensure his plan of Jesus being born and ending sin with himself as total victor was an absolute success"

Eotness, I am very troubled by this. You are describing a God who is a manipulative liar. One who is deliberately deceptive to his people. There is nowhere else in the Bible where God says something that is not true. Adam and Eve, for example, did become like gods in that they learned the difference between good and evil. God does not need to play these kind of games.

Eotness, you have a very sad view of both democracy and anarchism. Democracy is peaceful more often than not; people don't get violent over elections because they know there will be another one before you know it. (2020 is a bit of an exception, but that is in part because rabble rousers are trying to say that there is a communist takeover and we will never have a real election again.) It is only the fight to achieve democracy that is often marked with violence.

For anarchists, violence is not an end in itself. Even Karl Marx' ideal stateless socialist society is not meant to be violent; it is a world of independent self-sufficient craftsmen and farmers, not exploited by bosses, like the culmination of a biblical prophecy, in which violence and war precedes the second coming and an age of peace. Marx' outline of history and the stages of social evolution borrows a lot from Christianity, directly or indirectly.

Tom Jefferson did come to his own conclusions, by the way. Maybe the wrong conclusions, but that is another story.

When you think about it, lines of kingship in the Bible begin through democratic choice. David was chosen as king by the representatives of all the tribes, who made a contract with David at Hebron. Saul had become king because the people wished to have a king to rule over them; not because a king was imposed on them through conquest or divine will.

"Eotness, I am very troubled by this. You are describing a God who is a manipulative liar. One who is deliberately deceptive to his people. There is nowhere else in the Bible where God says something that is not true. Adam and Eve, for example, did become like gods in that they learned the difference between good and evil. God does not need to play these kind of games."

Well, he DID deceive Abraham during the latter's barter game during Sodom and Gomorrah, where he let him think there was even any innocents in Sodom and Gomorrah at all rather than, say, shutting him down and outright mentally torturing him with telepathy for even DARING to suggest there were any innocents at all while citing his omniscience as to how he knows there aren't any innocents, claiming he knew since even before the first day of existence, and leaving Abraham a complete and utter broken man as a result before then teleporting Lot and his daughters out (while specifically leaving his wife behind to die precisely BECAUSE his omniscient nature had him knowing she'd inevitably look back and turn into a salt pillar anyways).

And I'm pretty sure if God truly didn't want a human king, even ignoring that his plan for Jesus to be born specifically REQUIRED him to be born of royal lineage (the scribes of Israel outright told King Herod this much), he would have in fact done the same thing he did to Korah towards the Israelites, leaving only a third alive, and then wiping out the rest of the world that had human kings and destroying their various deity statues while etching his name in eternal fire specifically to demonstrate who did this act of destruction throughout the world, essentially cow humanity into submitting to him.

"Eotness, you have a very sad view of both democracy and anarchism. Democracy is peaceful more often than not; people don't get violent over elections because they know there will be another one before you know it. (2020 is a bit of an exception, but that is in part because rabble rousers are trying to say that there is a communist takeover and we will never have a real election again.) It is only the fight to achieve democracy that is often marked with violence."

It sure as heck wasn't peaceful with the Jacobins, or the Bolsheviks (yes, the Bolsheviks also adhered to democracy. For goodness sakes, Lenin outright called their movement a democratic movement in his What Is To Be Done tract), or pretty much any Communist insurgent. Even Democractic Socialists tended to get into street brawls.

"For anarchists, violence is not an end in itself. Even Karl Marx' ideal stateless socialist society is not meant to be violent; it is a world of independent self-sufficient craftsmen and farmers, not exploited by bosses, like the culmination of a biblical prophecy, in which violence and war precedes the second coming and an age of peace. Marx' outline of history and the stages of social evolution borrows a lot from Christianity, directly or indirectly."

Actually, Karl Marx DID intend for violence as an end in itself when creating communism. Here, I'll quote him for you:

"There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."-Marx, Karl, “The Victory of the Counterrevolution in Vienna”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 1848.

"Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793…"-Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, vol. vi pp 503–505, final issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 18, 1849. Quoted in Thomas G. West, Marx and Lenin, The Claremont Institute (and in case you don't get it, his reference to 1793 was specifically towards Robespierre's Reign of Terror, most likely including the Vendee as well as Grignon's infamous orders to have his own army essentially shoot itself just to satiate bloodlust should they find each other while hunting down the Vendee).

"The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it."-Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, vol. vi pp 503–505, final issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 18, 1849. Quoted in Thomas G. West, Marx and Lenin, The Claremont Institute

And it has nothing to do with the Bible at all. If anything, like Voltaire before him, Marx wanted to destroy the Bible, destroy Christianity.

"Tom Jefferson did come to his own conclusions, by the way. Maybe the wrong conclusions, but that is another story."

Sorry, but no. Someone who thinks that the Parisian mobs who were literally carrying freshly torn apart people in glee are anything like the American Minutemen clearly didn't come to his own conclusions. If he did, he'd use his critical thinking from past experience regarding, say, the Boston Massacre and how that went about, and ESPECIALLY how the Minutemen, including John Adams, handled the whole affair by comparison, and quickly realize that it was absolutely NOTHING like the American Minutemen, and even become a vocal critic of the revolution for that reason alone, not cheer them on.

"When you think about it, lines of kingship in the Bible begin through democratic choice. David was chosen as king by the representatives of all the tribes, who made a contract with David at Hebron. Saul had become king because the people wished to have a king to rule over them; not because a king was imposed on them through conquest or divine will."

Actually, considering Jesus was born via David's bloodline and such was specifically made necessary for God's plan to have Jesus die on the cross to end sin, you COULD argue that the whole kingship thing WAS God's divine will and that the israelites were unknowingly following through with God's plan. Sort of like how Dead Cell and the Sons of Liberty were being manipulated by the Patriots for their S3 Plan in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty.

Eotness, God did not deceive Abraham; he did not tell him how many good men there were in the twin cities, but he did not lie to him about anything. And it is an open question whether God's knowledge extends to all-knowing the future; after all, the Lord does say of Gomorrah that

" I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."

If you accept him at his word he himself does not yet know the heart of Sodom when Abraham bargains with him.

As for Marx - he says that violence is the birth pangs of a new society, as in the quote you have from him. But once born, that new society will be a society of peace. Just as in the Bible the war of Gog and Magog precedes the Mesianic Age, or the violence of the antichrists precedes the second coming.

As far as the Davidic bloodlline goes, that was no more a necessary part of God's plan than his being a carpenter. It was foretold, a fact and an observation and prediction, but God could as easily have made him a descendant of Saul, if He had so chosen. It would not have made him less messianic.

"Eotness, God did not deceive Abraham; he did not tell him how many good men there were in the twin cities, but he did not lie to him about anything. And it is an open question whether God's knowledge extends to all-knowing the future; after all, the Lord does say of Gomorrah that"

Omniscience literally means "all-knowing", that would kind of require he DOES see into the future as well. Otherwise, how could he be "all-knowing?" "All" kind of requires no limitations to anything, period (that's literally the entire point behind the definition of "all"). It didn't describe him as "knowing the most out of anyone." And he himself described himself as "all-knowing" anyways, which meant that if he did genuinely not know about the future, then he lied about being omniscient, meaning he lied either way.

"As for Marx - he says that violence is the birth pangs of a new society, as in the quote you have from him. But once born, that new society will be a society of peace. Just as in the Bible the war of Gog and Magog precedes the Mesianic Age, or the violence of the antichrists precedes the second coming."

"Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793…"

That doesn't sound like he had ANY intention of peace in the new society, unlike those events, which DID ultimately lead to peace as intended/foretold. Last I checked, the only way they'd be at the helm (ie, had already taken power) is if said new society was already in place for them to run, which essentially means that even after that new society is firmly in place, he'd STILL try to make it a bloodbath anyways. Now, if he had said "Until we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793…", then it at least leaves open the possibility of outright ending the violence once they are at the helm.

"As far as the Davidic bloodlline goes, that was no more a necessary part of God's plan than his being a carpenter. It was foretold, a fact and an observation and prediction, but God could as easily have made him a descendant of Saul, if He had so chosen. It would not have made him less messianic."

Here's the thing about omniscience, it generally doesn't allow for any possible legroom for any alternatives. To give some examples:

Ocelot from MGS2: Your plan was invalidated, even before execution, Solidus.

Bahamut from Final Fantasy XV Episode Ardyn's Resist Fate ending (well, okay, technically Aera, but Bahamut's voice overlapped with hers, so it still counts): The gods who rule above and the men who reign below shall lend their strength to the King of Kings. Only a fool would defy such opposition. Though mankind may not realize, everything in this world is preordained. Man exists solely by the grace of the gods and cannot live without. Resist if thou must, but know thy struggles are in vain."

Palpatine: Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.

According to Marx and Engels, in their manifesto,


"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so
called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the
bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it
makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Doe being all knowing mean knowing the future in every detail? It depends on whether the future exists or not yet, whether God is inside or outside of time, whether man has free will, indeed, whether God has free will or, as you suggest, is the slave to his own plan. I don't think video games have the answers to those questions. Especially when the video games disagree with scripture.

Yeah, well, they were lying in their manifesto, considering their correspondences to each other made it VERY clear they specifically wanted to reenact Robespierre's Reign of Terror and make it an even gorier remake. I even gave you their quotes as well as the specific sources from them.

"Doe being all knowing mean knowing the future in every detail? It depends on whether the future exists or not yet, whether God is inside or outside of time, whether man has free will, indeed, whether God has free will or, as you suggest, is the slave to his own plan. I don't think video games have the answers to those questions. Especially when the video games disagree with scripture."

Ah, yes, being all knowing does in fact mean knowing the future in every detail. How can there be "all" if you don't even have every detail, big or small? And yes, that even includes whether the future exists or not. Heck, God himself preordained Samuel, Samson, and even John the Baptist to their alloted roles before the three were even BORN, probably even before conception, which acts as further confirmation that he does in fact know the future.

As far as free will is concerned, regarding God or Man, God literally created said plan in the first place, he wouldn't be a slave to his own creation, including the plan he laid out, in fact, no one can. Especially when he alone is the highest power in existence. The only way he'd be a slave to that plan is if someone else created that plan and forced it upon him. So yes, God very obviously would have free will yet STILL would adhere to that plan in a fatalistic manner since, you know, he created that plan. As far as Man, they rebelled against God, so they very obviously have free will. If they didn't, they couldn't even conceive of the idea of rebelling, let alone act upon it. We would be like a car, or even a standard operating system.

And God clearly exists outside time. Then again, so does Bahamut in Final Fantasy XV (he's the only Astral to exist outside of the Earthly elements, including time and space), yet he still behaved in a very fatalistic manner regarding his plan, as you could see with that quote.

There is nothing in the 1793 quote that contradicts the Communist Manifesto. 1793 was a path for Marx, not a destination. For him, the quality of the destination and the peace reached at its end made the struggle for it worthwhile, even if he knew he might not live to see it.

You are dismissing some complex philosophical and religious questions by pointing to video games, which is just too easy. There is that old thorny question of how free will can coexist with predestination, for example. Myself, I think from a reading of the Bible that God is delighted when his people surprise him, and that is one reason for creation.

"There is nothing in the 1793 quote that contradicts the Communist Manifesto. 1793 was a path for Marx, not a destination. For him, the quality of the destination and the peace reached at its end made the struggle for it worthwhile, even if he knew he might not live to see it."

He also said "There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." That sounds more like the destination, not simply a path (otherwise, he would not have said "there is only one way" when citing that as how they should gain power).

"You are dismissing some complex philosophical and religious questions by pointing to video games, which is just too easy. There is that old thorny question of how free will can coexist with predestination, for example. Myself, I think from a reading of the Bible that God is delighted when his people surprise him, and that is one reason for creation."

Not just video games. There's also Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God", which makes God look absolutely psychotic, almost to the level of those video games. And then there's The Matrix Reloaded, which is a film, for example, or Zeno from Dragon Ball Super, which is an anime.

And God CANNOT be surprised at all even if he wanted to, let alone by his people. Otherwise, he'd lack omniscience, being all-knowing.

You're a very lousy Christian, do you know that eotness?

"You're a very lousy Christian, do you know that eotness?"

No, I'm not lousy regarding Christianity. Someone who is a lousy Christian is someone who supports Gay Marriage as well as abortion despite Jesus and his disciples themselves making it very explicit that such is NOT allowed in their religion, to say very little about what God the Father said.

You're one of those religious text readers who pick and choose specific texts just to continue your lifestyle and condemn others for outdated laws, aren't you?

"You're one of those religious text readers who pick and choose specific texts just to continue your lifestyle and condemn others for outdated laws, aren't you?"

I don't pick and choose. If anything, the ones who pick and choose specific texts are those so-called "Christians" who support gay marriage and abortion even though God made it explicitly clear they are NOT stuff to practice at all, and if anything fully condemned them.

Proof or go home.