Paul's Passing Thoughts

Excerpt from first draft.

“The Fandom is made up of those who have a mutual interest in anthropomorphic art.” That’s an interesting admission. What’s in a word? With the word “anthropomorphism,” a trainload of baggage. Again, art that attributes human characteristics to inhuman objects (machines, etc.), and animals, have a way of captivating attention and projecting healthy ideas, especially regarding children. Who can criticize The Little Engine That Could and the valuable lesson of never giving up projected to children by that anthropomorphic narrative?

Anthropomorphic art has a long and deep history of captivating the attention of children for the assimilation of healthy ideas to the degree that the brand name has become the product. A wound bandage is not a Band-Aide, that’s a brand name, but it is a brand that has become so familiar that the trade name has replaced the formal identification. People rarely call Tylenol, acetaminophen. People rarely call Tums, calcium carbonate, if ever.

This is exactly how the Fandom utilizes what anthropomorphism has become over the years. Anthropomorphism is one of the few examples of something inherently evil used for good. The Fandom taps into the dark elements of anthropomorphism to vie its trade under cover of the trade name it has become: “cartoons,” “funny animals,” etc.

The following is a reality: art is a buffer between objective reality and ideas. That is, art in all its genres. Something that a human creates on paper or in a narrative is not something that happens, so it is not counted as something that needs to be addressed. Having an imagination is against no law, and even if it was, it can’t be enforced. At least in an open society, the projection of ideas is not against the law. In a closed society, mental health is determined by a person’s ability to contribute to the state because collectivism presupposes that all purpose is found in sacrificing self for the greater good of society. Of course, as determined by the state. Hence, a closed society will dismiss concerns about many moral issues and their connection to personal happiness.

This is stated to make the following point: art is a powerful weapon in obtaining objectives because ideas are what drive actions happening in real-time. However, humanity is primarily concerned with what happens and less concerned with ideas. Many are indifferent to politics, while precious view are indifferent to an open revolution in the streets.

Suffice to say, art and comedy get a pass for being an action of major concern. The Fandom not only utilizes that general principle, but the brand name now associated with anthropomorphic art, while utilizing the dark side of this art to fulfill its agenda. We now address the dark side of anthropomorphism and its specific uses by the Fandom. If you take, collectively, what has been stated thus far, you can know what happens among Fandom participants will always be chalked up to a few bad apples while furries point to the harmlessness of funny animals. Yes, it’s all about the funny animals and not the few bad apples that every basket has followed by the haters. It’s “fursecution.”

A centerpiece of Fandom propaganda is the idea that the Fandom is helplessly misunderstood, and any attempts to plead the case is a fool’s errand. Many Fandom conferences ban the media, and conference organizers have banned some from attending conferences for talking to the press or participating in interviews. Yes, there is even an arrogance attached to this aloofness that deems the “mundanes” or the fully human as having an innate inability to understand the spiritual prowess of the Fandom. Certainly, there is a sense in which the Fandom is a sect, but in this case, it is more of a cult. That is, a cult that utilizes the dark history of anthropomorphism.

First, regarding the heaviest baggage, anthropomorphism is the oldest religion on earth. Many will protest that Hinduism is the oldest religion on earth, and very well, but Hinduism is based on anthropomorphism. Does the Fandom utilize anthropomorphism for religious purposes? It most certainly does. A primary focus of this book is the foundation the Fandom has been built on. And, what was the intent of its two founders, Mark Merlino and his partner, Rod O’Riley? Thirdly, does the present behavior of the Fandom reflect the foundation it was built on?

In previous chapters, the attempted reformation of the Fandom by the Burnt Furs, attempts directed squarely at Mark Merlino, reveal in vivid detail the beginning characteristics of the Fandom. Merlino passively or actively condoned all the characteristics protested against. As documented in the Burnt Fur manifesto, a New Age-like anthropomorphic spirituality was prevalent in the movement and is even more prevalent today. Furries routinely refer to their true identities being found in an animal. As noted in psychological studies that will be looked at closer in this book, the goal is not to become an animal, but to incorporate more and more animalism into the humanity of furries. This is because animals are not all hung-up on human barriers. Beagles relieve themselves on fire hydrants in front of all without giving it a second thought. If a beagle wants to mate with a poodle in someone’s front yard, the pair give the desire no second thought. Gee, if only humans were like that. After all, look at how hung-up we are about many things resulting in unnecessary expenditures for things like bathrooms. Humans spend a lot of money to prevent indiscretions; otherwise known as “hang-ups,” and being “overly serious.”

The list on this perspective can go on and on. Dog’s are man’s best friend and infinitely loyal. Pets never argue with you, and we can even speak for them with no protest by the pet. If only humans were more like that. This is where there is a fine line between philosophy and religion; anthropomorphism, in its most ancient forms, was a rejection of the human race. What better way to reject humanity than ascribing to being more like an animal? Biblicists point to the Apostle Paul’s indictment of humanity at its earliest stages: “they worshiped the creature instead of the creator.” We are speaking to an anti-humanity ideology. Remember, anthropomorphism personifies nonhuman objects, which includes animals, but does not exclude any nonhuman objects like trees, rocks, water, and clouds. People who worship trees are not nuts, they just think trees are better than humans, and if God created humans, He couldn’t be much better. Hatred for humanity will find a contending meaning in anything but humanity. After all, what else is there in the material world? The extreme depends on the degree of disdain. Never underestimate the power of preference and what one will do in choosing it.

As noted earlier in this book, the first fanzines of the Fandom were the Vootie APAs. Their stated manifesto was very clear: “No humans (or human logic) allowed.” Characteristics of the Fandom’s beginning followed as detailed by the Burned Furs: any behavior considered abnormal by society at large was vigorously pursued by furries including plushophilia (sex with stuffed animals), zoophilia (bestiality), necrophilia (sex with a corpse), and a list of behaviors becoming and unbecoming of animals who don’t typically masturbate in elevators. Countercultures are such because humans are responsible for culture.

One writer noted:

Think about it. Could it possibly get any more stupid (or any more evil) than a living human being opposing life itself? Just on its own ground, ignoring for the moment any possible underlying ulterior motive or evil intent, any human being believing that living human beings are evil and should be destroyed should be recognized at once as absolutely insane.

But it is not. And that is the world’s most pressing cultural problem.

Bill and Melinda Gates have spent tens of billions of dollars on Human Control programs, all with nice-sounding names, all of which have the world “Health” in them, and “improving the quality of life” propaganda describing them. But they are, beneath it all, human control programs, pure and simple. In their spending to destroy humanity, the Gates have made even the trail-blazing fellow anti-human Rockefellers look like small-time pikers.

But, at least some reasons or motives can be cited for embracing anti-humanity ideologies and participating in anti-humanity countercultures. Often, these are venues where people can practice the fulfillment of desires unacceptable to society at large. Undoubtedly, many who joined ISIS under the banner of being converted to Islam were merely psychopaths who wanted to be part of a venue where they could execute their desires. Religion was merely a cover for doing so. In addition, having a wife slave or more than one wife slave was a perk to boot. There is the fulfillment of the principle evil desire and the residual evil desires as well. Seemingly, to a psychopath, at least initially, a win-win situation. Are movements venues for practicing evil desires that have a logical excuse connected to the ideology of the movement? It’s likely more than not.

As brilliantly articulated by Prager U., we have another likely catalyst for anti-human ideology. Often, people are zealous for “pseudo moralistic causes” to divert from the responsibility of bettering themselves or dealing with their own demons. Extreme environmentalism, the issue in which Prager U. addressed this mindset, is a kissing cousin to anti-humanity ideology. If humanity is horrible, and the principal cause of all woes, one is excused from every personal responsibility; especially since humans cannot help it that they are human.

However, they can partake in the paramount experience of virtue; i.e., disavowing humanity. Be sure of this: those of this ideology are always arrogant because they deem themselves morally superior for rejecting humanity.

In prior chapters, the Cult of Childhood (Peter Pan Syndrome) was addressed. If humanity and the human experience are evil, then obviously, what little virtue humanity has is diminished with age and human experience. The question is, does Peter Pan Syndrome follow anti-humanity logic, or do people adhere to anti-humanity ideology because it’s an excuse for not grow up? Both, with the latter being more prevalent. Chapter 8 will match present-day behavior in the Fandom with its beginning ideology.

“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

~ George Bernard Shaw

It’s a “republic if you can keep it” said Benjamin Franklin. One of the difficulties in keeping a successful republic like America is humanity’s tendency towards complacency. Humanity always learns the hard way. America was born out of 10,000 years + of human misery. America is a first, and took a long time because humanity must always learn its lessons in the school of hard knocks. Even after the Holocaust, much of Israel is liberal and left-leaning in politics. This is a reality that I have totally lost patience with. I do not get all fuzzy inside when I hear testimonies from people who voted for Barak Obama, but “learned my lesson.” I doubt it. If you ever voted for Obama, you are incredibly un-self-aware.

Neither am I impressed with the Blexit movement. What the hell? It took 70 years since LBJ’s Great Society to figure that out and now you want a prize? I’m not impressed. Um, like, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican; so, when did 2+2 start equaling 4 in your mind? Ok, I will admit the movement is a good thing for the most part, but at least show some shame for how long it took to figure it out.

Does all of this seem harsh to you? Well, what’s harsh is genocide, geronticide, crippicide, and all of the other cides that fill the mass graves of human history, and there is no excuse for the complacency and ignorance that paves the roads that lead there. Obama, and more recently presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, have suggested that healthcare should be withheld from the elderly because society cannot afford it. In regard to the Affordable Care Act, which didn’t end up being affordable, Sarah Palin warned that death panels would be a part of it and she was mocked accordingly. Of course, she was right. Regarding those whose healthcare premiums doubled, and by golly have learned their lesson about lying Democrats, again, I doubt it. However, those who are on their death bed hours away from passing and say they have seen the light, I do believe them because it’s too late. After all, having no hope because of ignorance is the ultimate realty check and a worthy truth serum.

Like I said, it took at least 10,000 years of misery to make America, but behold the present political climate. Have you not heard? Yes indeed, America sucks. We have a socialist hero named Bernie Sanders who can save us from an evil capitalist economy. When he was announced that way at a political rally yesterday, 20,000 people cheered. Count em’, 20,000. That would be the same capitalist economy that funded World War II and the ability to stop Hitler’s vision for the world. Folks, this is an ignorance that cannot be fixed. In last night’s Democrat debate, though Bloomberg was savaged, there was one criticism auspiciously missing even by 78 year old socialist Bernie Sanders: Bloomberg’s assertion that the elderly should be denied healthcare so the same money can be better spent on young people.

Please be sure of this: if these people obtain power, there will be an exception to old people not receiving healthcare; an old congressman or senator. That’s the way socialism works and the way it has always worked. Sanders knew Mike wasn’t talking about him, so no offense was taken. By the way, in regard to the above citation by George Bernard Shaw, he lived to be 94 years old.

I have a job that is the best job in the world. I am a nurse aide. You see, this is America, which is a country designed to enable individuals to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It doesn’t put a time limit on that. If you are a 95 year old American, and you want to continue in your right to pursue what makes you happy, that’s your right because you live in America, and especially if you have paid your dues for making America work. America is indebted to you with interest. I once shared an elevator ride with the daughter of a man I cared for and she introduced me to her dad’s girlfriend who was on the elevator with us. The dad and girlfriend both were in their 90s. I commented, “Well, as long as you are still here you might as well keep living.” If you are an American, that’s your right.

In addition, if you think the only issue with socialists is your age, you make your ignorance even more prevalent. There is one difference between America and all other countries. You see, “socialism” is a soft term for “collectivism.” For the first time in human history, a country was founded on individualism and not collectivism. This pertains to the worth of an individual, and the question of life value. Collectivism judges the value of an individual based on their ability to contribute to “the group.” Words not only mean things, but how words are defined by those who want to rule your life is also important. Socialists define “the group” this way: “the state.”

Hence, this is what totally drives free health care paid for by the state and any other single-payer system; more money is available to the state because it’s not paying for private care taking care of those who cannot contribute to the state. Socialism baits people for support with free stuff in order to gain control of them. If you cannot contribute to the state for any reason, they are not going to pay for your care; why would they? Enter someone else I once cared for; a young man who made a bad decison and ended up as an invalid. Suffice to say that he had a very low “quality of life.” But yet, he wanted to continue to persue life because he was afraid to die.

In America, that’s his right…period.

Now this brings us to another element of the discussion. “Quality of life.” That’s a slippery slope…always. It’s subjective and a perspective that varies greatly from person to person. Wanting free healthcare in exchange for the state having the final word on defining quality of life might be the epitome of ignorance and complete unawarness of how the world works. Quality of life as judged by the state will depend on one’s abilty to contribute to the state. As a nurse aide, I suit up to defend a person’s right to live and help them do so. We stand as an advocate between the resident and that slippery slope. It’s not a nurse aide’s job to judge quality of life; we care for those alive to the best of our ability however we find them and make the situation the best it can possibly be.

In contrast to serving life, I could muse about being a state executioner.  First, for a representative republic. In many cases, the condemned would be regretful they didn’t listen to momma. This is such a pure and beautiful moment because you know the condemned really mean it, after all, there is no more hope. I could assure them they wouldn’t have listened to momma before this good day when complete understanding has shone through the clouds of lazy thinking.

As an executioner for a socialist state, I could preach altruism to the condemned. I could encourage all of them they are martyrs for the greater cause of a successful state. I would also be much busier because the condemned are not only criminals, but the physically disabled, mentally disabled, and those who dare think for themselves. The complete giving of self for the betterment of the group is the climax of virtue. Of course, capitalism enables the funding of selfishness that can only be cured by statist wisdom.

Some would be perplexed and distraught, not knowing that socialism always equals collectivism and collectivism always equals altruism. But hopelessness always makes the metaphysical math easier to understand.

paul

This post will outline the use of art to promote philosophy. “Anthropomorphic art” is an interesting term. Anthropomorphism is the “attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.” Of course, since this is outside the realm of reality as we know it, this idea must be portrayed through art. There are no actual photographs of nonhuman objects with human traits, or at least human intellect and reason.

However, you may note, “reality as we know it.” Often, art is used to argue for  philosophies that claim we do not know reality, but only think we know reality. And this is a VERY common notion historically.  As noted in the book, anthropomorphic art, by its very definition, is the projection of an ideology through art.

Sure, there are going to be those in the movement who think it’s a cool art form and that’s the sum of it for them, but they are gong to be the minority in the movement and not what actually drives the movement. Core ideology drives a movement and the behavior that results from the ideology will always be present to some degree in the movement’s venue.

CLEARLY, the two founders of the Fandom are not much for cultural boundaries. The extent of their counterculture ideology is still being researched, but in regard to cultural sex boundaries, there are none that this author can find. In the beginning of the Fandom there were grand opportunities for the founders to make their feelings known but they remained silent while furry minions crushed the attempt to reform the Fandom.

Two elements are key here: art and comedy. I have already addressed anthropomorphism as an anti-humanity philosophy in other posts. Art and comedy are often bridges across cultural boundary moats. Through narratives, art can project ideas visually without stating it in a manifesto. Comedy gets the same kind of pass. When we object to a comedian’s statement about something political or religious that we find culturally offensive, we often hear, “Lighten up, it’s only comedy.” In America, politicians have even shown their supposed virtue for praising comedians that mock them publicly. We should all be able to laugh at ourselves at times, right?

Anthropomorphic art in cartoon form (comedy) is the perfect storm for promoting counterculture ideas. The best example of this is fanzines. Fanzines, or cartoon magazines, were a primary tool of the Fandom starting out, but of course, internet resources have taken over that role for the most part. With the combination of anthropomorphic art, cartoons, and Anime, the Fandom can project any and every sexual behavior and gender ideology known to mankind, and they do, and have from the very beginning.

As noted in other posts, at least regarding pedophilia, this serves as the promotion of ideas at the front door, and the grooming of children for certain acts at the backdoor.

In closing, I will cite an example. In one issue of a Furry zine, we have a cartoon narrative of Little Red Riding Hood. Of course, Little Red Riding Hood is a voluptuous female in her mid-thirties as depicted in the cartoon strip. The cartoon makes use of the traditional narrative until the very end where LRRH confidently tells the wolf that she thinks the wolf would really rather have sex with her than eat her. The wolf mentions that he ate a large meal earlier and agrees. Then LRRH jumps of him and compliments the wolf on how well endowed he is.

Is this an endorsement of bestiality? Of course it is. But does it get a pass from the accusation of being an overt promotion of such because it is art and comedy? Again, of course it does, that’s the whole purpose of using the particular genre.

The case made in the book takes the whole perspective into consideration to reveal what the ramifications are for our children.

paul

“Here is another bottom line: claiming that New Calvinism is an aberration of authentic Protestant orthodoxy is a choosing of tradition over Christ. Protest if you will; you are guilty as hell.” 

I am not one for pulling down anything I have posted, I think I have done it once or twice since the beginning of PPT, but I cringe every time I see a hit on this post. One of these days I will rewrite The Truth About New Calvinism but the book still documents the real historical account of New Calvinism, an account few people want to acknowledge. TANC was the very first book written on New Calvinism based on four years of research.

Here is where I thank God for New Calvinism. I was born again with much power through the Spirit (circa 1983) before I was a member of any church or denomination. An insufferable zealot, I went on a journey to choose the right church. In the meantime, I saturated my brain with Scripture. I decided to hookup with the Southern Baptists, and was enrolled in a conservative seminary less than a year later.

Frankly, six months into church membership, deep down, I knew something was fundamentally wrong with church. But hey, this is Western culture; if you want a relationship with God, what else is there but church? Right? Without going into details, what I was seeing in personal Bible study wasn’t matching up with church at all. Finally, I cried out to God to show me the truth. In His own time, and way, He most certainly answered that prayer.

But the time came when I decided that God was not going to answer that prayer. So, circa 2006, I folded up my “devout Christian” tent, and settled into a general commitment to God and church while acknowledging I was comfortable with the contradictions. After all, God’s wisdom is beyond knowing, right? Hey, God works in mysterious ways, right?

So, there I was. I attended church, worked for the grounds ministry, said amen to everything, and was waiting on God to come back and sort everything out. Everything was good. Yes, no doubt, it was some passive aggressive attitude towards God: “Hey, you aren’t going to show me what’s going on; so, I am going to coast until you get back. Sure, you are God, and I know better than to turn my back on you, but since you like being all mysterious, go be mysterious, I am no longer going to kill myself figuring out all of this mess.”  Right, that’s a pretty pathetic attitude, no doubt. Perhaps the most pathetic there is.

Then, New Calvinism showed up and began one of its first covert takeovers of a church. Funny things started happening that pushed back against the cognitive dissonance that I worked 23 years to obtain. I was not happy, but I should have been. God was moving to answer my prayers in the midst of my cynical worldview.  And this was not just any church being taken over by the new Calvinists, it was a particular group of men involved with those that were key to unlocking the true history of New Calvinism.

Now, please understand, my beef with these guys at the time follows: they were messing up my own personal game plan for dealing with church until the Lord returned or I died. I worked 23 years to get there, and I had found contentment. I was no longer unhappy or angry; I replaced all of that with cynicism. I wanted answers. And as you know, the New Calvinists don’t like questions. Basically, they set out to destroy my life. The evil of it all dumbfounded me. What’s going on here?

So, I set out on a journey to defend my cognitive dissonance. Yes indeed, those pesky New Calvinists had hijacked true Calvinism and I would expose them in TANC. I then found a church where I could return to the cognitive dissonance that I knew before. I had done my duty to God, I would turn over my research to someone else who wanted to continue the fight and I would go back to comfortable Churchianity.

That person I found who was interested in my research was a guy named John Immel. I met him for dinner to hand over my stack of stuff. I liked him immediately; he was even more cynical than I was. As I was sharing elements of the research, he interrupted me. “Paul, you are saying that this is what New Calvinists teach?” When I replied in the affirmative, he replied, “That’s exactly what Luther and Calvin taught. Paul, you need to read the Calvin Institutes.” So I did. Bottom line: God showed me what I prayed for; the problem with church is church and its false gospel. What I could never put my finger on was so very simple: a false gospel.

C’mon gang, just admit that none of us really knew what Protestantism was about and it took a Seventh-Day Adventist to show us. Until you admit that, you are choosing Protestant tradition over Christ.

“But Paul, if I go down this road it will cost me everything!” Hmmmmm, so when was the last time you preached a sermon on Hebrews 11 you stinking hypocrite? Here is another bottom line: claiming that New Calvinism is an aberration of authentic Protestant orthodoxy is a choosing of tradition over Christ. Protest if you will; you are guilty as hell.

With that said, I do think there is a way forward that doesn’t completely burn down the reputation of the pastorate and church. That’s right, you may not even have to get a real job and will still be able to face Christ when the time comes.  That’s part two. It’s a win/win proposition.

I’m only trying to help,

paul

Is the subject of the Fandom that far away from TANC’s focus of study? Well, I guess not since there is a “Christian Furry” movement afoot. Actually, the movement has become prominent in the church. Perfect. A match made in heaven for sure.

Like church (Protestantism, in particular), most Furry participants don’t know what they have signed up for. Since most Protestants don’t even know what a Protestant is, the two are perfect for each other. Both put children at risk, and both make excuses for the evil they produce. But, of course, what possible connection could there be between what we read in the papers and Martin Luther saying,

“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2 Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign.”

A question: would you hire a person with such a worldview to oversee your church security? When people ask me, “Paul, where is justice in the church?” I will often answer, “Martin Luther said there isn’t any justice in this world to begin with.”

Both decry how they are “painted with a broad brush because of a few bad apples.” Meanwhile, children are acceptable collateral damage and less important than reputation. Both of these cultural movements claim the ideology that created them has no bearing on present behavior. The church may have a better argument than the Fandom, but in light of the headlines the church is trying to overcome, the embracing of a movement like the Fandom is stunning. No, no, church isn’t enough of a hot mess; by all means add the Fandom. No additional baggage there at all.

As will be documented in Fake Fandom, the Fandom began as a sexual revolution using anthropomorphic art as a bridge over cultural barriers. The Fandom was, and still is, a counterculture sex cult. Additionally, anthropomorphism and the manga form of Anime art is used to get around child pornography laws. In all, the Fandom is a perfect genre for child grooming.

As explained in the book, all movements will have those along for the ride who don’t understand the dynamics of countercultures, subcultures, sects, and cults, and how core ideology drives any given movement. Yes, some involved in the Fandom, perhaps many, are hobby enthusiasts and unwitting participants. That is a common dynamic of all movements whether religious, political, or anti-humanity.

What does the ready acceptance of the Fandom into church say about church leadership? Typical lack of discernment? Indifference? In what reality would a person with ill intent not see an opportunity with such a program centered around children in the church where ignorant trust knows no bounds? Imagine such a program being considered by dopy people with a silly grin and glassed-over eyes saying in a small, still voice, “We are all just sinners saved by grace” as the wolf inside the wolf suit licks his chops. Yes, one furry, whose persona is a wolf, attacked me for dissing his Furry program at a local church and the “rich fellowship” it creates with children. May I venture to ask if anyone is dressing up in a lamb suit?

Of course, the defense will be made regarding the good works the Fandom does for charity and not everyone in the movement is a pervert. Church has a better defense for itself in that regard, at least theoretically, while we wait for the headlines about child abuse to at least slow down.

Finally, church has an opportunity to demonstrate that it has “learned from unfortunate events” by banning the Fandom. It’s a grand opportunity to show that it is security conscious and a movement like the Fandom poses too much risk. Until the church proves it can keep children safe, it doesn’t need to add a movement with the same problem.

paul