Monday, December 19, 2016

Tired of winning

Pardon my silence. Life is busy, projects abound, and I'm largely distracted elsewhere.

In fact, I haven't been able to pay attention to politics for a year! Can anyone tell me how Jeb Bush did against Hillary?

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Dear #Nevertrump: We Compromised!

One thing #NeverTrump people don't appreciate about Trump's political success is this: it's actually the result of people taking to heart the advice of the GOPe and (eventually) the #NeverTrump people.

See, the right-wing was told by the GOPe: you guys have to start compromising. You can't win on every platform you want to win on - something's going to have to give. So start compromising, start giving up on this or that issue for the sake of political success.

Which is exactly what Trump's supporters by and large did.

The wrench in the plan was that the expectation was the grassroots right would give up on issues the GOPe wanted them to give up on. Give up on abortion and immigration, and in exchange we'll be able to better advance free trade and foreign wars. The very idea that, given the choice, plenty on the right would gladly sacrifice foreign wars and free trade? That was unthinkable. After all, don't the people revere good ol' George W. Bush?

Didn't they stop to think that maybe a lot of us were *already* compromising by siding with them to begin with? That unlimited free trade and endless foreign wars didn't animate us, but were instead the things we were willing to put up with to achieve our other goals?

This is what compromise looks like, #NeverTrump. Thank you for your winning advice.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Recalled Newsweek "President Hillary" magazine filled with whoppers


Hillary the Human?

Come on, Newsweek. There are lies and then there are lies.

Seriously though, check out the scans of this thing if you can. I love the bit about how Trump's supporters were so desperate to defeat her that they called for the 19th amendment to be repealed.

How sad is it when the mainstream media spends an entire election destroying their own credibility in order to help elect someone who isn't even competent enough to get elected?

As sad as it is funny, I'd say.

Monday, November 14, 2016

What's Wrong With The World eats crow, manages to sneer the whole time

To the surprise of no one, of course.

Sage McLaughlin, which I assume is not a real name (and I refuse to believe otherwise), apparently drew the short straw among staff, so it fell to him to do the crow-munching. Not content with being completely wrong about the outcome of the primaries,  the election, or the control of the house and senate, Sage decided to chart bold new territory and be completely wrong about his analysis of WHY he was wrong.

"Hindsight is 20/20?" Sage snorted. "Screw that. Let's aim for 20/80!"
There was something else, though, something that stood a chance of making the 2016 campaign into a black swan event, though I had dismissed it with scorn from the very start: the craving for attention on the part of Trump’s voters (and, decisively, his potential voters). That craving found indirect reflection in the unbalanced, narcissistic personality of the Republican candidate. Moreover, their acute sense of victimhood made them amenable to any appeal that seemed to be directed at them. It was an appeal that Team Clinton consciously decided it had no need to make, bound as they were by their stubborn conviction that the Obama coalition could be mobilized without Obama’s name on the ballot (something for which none of the last five election cycles has provided any evidence).
What part of the electorate would this be? Who did Clinton ignore, to her detriment? Between her "this is how Hillary is like your abuela" and hot sauce comments, she hit every victim class we're used to hearing about. Well, everyone we'd normally call a victim class, anyway. 

He takes a while to come right out and say who he means - these people who need attention, these people who feel ignored, these *snort* would be victims. But it shouldn't be hard to figure out the object of his contempt in advance.


White people. UGH.

No, not all white people of course. Just, you know - the lower classes. Those who are not college educated and who wouldn't appreciate the bon mots of Sage and company, in part because a bon mot sounds like a shitty, expensive, French candy. Largely non-college-educated white people, the kind who live in communities that the people at What's Wrong With the World think have a moral obligation to die a la Kevin D. Williamson. People who, if they would be so kind, should just die already because their nasty sense of entitlement provokes them to do things like protest illegal (and massive legal) immigration. To think they imagine their wages shouldn't be intentionally deflated, or their communities overrun with people from another culture or the like.

Bastards! And yet, I find myself sympathizing with them.

Of course, I also sympathize with the blacks and hispanics - those who have actually been here legally, who have assimilated - and who also are quite screwed by these influxes, yet whose self-appointed leadership have been able to pacify the dregs with distractions. What can I say - I think American laws should, first and foremost, help Americans and American communities.

WWWtW thinks differently, which leads to a bit of a lesson. While Sage complains with a sneer about how a certain class of the electorate was too whiny - 'white niggers' he may as well call them - the real reason that's a problem is because Sage and company feel awfully ignored over there. Why, they are conservatives. They teach! Their friends write for the glossiest right-wing toilet paper around, National Review. How dare the plebes pick a candidate to represent them to the detriment of those who pray at the most important altar of all - the altar of free market economics and neo-con overseas projects!

And so, Sage - and Lydia, and Tony, and Paul, and all the rest - continue to sneer and forecast doom and gloom for we Trump supporters. Sure, they've fouled up every prediction so far, but - as Malcolm has noted in the comments - they're ready for what's coming. Every failure will be blamed on Trump. Every victory, called an accident, with praise heaped on Trump's accidental cabinet picks. Forget for a moment that Trump has already done one hell of a lot more than previous Loser-in-chief George W. Bush ever accomplished (aside from his SCOTUS picks, the best of which was forced on him by a furious base, aka, the predecessors to Team Trump.) Forget that he slayed the Clinton machine, helped save the GOP's position in the house and senate, and a whole lot more. No, Trump will screw up someday, and they'll finally be there to say 'I told you so'.

No doubt, I say to the folks at WWWtW. You will, no doubt, someday be able to say 'I told you so'.

...But we get to say it first.

Dank

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Cheap Shot at What's Wrong With the World

It's ironic that their most recent post was about the importance of the First Amendment, served literally hours before God rendered 'em speechless.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

A Tale of Two Crudes

This is an opportunity for a lesson about Christianity.

See, in the past few weeks, I've had a few folks dropping comments on my blog. I don't even know these guys, but apparently my ardent Trump support pissed some people off, so whenever Trump had a scandal (he said a bad word!) or was down in the polls... rarely, but at times, someone would pop up snark at me.

I just spammed 'em at the time. But to them, two sincere responses.

Consciously Christian Crude:

Greetings, hostile person. On this, the day of Trump's victory, I have a message for you.

Look. My support of Trump is because I think he will do some good things. At least, he has a chance at doing so, and he will inspire some people to do some good things as well. Believe it or not, for all my criticisms of black culture and community - I want black people to succeed and thrive. The same for hispanics. And asians. And whites. I want nothing but the best for people, and for the people who disagree with me about what 'the best' always is? I'm actually largely in favor of leaving them alone in a legal sense; I just demand the ability for people in my culture, in my world, to live their lives in their communities as they see best, building a future for their children. I put America First, but not America Only, and I look to Trump to have an attitude similar to that.

So, that snark and lashing out? It's forgiven. Because it's minor, and I think it's born out of a frustration and a lack of understanding of what I am - indeed, what many people like me are, and what we want.

After you really accept these election results, I hope and pray you pause and ask yourself if maybe hostility isn't necessary. We can get along and leave each other alone, and otherwise be united in peace.

Theistic but not-Consciously-Christian Crude:

Greetings, hostile person. On this, the day of Trump's victory, I have a message for you.

How's it feel, choking on your own cock? Ha ha ha.

Hail the God-Emperor!

...

Decide, with those responses in mind, which you'd prefer, and more than that - whether you should encourage the Christian side or the non-Christian side that exists in people.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Monday, November 7, 2016

Enjoy what's coming

This has been a glorious election. In a way, I wish it could continue for a couple more years! Trump has managed to scare the everloving hell out of people, forcing media bias to become utterly obvious to everyone in a blatant attempt to change the election outcome. (Gotta love the way Trump's rallies are so large, filled with people who openly despise CNN and the MSM in general.) The corruption by the government was on center stage, with the FBI blatantly declining to prosecute the clearly criminal Clinton out of fear and toadyism. Wikileaks has shown the Democrats to be beholden to Wall Street, corrupt beyond belief, and the amount of election rigging that has gone on has been absolutely priceless.

This is a genie that won't go back in the bottle.

Let's say Hillary wins tomorrow. There will be lamentations - well deserved! - but she'll hobble into office as a crippled candidate - morally, politically, and given her penchant for passing out like a drug-addled senior citizen, likely medically as well. Trump delivered exactly what he promised during the primaries - a savaging - and that alone makes him the most honest candidate we've seen since Reagan. What has been necessary to shove Hillary within grasping distance of the finish line has been amazing; tell me that Jeb! or Rubio would have done better, and I will have one hell of a laugh.

The electoral process - the government, the media, even the corporations - have all been exposed as corrupt and tainted. The only possible way to vindicate it, if only for a moment, would be for Trump to actually win tomorrow. Which means, if in drastically different ways, this entire process has turned into a win-win one for those with my sympathies.

Of course, time's going to march on no matter what. But Leviathan itself took a savaging this election, and the wounds aren't going to close quickly. Granted, that doesn't mean happy times are right around the corner - wounded beasts are dangerous. But after watching the GOP, along with conservatives, squirm and wiggle and whine and cry for so long, and so pathetically? I've come to enjoy a bit of fire and ferocity. I enjoy the fact that now, more than ever, it's easier to see who's on what side.

I do not think I am alone in that.

Sunday, October 30, 2016

The Benedict Option's hidden requirement

Whenever I see Catholics/Christians talking about 'The Benedict Option', I roll my eyes.

It's a nice idea, don't get me wrong. But what gets forgotten in the process is this: the Benedict Option worked because no one was chasing the Christians at the time. In this day and age, where do you plan to go to to escape the secular monstrosity?

Will you create your own city? Monaghan tried that. How's it working out?

Will you escape to the woods? Do try and find some where you can build houses.

Off to another country? Pick one where you'll be welcome.

The Benedict Option isn't an option, unless the world descends into some tremendous worldwide chaos. And even then, it's going to involve not just spiriting away into isolation, but a willingness to shoot looters and interlopers.

I'm afraid you may need another option, ladies and gentlemen.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Guessing the Trump-GOP timeline

I would bet a finger that the timeline went something like this at the GOP HQ.

1: Alright, everyone. This tape is going to surface soon. Remember: we all pull our endorsements on him at once and DEMAND he step down. He'll probably be a shitshow in the next debate, all apologetic and pathetic. Then we replace him.

2: What the. Oh shit he's doing good.

2.5: Oh shit. He's doing REAL good.

3: He's not stepping down, is he. And also, now he's attacking us, SHIT.

Trump was looking like he was either going to A) Win, but be the winner who was going to humbly build bridges, or B) Lose, but lose gracefully.

But no, they had to get the insurance in, had to go for the October Surprise stab in the back to try and ruin him. Which just pissed him off, animated him further, and now he's pulling out all the stops and it's looking like a Lion in the Streets situation.

They really are the stupid party. All that's left is for hacked emails to come out showing they colluded with the democrats on releasing this tape, which is already looking obvious due to the Bush connection.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Lydia McGrew: Pepperidge Farms remembers dueling over a woman's honor


Everyone knows the Trump quote right now - the admonition to 'Grab her by the pussy', I believe was the bullseye. And most guys, even most kind of backwards or shy guys, have heard this kind of talk. It's common language, along the lines of talking about how you'd fuck a girl so hard that her freckles fell off, to quote George Carlin.

Well, Lydia McGrew, noted internet scold who opposes even discussing punishing women for abortions, has a few things to say about Donald Trump's nasty, nasty language.
But for right now let me just say that the defense that "all men talk that way" comes straight from the pit of hell.
Get an abortion, you're a victim. Talk bluntly about some women, and we're into The Omen territory.

Now, before I go on, I will be frank. Men talk poorly about women. Also, women talk poorly about men. We're in the midst of what can be called 'Jackoff Culture', where porn is everywhere, everyone's masturbating, and filth is all over the place. I'm not going to defend it, because I don't think it should be defended, even as a guy who's taken part in it.

On the other hand, this fucking scolding - especially when Trump is up against a woman who, frankly, ran defense for her rapist husband, AND for the husband of her muslim gal-pal who was wagging his dick at women online and using his kid as a chick magnet - is ridiculous. And if you want to talk about damaging Christian witness, let me tell you: nothing does that quite like hypocritical lecturing from a politically motivated hack.

But on we go.

Lydia says that you should be outraged that people are admitting that, frankly, this is just how people talk - and variations on it have probably been around since Cain and Able. Considering what Lydia's outraged by, I'd suggest that maybe she's not a good guide here.

But what sticks out to me is this:
In the olden days, when one man insulted another's honor or integrity, the second man challenged him to a duel. Therefore, I suggest a metaphorical challenge in response to this gross insult to all decent men. You can throw down this challenge by posting #gauntlet on Facebook or Twitter.
First off: the olden days? What, the 1800s? This hasn't been happening for a while, Lydia, outside of romance novels. At least not in the West. It's likely more common elsewhere, and we have a term for that kind of thing: honor killings.

Second, when violence did break out over insult - it was over someone's wife, mother, sister or Queen. Not over a hypothetical woman who would quite happily gobble your knob if you were direct and halfway charming. In other words - and Lydia would hate this - not every woman was worth fighting for. Men are a whole lot worse nowadays, but so are women. Many men aren't willing to fight for a woman's honor, but just as many women are lacking the kind of honor that'd provoke meaningful blows in their defense anyway.

Gasp if you want. It sucks. And it's true. And no, 'all women everywhere' - abortions and all - isn't an acceptable replacement concept, no matter what this woman thinks.

But you know what's really telling about how far we've fallen?

Reasoning that goes like this: 'Once upon a time men used to fight for women's honor, which women used to preserve. Well, neither do anymore for the most part. But you know what's an acceptable substitute? This hashtag! Be sure to post it on your choice of two SJW-owned outlets for politically motivated feminist reasons!'

Jesus fucking Christ. Have we not fallen enough yet? Must we really demean ourselves even further by pretending hashtag warrior antics are meaningful stand-ins for honor and respect?

Unfortunately for Lydia, her attempt to hop on the Dump Trump train, AGAIN, happened just moments before it went off the rails, AGAIN. No one cared, and now everyone's cheering on the fact that Trump actually had the balls to say he'd throw a criminal's ass in prison if he could, even if she's heretofore been considered untouchable by the FBI, and ungrabbable by any man, including (for a longass time) her husband.

Win or lose, Trump is the shot in the arm we've needed for a while. For all his flaws, the example he sets makes it more likely we can recover some of the better parts of those Olden Days that Lydia and crew are pining for.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Have a wikileaks dump

I've been quiet here, I know. Combination of work and fresher pastures for fights and souls.

But that doesn't mean I can't post a little bit of something, eh?

Courtesy of Wikileaks, here are Hillary's million-dollar speeches. Be sure to notice the parts where she talks about how minorities are firmly under the thumb of DNC messaging, but they have a bunch of losers who are harder to control.

This is a glorious election. Nominating Trump has led to both parties being de-legitimized to an absurd degree - the Democrats now exposed as Wall Street slaves, and the Establishment republicans exposed as the same.

I advise faith in God to get you through what's coming, because this ride's gonna stay wild for a while - and the vote ain't gonna end it, no matter who wins.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton is the picture of health

Oh sure, all that 'she's actually really sick' talk was just crazy conspiracy theories. Clearly.

What's the over-under on her shitting her pants on stage during a debate?

Saturday, September 10, 2016

What's Wrong With Phyllis Schlafly

Something to keep in mind, as we honor Phyllis Schlafly.

She went all in for Trump.

To put this in perspective: What's Wrong With the World honors a right-wing hero whose final act was to defy them.

I think I picked the right side in this particular intellectual battle.

Monday, September 5, 2016

Phyllis Schlafly dies - leftists celebrate

To the surprise of no one, at this point.

Just a little reminder that my decision to regard leftists, particularly Christian leftists, with open contempt was in part a result of refusing to ignore their desire that 'my side' die.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Meanwhile, in the political arena

So, if Trump was polling poorly a month ago, and he's pulling ahead now, does that mean FBI investigations into Hillary turned everyone more racist or what?

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Why Lothar Lorraine is part of the problem

I don't like liberal Christians. Not exactly shocking to anyone who frequents this blog. I can name a handful of exceptions - Victor Reppert remains a man I hold in high esteem, whatever my disagreements with his politics. Bob Prokop, on a good day, is at least someone I can drop my guard with. But it's a short list, and even the list of 'conservatives' I like is forever getting smaller as I keep having to cross names off the list (see: #Nevertrumpers and their creepy globalist bible.)

Which brings me to Lothar Lorraine.

See, Lothar's a funny case - he was, really, the last left-wing Christian I was talking with (Reppert and Prokop aside) before I hit the brakes and decided that no, there is no possibility for peace and cooperation between our respective sides. Lothar will insist he's always been exceptionally polite to me, and I will admit that he has been. I breathed fire at his blog in the past - I've not been there for ages - and at his commenters. Granted, I was dealing with some shitty individuals, but I know that people like their regulars and don't appreciate it when someone like myself scares them off.

The point is, I won't say that Lothar's mistreated me personally. Which makes me seem rather rude for including him in the list of 'liberal Christians' I hold in contempt, right? Shouldn't I be seeking out common ground and trying to put our differences aside?

Here's half of the problem with Lothar, and with - really - liberal Christians as a rule. Their liberal politics are not opinions that they have. They are, instead, fundamental components of what amounts to religious law in a faith which is all-consuming, which knows no borders or bounds, and which they work to make all ultimately subject to.

So Lothar, despite not being a Catholic, will cheer on and encourage people to undermine my church, openly hoping for the day where the first lesbian bishop blesses a gay wedding for three women, one of whom made sure to get an abortion at the last minute to make sure she fit into her wedding dress. Every movement towards this is met with cheers by Lothar, because - ultimately - his religion demands it, because it is thoroughly a conquering religion, and its points of conquest are wholly political in nature. "Social justice", from shore to shore, regressive and twisted though it may be. Christ, by the way, is quite optional in this scheme. That's not an important component in this aspect of his religion. Atheists, even evangelical atheists, are allies on this scheme.

I am not going to call someone a friend or an acquaintance when they treat me personally, 'face to face', with civility, yet are unceasing in giving aid, comfort and encouragement to people openly trying to rob me of my culture and my faith. What can I say - it's a sticking point.

Now, despite this, I give credit where it's due. Lothar is no drone, and that sets him apart from other liberals. He will question liberal dogma, and many cannot. And for a while I drew encouragement from that. How can I not? It's fascinating.

Until I realized something. The second half of the problem, and the one which stopped me cold.

Lothar will (say) criticize Black Lives Matter. It's true, and that's remarkable. And he will face a torrent of left-wing hate for doing so. He will stand up against it. All good so far.

The problem is that when time comes to defend himself, people like myself turn out to be his shields.

In order to retain his liberal credentials, Lothar turns up the heat against Trump supporters - like yours truly. 'Hey,' he says, 'I'm still on your side! Look how I can condemn Trump supporters as racists who hate blacks and hispanics! He's a nazi! See? See? I'm still a good liberal - look how I take a verbal whip to these people we both hate!'

And then, Lothar will turn on a heel and come to people like me and expect sympathy. He stood up to BLM! He's convinced they're wrong now! Because, in part, of how they treat him. Can you believe they still went for his throat even -after- assuring them all that Trump supporters are motivated by the desire to string up blacks and gas all the latinos and declare white supremacy?

I suppose I should say, bravo for your bravery in trying to face the mob by expressing your contempt and resentment of... me and people like me.

Once again: kind of a sticking point.

Which is why, despite the politeness, I talk about how funny it's going to be once swaths of geography in France and Germany (hopefully, the liberal Christian and irreligious regions) no longer have 'mayors' as their heads but Qadis, and their resident feminists find themselves beaten into burqas. That sounds cruel, and it is cruel, but so is aiding and abetting the likes of George Soros and, yes, Obama and Clinton, as they try mightily to hollow out my religion and the religions of my peers and turn them into pagan temples to whatever Social Justice mental illness is all the rage. No, I don't want 'dialogue' over this shit anymore, which always turns out to be treated as the terms of my cultural surrender. No, I don't want to 'agree to disagree' and act friendly when someone openly aids, abets and provide moral encouragement to people who would see me starving to death for my beliefs, and robbed of any church to call my home.

That said, I hold out hope. Because at this rate Lothar is going to - belatedly - find himself turning into a full-blown nationalist and member of the Alt Right. At that point, perhaps, we'll finally be able to truly be within overlapping intellectual circles enough to warrant some sincere courtesy. But for now, I'm afraid I'm all out of the fake stuff.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Regarding globalist corporations and billionaire SJWs...

My attitude is: fuck 'em. Soak 'em too, for all I care.

It's weird that I have to say this, since I've made my nationalist and even protectionist sympathies known for a long time. I also think most arguments against the super-rich, which hinge on their accumulation of wealth, to be fundamentally flawed. In an ideal world, someone who manages to get wealthy via business acumen, hard work, brilliance and more, would have near complete control over their wealth. Of course, in an ideal world, they'd also spend that wealth ideally as well. On any given day, when we're talking principle, I err on the side of at the very least 'letting the wealthy spend their money as they see fit'.

I also do not live in an ideal world. I live in a world with Soros, Gates, and many other sorts whose wealth and their use of it is typically deployed to attack, frustrate, and undermine most things that are good and holy. Not even Churches are outside of their nasty little scope, since they see such things as just one more thing to influence and shape, even if they're on record as irreligious who are openly hostile to those Church's teachings.

This sort of thing invites a dilemma for me. See, despite all things, I try to be fair. I uphold free speech - even speech I find detestable. To give an example of what I mean... hypothetically, let's say Peter Boghossian - PeteBog, a guy I think is a nasty little rat of a man, a real shit by any measure - wanted to give a speech at a public university. And let's say, like Milo Yiannapolous - who I think is fantastic - students and rabble-rousers attempted to block him, rushing the stage, shoving and attacking his supporters in an attempt to try and shut down the event.

My response in both cases is the same: use force to allow them to speak. I will be more explicit: send in police, armored and weaponized, and beat down anyone who would not disperse to the sidelines to peacefully protest. Crack skulls if necessary, and I mean that literally. Call it one of the few more secular values I maintain; speech is sacrosanct in the public. Even people who I despise, I would protect.

But I'm not a universal zealot - I get practical when the topic demands it. The right of billionaires to corrupt and undermine whatever they please, to the point where they fund third party groups that will engage in violence, all while pleading innocence despite advising and directing these groups? To try and undermine borders to try and reshape whole countries, even countries they have no loyalty to? I'm not about to go to the wall for that one. And if tomorrow I wake up to news that a crying, pleading Soros has been snatched up by a foreign government, tossed into prison and his wealth confiscated, I'll laugh a hell of a lot more than I'll cry.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

George Soros attempting to influence the Catholic Church

Now and then one could get the impression that I really dislike liberal Christians.

If you'd like to see an example of why, here you go. Courtesy of Lifesite News.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

NCR Purge?

Now this is interesting. I'm hearing Shea isn't the only one fired from NCR.

Heads-up: I'm more a Breitbart guy, and my lifeline to Catholic news is headlines at New Advent. But this smells funny. Can someone tell me what's up? This seems a bit more like a newfound decision by a Catholic publication that they have been tolerating something that can be tolerated no more.

Someone informed, fill me in.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

The problem with the Seamless Garment

John Zmirak is a name I've heard before, but never followed up on - I kept assuming it was 'Father Z' for some reason. But reading his writings about the Seamless Garment strategy, I'm impressed. He's pointing out, plainly, not just what's wrong with it, but the reasons people have for promoting it.

Nice to see some sharp Catholics out there.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Mark Shea axed at the NCR

Thanks to Vand83 for pointing this out to me. If rumors are to be believed, Mark Shea apparently has been ousted as a paid editorialist for NCR. I haven't kept my eye on him in a while, but apparently he's recently been playing front-man for the latest left-wing con game on Catholics: the short version is, 'The pro-life movement only cares about dead infants. What nerve. We should redefine pro-life to mean things like supporting massive illegal immigration, amnesty for illegals, and every Democrat social policy in town, because Jesus demands that.' Apparently Shea, ever the hothead, got into it in a nasty way on some other blog I'm unaware of - but it was apparently bad enough that NCR decided they'd better part ways with him now.

Interesting stuff.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Comic misfires of the weekend

Let's see, what happened this weekend.

In New York we had an imam and another get shot. Immediately the local muslim community started screaming "Trump! Trump did this! Trump with his Islamophobia! Trump murdered this man!" I'm imagining that's going to go away now that police have released a sketch of the perp, and he looks... well, they call him 'south american' but I'm pretty sure that's a catch-all for 'a bit dark-skinned and probably another muslim' here. Oh well.

Not to be outdone, the black community in Milwaukee heard that a black guy got shot, and not only rioted and looted (for justice!) but also made sure to get caught on tape chasing down white people to beat. Also yammering about how rich people don't give enough money to black people so that's why they're rioting. But this is what happens when a black unarmed man is shot by a white cop, by which I mean this is what happens when a black armed man with a ton of ammo is shot by a black cop. Because that's what actually happened.

Trump's apparently planning a visit to the site of the riot this Tuesday, so that'll be interesting.

What's Wrong With the Victory

Welcome to the world of 'victory' in 2016 for conservative Christians in America.

Victory here means 'By bowing and scraping before the government, Christian colleges won the the right for their students to continue to receive state assistance with tuition, at the small cost of having to report each and every one of their Title IX exemptions the state. Which totally won't be used against them in any way, shape or form.'

The worst part is watching David French crow about how this just goes to show that Christians can still totally win victories if they just put up a good fight. Sure, he and Lydia suggest, maybe this isn't the -perfect- resolution, but progress is progress! This is the sort of idiot who talks about how great the Middle East is for Christians right now, because it allows them to witness to Christ, ie, get their heads cut off by screeching saracens.

So great. At the mere cost of bowing and scraping, Christians can be humiliated further by the state, but at least funding remains on for now. There's no small amount of irony here in watching a turbo-libertarian and Christian cheerleader celebrating what amounts to 'not quite as bad of an asskicking as this could have been', because it still allows for Christian colleges to receive public money.

Pardon me if my view's a bit more negative.

Friday, August 12, 2016

Rotten white people

While I have stopped giving a shit about 99% of 'racist' comments, the idea of white supremacy is as far from my mind as it ever was. And I have a reason that can easily knock down racial supremacy arguments across the board.

SJWism is propagated by whites, was largely the creation of whites, and a lot of whites subscribe to it.

Whites are no master race, and there is no master race. Tell me genetics of caucasians play a particular role, even an important one, in the founding and maintaining of various western nations and I'll hear you out. But I'll note that whatever sickness has been plaguing the west came in advance of 'diversity' and, as Vox Day calls them, the vibrants.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Agreeing to disagree

Agreeing to disagree doesn't work in a lot of contexts. If I believe Christ is Risen and you don't, we can agree to disagree as citizens of the same country. Not as members of the same Christian church. In that case, agreeing to disagree isn't enough - you need to leave.

You also need to leave if you think same-sex marriage is moral, women should become priests, abortion is acceptable, and more. No, we don't need a dialogue to discuss our differences. Your ass needs to find another church.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Selective forgiveness

Tell me that we need mercy and understanding for sinners - with an eye on anti-white BLM thugs, LGBT activists and abortionists - and I'll follow suit. But I'll do so, first, to the racists, the sexists, and the porn consumers. Once I've confirmed that mercy, forgiveness and understanding is meant to be applied to all sinners in this Step 1, I'll proceed to the Step 2, of applying it to the thugs, activists and abortionists.

So far, Step 1 has yet to go off without a hitch. It turns out that understand, forgiveness and tolerance is to be applied extraordinarily selectively. Imagine that.

SSPX's Disputed Vatican II documents are non-doctrinal

So sayeth the gents at 1 Peter 5 anyway.

Have I gone on record yet saying I like the SSPX's attitude? Because I do.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Evidence for atheism

When theists are asked to give evidence for their view, they point to hundreds of books featuring philosophical and metaphysical arguments, reports of miracles, and more.

When atheists are asked to give evidence for their view, they point to dozens of books explaining why they think it's completely unfair to ask them to give evidence for their view.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Hoping for a Hillary Win?

Just to make my line in the sand clear.

I regard anyone who hopes for a Hillary win to be as about as Catholic or Christian as Richard Dawkins.

Some may wrinkle their noses at this, even Trump supporters. You know - 'Leave politics out of religion, we can agree to disagree.'

Well, no. We cannot. No one really abides by this rule, and perhaps no one should. But at this point, Hillary embodies something that really, no sincere Christian can celebrate. Both her and her party don't merely want to legalize abortion - they want it normalized, to the point where it's a cultural good to be celebrated. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

To look forward to her presidency highlights someone who is either ignorant beyond belief, or whose Christianity is purely in name only, having given way to another religion altogether. It's like talking about a Christian who really totally believes in Jesus you guys, but just so happens to believe that human sacrifice is kind of acceptable, I mean it's a cultural relativity thing, also isn't the Eucharist basically the same thing?

No thank you. I don't recognize your religion - it is not mine.

When blind faith is encouraged

I've never had blind faith in God or the Church. When I was younger, I believed for the same reason I believed most other things - I accepted the words of my authority figures. As I became older, I questioned. I had my doubts on all kinds of things; some held. Others gave way to rejection. God, it turned out, has a lot more intellectually going than many other things. Sure, certainty wasn't in the cards, but realizing that I couldn't achieve complete certainty about the existence of the past put that in perspective.

Of course, during that whole time, there was forever the condemnations of blind faith on the part of the religious. Belief without evidence was and remains a grave charge, and a lack of doubt is condemned as zealotry. In response, many Christians have not only stressed the role of evidence in religious belief, but also the existence of doubt. Doubting God - in some capacity - is taken as a kind of given for religious people, and Christians even have biblical examples of that. Questioning is welcomed, even by the more zealous, as part of the process.

What I've noticed is that the celebrating of doubt, of questioning, of exploring one's doubts, is more and more seeming uniquely Christian.

I've never seen a feminist encourage people to question the existence of the patriarchy. I do not see people who say 'Go, see for yourself whether Black Lives Matter's claims are legitimate'. I do not even see people who say 'Yes, evolution is a big complicated theory, it makes sense to doubt it. Look into it on your own and make up your mind!'

There, dissent and questioning is treated as a grave character flaw.

Blind faith, is turns out, is only bad in select situations. Otherwise, it's practically compulsory.

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Fast thoughts 8/8/16

* I'm ambivalent about the rise of Erdogan and the whiff of the death of Turkey as the Great Muslim Example for the west. On the one hand, I've got no great love of Islam. On the other, I have no great love of secularism either - especially not what I take to be Ataturk-style utter worship of secular ideals. The alt-right involves a lot of disdain for Islam, but equal disdain for SJWs and cucks. But SJWs and cucks are more dire threats to the West than Islam is - and they are secular, even irreligious, through and through. I don't care what Erdogan does, for the most part, so long as he does it inside of his borders. The guy certainly seems popular enough.

* I notice the embers of Nevertrump still burn. To be expected, sure. What surprises me are the Christians who are particularly incensed against him, and it typically comes down heavily to 'He's not nearly as excited about foreign wars as we like' and 'He's not NEARLY reliable on free trade as we like'. That they tend to express this with a surprisingly left-wing focus - 'Trump's so racist! He's so sexist! Building a wall is racist! Deportation is racist!' - says a lot. At this point I wonder if we're not witnessing a re-alignment of our political parties, along the lines of the Democrats becoming abortion-fanatical, sexual-monstrosity-obsessed SJWs with a big love of corporations. More proof that God has a sense of humor.

* Asians who try mightily to be considered as a 'People of Color' victim class always stand out like a sore thumb, and they always will. From the worldwide success of asian cultures to the success of asians in the US, they're - across ethnicities - the embarrassing race, the exception that doesn't prove the rule, but destroys it. Watching them try to complain about their treatment - 'white people think we're so smart and responsible and well-mannered, it's oppressive!' - comes across more like a Monty Python sketch lampooning the very idea. The one legitimate negative stereotype asians have - "Small dicks" - also happens to be the last thing any of them want to ever discuss. Not exactly the sort of thing you want on the banner under your image on CNN.

* Lauren Southern is a frightening woman. I mean that in a positive way. Cute, slender female running around throwing herself into the thick of liberal protests and visiting crazy immigrant enclaves while being some right-wing scion? She's one of a handful of women who actually kind of confound me because they're just too aggressive. (Hillary Clinton doesn't make this list, and frankly I'll be impressed if she finishes this election without shitting her pantsuit on camera. She's just a puppet.)

* I would love to see a poll conducted where they found out how many men and women would admit to being sexually aroused by and welcoming of things that various people regard as blatant sexual assault. 'Do you like being woken up being fondled by your spouse or SO?' I suspect the numbers are higher than anyone wants to admit.

* I don't mean to shit on anyone's parade, but isn't the very idea of masturbating to pornography kind of... fucked up? Put the sensible religious aspect aside, and even the straightforward Thomist views. 'Masturbating while watching other people have sex'? I can see why people once upon a time thought of this as mental illness to be nipped in the bud. Conversely, while Japan's lost all interest in sex, I notice they have -not- lost an interest in porn. There's a conversation no one wants to talk about. Still, I imagine it's not going to be long before feminist thinkers start openly talking about how masturbating while thinking about a woman is idealization of rape. We'll see how well that ship sails.

* It turns out that 'How Hillary Clinton is like your abuela' thing could have potentially been accurate. 'She has alzheimers and she can't even walk upstairs on her own' would have nailed it.

* Isn't Bernie Sanders just the most pathetic figure in this entire election? I mean Jeb! was hard to top, but holy shit, that guy. I don't even have additional commentary, I'm just amazed at what a loser he was from start to finish, which is made all the more amazing by how close he came to winning the nomination.

Racism as fault vs Racism as the worst sin

I dislike racism. Racial supremacy talk? I think it's idiotic and impossible to meaningfully sustain, and I strongly question attempts to make genetics a pivotal factor in arguments about cultural supremacy. For various definitions of racism, you don't have to work too hard to convince me that it's wrong, immoral, etc.

But things get complicated. Tell me that a person's dislike of rap music is itself racist and condemnation-worthy, and my skepticism kicks in. Tell me that a person's dislike of black culture - framed properly - is racist, and that skepticism goes into overdrive. I think many people agree with at least this much, increasingly forbidden as it may be to say.

Let's put that aside, however, and talk about more basic, straightforward acts of racism. Calling a black person a nigger or a coon. Making a racist joke. (Why can't Stevie Wonder read? Because he's black.) Very rude, I grant you. Racist? Sure, under some typical definition of the term. In general I think criticizing someone for an aspect of themselves they have no control over is often a bridge too far, though honestly that picture of the one atheist philosopher with the lazy eye has gotten a cheap laugh out of me before. Still, I can generally get onboard with the sentiment that a guy calling some black man a nigger is doing something wrong, and I'm going to think he's being at the very least a moron.

Here's where things get tricky.

People do wrong things all the time as near as I can tell. Obama chiding people for being critical of Islam because 'the crusades' is wrong. People screaming about the evils of 'white males' is wrong. Lampooning Christians - yes, even creationists - as morons or hicks is wrong. Every day I read the news or I watch TV or I just walk down the street and I am absolutely swimming in Stuff That is Wrong. And, when pressed, a lot of people will admit that either the things I'm talking about are wrong, or at the least, one can understandably be critical of such a thing.

But when it comes to racism, 'wrong' is insufficient. Stupid utterances, even private utterances, are held as so foul and vile and wicked that the offending party must be attacked, villified, fired, sued, hurt in every way possible until they humiliate themselves in grovelling apology, upon which they will STILL be destroyed because it's important to make an example of them. Suggesting that maybe this is going a bit too far is taken as evidence that one is a klansman. Demands for consistency on this topic are ignored as well.

Pardon me, I think that's fucking nuts and I want no part of it. Wanting no part of it doesn't mean I have to join the klan - it means I'm not onboard with the great holy purge. I'll settle for something a bit closer to 'tsk tsk' like we do for most other crimes of verbal offense. I think that's appropriate enough, partly because of the inconsistency with how crimes of racial offense are treated. Partly because I truly believe it's not much of a concern anyway, especially at the level of jokes and casual talk. Partly because I think policing for racial offense does a great job of policing for cultural coverups. Better for all of us that these taboos be the cultural equivalent of decriminalized.

A note about Olympics commentary at this blog

There's not going to be any, unless something funny happens. Like Anderson Cooper being on camera when a sewer pipe bursts, leading to him being sprayed with liquid filth on live tv, leading him to break his concentration and just have a very campy gay freakout.

Friday, August 5, 2016

NeverTrump and NeverHillary

Is it just me, or are the 'conservative' guys who insist that they're both NeverTrump and NeverHillary awfully prone to knocking Trump and Trump's supporters, but don't have much to say about Hillary?

I mean, far be it from me to suggest that their supposed 'equal distaste for both' is a tremendous load, but what can I say, I'm suggesting exactly that.

Next time doesn't always come

It's quite a sight, watching conservatives play the nobler-than-thou game, announcing that they refuse to support Trump because they cannot suffer his brash character. No, they're holding out for a Constitutionalist, and a genteel Christian soul at that. Despite settling for a wishy-washy mormon and the abomination that is John McCain, they cannot abide a candidate who behaves so rudely.

I wonder if they realize that, in some ways, they are fighting for their very survival at this point. They are one mass amnesty away from their Constitutionalist fantasies being dashed for good, and one selection of SCOTUS justices away from a whole lot worse. I suspect, if Trump fails to win, that in 4 years we're not going to see these guys getting their choice of a more satisfying conservative to pin their hopes on. Instead they're going to start bitterly talking about how 2016 was actually their last chance for a vote to matter, and how angry they are that Trump was so -rude- that he obscured their ability to realize it.

Of course, when faced with this possibility, a chunk of them start waxing poetic - imaging how noble they're going to be, going down in defeat while clinging to their principles. The big problem there is that mental image is very Plato, or cinematic - it's an ideal, not the reality. In their heads, they lift their chins and look off into the distance, solid in their hope that while their generation may have fallen, they shall yet set the stage for someone else to rediscover what they tried and failed to protect, perhaps in 100, 200 years. End scene, cue credits. The following decades - the potentially very messy, very violent decades - are not dwelled upon.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

The Principled Conservative has priorities!



Watching 'conservatives' explain how they're so principled that they just can't bear to vote for Trump or support Trump - he can be so crude! - reminds me of this.

The stakes change - this just isn't about linden trees - but the importance of never, ever saying things that upset the reigning culture? That's the same.

The atheist demand for evidence: a timeline

Before I start this, a joke to the 4 people who have come here from The Credulous Zone:

What's the difference between a doberman and a male feminist?

No woman wants to fuck a male feminist.

With that said, on to the original post:

In my experience.

10 years ago:

Atheist: I demand evidence for God's existence!
Theist: Well, here's this philosophical argument. In fact, here's a lot. Here's this ID concern. Here's this probablistic argument, here's more.
Atheist: None of those count!

5 years ago:

Atheist: I demand evidence for God's existence!
Theist: Alright. What qualifies as evidence?
Atheist: An 800 foot Jesus or some miracle I can't explain!
Theist: So, a God of the gaps.
Atheist: Shit.

Now:

Atheist: I demand evidence for God's existence!
Theist: Alright. What qualifies as evidence?
Atheist: I don't want to answer that. Can we go back to the decade ago version and pretend you don't know why I want that?

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Where usury isn't enough

In the aftermath of some minor dust-kicking at Zippy's, I'm still trying to better express where I think usury goes off the rails as a harbinger of ills to come, or a source of the Church's problems in the world.

A key difference between usury and modern sins is that usurers don't particularly care what you think of them, so long as you get out of their way. They'll jump through some hoops - they'll morally justify what they do, they'll rail against 'bad' usurers. They'll say they aren't involved in usury but something else via a technicality. So long as they make their money, so long as their business prospers, they'll deal with a lot of bullshit. Cost of doing business and all.

That doesn't really 'work' for modern liberal sins. Tell me about how you'll have Catholic priests turning a blind eye towards sodomy, refusing to talk about gay marriage at all, even serving communion to the gay couple in the church because Who Am I to Judge and for all we know they're a celibate couple of close friends who every now and then slip up and wham, anal sex. In theory, it's possible.

In practice, it's not, because these groups are not after second-class citizen status. The usurers don't care - Team LGBT cares very much indeed. They won't let your teaching merely go quiet. They will not accept being tolerated, even tolerated to an absurd degree. They want complete parity and condemnation of the unequal past. Hell, they want beyond parity if they can swing it, complete with talk about how (if only in some ways) the same-sex couple is -superior-. Same with the feminists. Same with most of the modern social justice warriors.

Let me put that another way: if the most LGBT proponents could ever hope to achieve in the Church was usury-status, it would be defeat. If the most feminists could ever achieve was some fake sweet-n-low 'near enough' version of the priesthood - "Hey look, women can dress up like priests and do some things but they're not REAL priests" - it would be defeat. At least in their eyes. And they are not groups who will settle for 'the best we can do'.

These are people who burn their own organizations to the ground rather than capitulate. They will not settle for a generous tolerance, as obnoxious as that would be.

#Nevertrump sheds some blood in Kansas

Oh well.

Maybe Ryan's head will be on the wall next.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Almost positive papal news

At first I was going to post an article about Pope Francis denouncing 'gender theory' talk, saying it's poisonous to teach children that there's more than two genders, or their sex is optional, etc.

Then I read closer and noticed that this was 'leaked from the Polish bishops conference, which was private'. Even if it's true, I don't care. I do not trade in positive talk that only comes in the form of whispers, rumors and leaks.

Edit: I stand corrected. Released transcript is something else.

It's all been downhill since the Battle of Avarayr

If you asked me why I think the West is in the current state it's in - why the Church is in the current state it's in - I'd float some answers. A change in the popular metaphysics of intellectuals, as Feser describes. Advances in technology and unforeseen impacts on society that resulted. This movement, that movement. Humanity is complicated, and I admit, I tend to pay most attention to problems for which I see a possible solution. Possible solution meaning 'things I and others can do to help encourage a change for the better', not 'bemoaning it all'.

You can convince me with a bit of evidence to believe that X was a factor, or Y wasn't much of a factor. Give me the evidence, talk to me, I'll change my mind. But I am skeptical when someone distills the problems and ills down to a particular, singular act or change in mentality from which - almost entirely - several dozen problems have sprung. Outside of the Fall or the Resurrection, anyway.

The thing is, I can easily be convinced that the singular act was an influence. Tell me that the Great Schism caused some problems and sure, I'll grant it. Henry VIII? Yep. Ockham? You got it. Introduction of the car? Sure, to a degree. But once you tell me that it was some singular change of mind, some particular intellectual event - it was the Battle of Avarayr! It was Vatican II! - then my skepticism rises up. It's rarely that simple. Worse, it's rarely helpful to frame things as if they were that simple.

But this kind of thing is a little common. Why are black americans in, collectively at least, a sorry state? Racism! Has to be. Why has Japan apparently lost almost all interest in sex? Pornography! No wait - nukes! Wait - patriarchy!

It reminds me of an old Dilbert comic strip, with a punchline paraphrased as: 'The only possible solution to the problem is, coincidentally, the only solution you know.' Cue 10 people all sitting around with wildly different but just as certain solutions to the problem, complete with the beaver saying 'We must chop down trees and dam their rivers! It's the only way!'

And, of course, if you're skeptical of the totality of the explanation, you're part of the problem. Good luck finding a feminist who's even willing to concede that, aside from patriarchy and maybe racism, there are other reasons for the historical limitations they see with women. Good luck finding the person at the Black Lives Matter march who thinks that racism is even just one of a number of problems besetting blacks ('and chinese!' says the very, very desperate chinese person, clawing for People of Color cred.)

What can I say: I think things are more complicated. I do not think it all comes down to the Battle of Avarayr. I may be wrong, but I'll need more to convince me than huffing and passive aggression.

Pope brings unity to France with his merciful, gentle comments about Islam!

In particular, he's managed to get the equivalent of  #NotMyPope trending in France.

I recently said elsewhere that perhaps what this Pope needs is someone standing up and booing him. I didn't think I'd get it quite that fast.

Monday, August 1, 2016

The conservative worship of the armed forces

Not a bit of worship I take part in.

Don't misunderstand me: I have tremendous respect for the military, for members of the military. I consider them patriots by default, doing work that is essential for the nation, in ways more fundamental than most. I think, at least until recently, it tended to instill some great character in its members.

But I don't get behind this weird, self-effacing, 'If a veteran says something you better listen and hold your tongue, you're in the presence of a hero!' schtick. No, not even for the wounded. And certainly not for family members of the dead. You don't become a hero by proxy.

I'll be even more blunt: I have vastly more respect for veterans who share my values and my worldview, or are in the neighborhood enough. That may sound chilling, but people forget that the whole point of the reverence of the soldier was that they were supposed to be the defenders of our shared values, putting their lives on the line to do exactly that. Remove those values and remove the automatic reverence. At that point you're just dealing with, at best, daredevils - I saw a few in the Turkish coup footage (not even from soldiers!) - and at worst, enforces of monstrous will.

Once upon a time, it was possible even for people of different political parties to largely be on the same page with some common values. That time is passed. Insofar as Khizr Khan treats his son's death as license to attack and belittle anyone who rejects muslim culture and massive muslim immigration, he deserves a 'fuck you' and little else. And make no mistake: his supporters have the same attitude for every soldier or grieving family member who stands against them.

Catholic teaching on sin

You know, I'm not certain, but I'm reasonably sure it's Catholic teaching that one doesn't have to be Catholic to sin. In fact, one doesn't even need to be Christian to sin.

Right?

Seems remarkably easy to forget that at times. In fact, I'm pretty sure that non-Christians can be rather adept at the practice. Including muslims.

Somehow it seems like the only ones engaging in any sins worth talking about are Catholics themselves, as far as the Vatican is concerned. Everyone else? Pshaw. Hardly! Atheists? They try to follow their consciences! Islam? It's a religion of peace!

Christians? Now THEY have some apologizing to do. Did you know they said mean things about LGBT people? To think they had the nerve to suggest that many have anal sex. Jesus weeps, etc.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Inequality Drinking Game

It only has one rule: take a shot every time a multi-millionaire or a billionaire laments the existence of wealth inequality.

Water the drinks down or you'll die of alcohol poisoning.

Future historians and General Woundwort

The eventual condemnation of a person or movement by future historians doesn't strike me as a very worrisome fear. First because it's not certain just who will be writing the history books. Second, because it's even less clear who will write the history books after them.

But more importantly - who are these future people whose opinion I should be concerned with, and why? Are they people who I'd rather admire me - or the movement I attach myself to - or would I regard their rejection, their disgust, or even their fear as a badge of honor?

I remember the comment by the Narrator near the end of Watership Down about General Woundwort, the big villain of the movie:
General Woundwort's body was never found. It could be that he still lives his fierce life somewhere else, but from that day on, mother rabbits would tell their kittens that if they did not do as they were told, the General would get them. Such was Woundwort's monument, and perhaps it would not have displeased him.
I do not think it matters if fear is instead disgust, or distaste, or pity, or anything else negative. And if what we support and advocate now provides some succor to a future people, outnumbered but resilient, well - so much the better.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

On muslim heroes

Tell me that a given muslim emigrated to the US, joined the US military, and then gave his life in this or that conflict. Call him a hero. Sure, I won't object.

But if you turn around and then bitterly say that that young man who gave his life wouldn't have had the opportunity to be such a hero if Islamic immigration was temporarily banned, what can I say - I'm unmoved. Because it's a stupid argument hinged entirely on an emotional appeal, which can be answered by holding up any picture of a muslim bomber of spree-killer and asking how many people would be alive if they were barred from entry or even deported.

If we bar all muslim immigration into the US, there is no doubt in my mind that we will end up barring some great individuals. But we'll also end up barring muslim culture at large, and that's a tangible good itself to many.

If the cost of honoring a muslim war hero means we must allow massive muslim immigration, then the cost is too high, and to hell with the hero. Funny how no number of mothers of children slain by illegal immigrants rouses ever seems to result in talk of how they're owed anything.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Game and the Christian Male

I see a lot of criticisms of the whole Game attitude by Christians, who at times seem to have a lot of valid concerns. It encourages male slutdom, etc.

What tends to put me off is seeing those same critics describe what the ideal relationship between men and women should be, which typically seems to be just-as-powerfully criticized by Game's proponents.

Dalrock covers a lot of the warped views of people who tend to absolutely despise the whole Game thing. As for me, I tend to view it more favorably, but with a load of caveats. Insofar as the culture encourages men to have self-respect and confidence, it seems valuable. And I mean a sincere kind of self-respect and confidence, not that crazy bullshit where someone says that the -real- confident guy is the one who's petrified of offending women, and Wil 'just look at this jackass' Wheaton is considered the essence of masculinity.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Why foreign religious groups aren't welcome in Russia

Because of things like this.
SAMARA, Russia, July 28, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — An American clergyman in the Ukraine was deported for planning to officiate a gay wedding. 
Jim Mulcahy, pastor of Metropolitan Community Church, was arrested at the LGBT center Avers in Samara. The Kremlin’s Vesti News Channel reported that Mulcahy intended to marry LGBT couples and engage in gay propaganda, a violation of his tourist visa.  
Mulcahy is the Metropolitan Community Churches' Eastern Europe Coordinator.  His arrest was videotaped by state-controlled television (NTV). He denies planning to officiate a gay "marriage" but reportedly performed "unspecified ceremonies for homosexuals." 
 Ah, unspecified ceremonies.

Well, in the West we've now moved on past same-sex marriage and are now bullying everyone who doesn't celebrate same-sex marriage, including it into our course curriculum, etc. Russia has apparently decided they have no intention of following the same path, certainly not without a fight.

Which is why when I hear complaints about how horrible it is that Southern Baptists won't be able to easily go to Russia and tell them all why white privilege is real and a terrible thing, I don't get terribly concerned. As they said in Everquest, 'You ruined your own lands, you'll not ruin mine!'

Over 1k pageviews in a day

In order to approve comments, I have to see my site meter. And hey, we just passed over 1k pageviews in a day for the first time. Not bad for a little personal blog.

I wonder why the Brasilian version of Google is bringing people here.

Unity at the DNC


Ah, you can feel the love in the air. And to think they thought the RNC would be the clownshow and the DNC would be all sunny and happy.

Laugh, but not too hard. This may not be an unusual sight after a while.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Trump, Bringer of Joy

An exchange between a reporter and Trump, after he said he hopes the russians release all of Hillary Rotten's emails:
"You said, 'I welcome them to find those 30,000 emails...'" she started.
"Well, they probably have them. I'd like to have them released," Trump interjected.

"Does that not give you pause?" Tur persisted.

"No, it gives me no pause. If they have them, they have them, we might as well [see them]," he responded.

The two then talked over each other for a period of time, as Tur repeated her line of questioning, until Trump eventually concluded with, "Be quiet. I know you want to save her."
Bwahahahaha.

The French headcount

I've been having too much fun watching the DNC implode, so I've missed out on my international news. I did notice that a priest had his head chopped off while he was performing mass, and that the gents involved were ISIS forces who made him kneel at the altar and 'preached a sermon' before doing the job.

I missed the spin, though. How'd the great explainers narrative it up this time?

Did 'this has nothing to do with Islam' get some play? Maybe a bit of 'we're not even sure what religion the ISIS agents are'?

Did we hear anything about how being beheaded in an intentionally blasphemous act makes us stronger? That this exposed how weak ISIS really is? How -lucky- the priest is, because he was allowed to be a martyr for the faith?

What's the hottest lie in the store right now?

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Mainstream Conservatives versus Black Lives Matter - Rick and Morty Style

This seemed like as good an illustration of mainstream conservatives versus Black Lives Matters as one can hope for.


What's Wrong With the Aftermath

Another exchange done. Spoiler alert: Lydia locked the thread. I'm as stunned as you are!

But just as Lydia has the right to do that, I'll be taking my right to respond here. Because this was an issue I care about a bit more than usual.

Sayeth Lyd, regarding cuckservative. (We can say that word here.)
So there we have it. An insult that means that a man has a sexual fetish that has to do with watching his wife have sex with other men is a "shiny, fun new word" and is comparable to calling someone "racist" or "neo-nazi." (Not that the latter could objectively describe actual phenomena or anything. Not that there actually are racists and neo-nazis around in the world to whom one might be referring.) Indeed, not just comparable, but less bad. The latter are describable as "vile." The former is, according to Crude, "completely justified, often, if fierce."
Man, where to begin.

For one thing, I assure you - that word does describe an 'objective phenomena', and there's some creepy fucks skulking around looking for this action. It's a degrading, insulting, humiliating word. It stings. Especially, I've noticed, if one's a bit of a cuck. It also more broadly refers to the phenomena of people who just seem thrilled at the idea of cultural and ethnic replacement - again, a not-unheard-of phenomena, and I don't just mean among the creepier SJWs.

Watching Jeb! walk around and give speeches in spanish - 'I love the idea of a latinized US so much, I decided to help out!' - is the height of conservative cuckery. Yes, I know, he thought he was being a brilliant political trailblazer by marrying a Mexican woman, converting to Catholicism, and learning how to speak spanish. Newsflash: it was not. I do think he's going to be president someday, but that hinges on whether Mexico allows immigrants to run for that office.

As to the 'sexual' angle of the word, with it being implied that that's beyond the pale: cry me a river. I've watched crypto-sexual critique be deployed against people opposed to illegal immigration time and again. I've watched Rick Wilson cackle about how Trump supporters were all anime-watching jackoffs, which makes Trump's stomping of his 'side' that much more hilarious. The cucks' complaint here reminds me of Dawkins' fall from 'How can mockery and derision ever be used against us? We can't lose!' to 'How dare everyone describe me as a pathetic has-been who wasn't even a good biologist!' Same script, different actors.

Finally - 'racists and neo-nazis' accurately describe maybe a hundredth of the people those terms are used against, in any reasonable definition of the word. Same with anti-semite. If you're going to green-light the abundant use of those terms on the grounds that it can, in theory, pick out an 'objective' phenomena, then I assure you - I am not completely convinced that all of Jeb!'s kids are his. And if you object that I can't prove that, then I'll note the inability for most people to sufficiently, meaningfully back up their 'neo-nazi', 'fascist', 'racist' charges beyond 'you said something mean, even if it's true!'
And it's no big deal to tell a black woman that she looks like an ape. 
Honest to God, Lydia - it really isn't. Yes, I know - the comparison is considered highly racist by the invisible yet omnipresent goddess of Decency, but frankly, I just don't care much, and most people don't care much unless they think they can shame someone and get a little power besides. As I've said - it's the sort of thing you say, at most, 'Hey, that's wrong' if pressed about. You know - tsk tsk. Demands that you hunt down such curs and destroy them (but only if they're a victim class, only if they're of the right political persuasion, etc) are inane. Put another way: jerking off is a sin, but I think we can all agree that demanding hands be chopped off over it is an overreaction. Leave it at 'hey, knock that off, and don't do it in front of kids'.

That woman in particular is not easy on the eyes, and she's not particularly pleasant to others either. See her comments about whites, among other things. And see the movie she was involved in, which ran -heavily- on attacking large groups of people who disliked it, saying they're racists, sexists, misogynists and more.
 If she complains about it (and other insults such as "c**n," "n*gg*," etc., she also claimed to have received a picture of herself with s**** on her face) she's "caterwauling," and if I complain about either of these (and others, such as the anti-semitic vileness we have received here) and about people who make a professional hobby of downplaying such things, I'm wasting valuable time which would be better spent on "accomplishments" like, I dunno, ruining the career of a conservative politician who criticizes the alt-right.
Coon, nigga, and semen. Christ, we don't censor any words nowadays EXCEPT the PC 'offensive' ones. Enough.

Oh, she can complain. But screaming and carrying on and demanding that these people - and Milo! - be purged, even if they didn't do anything but because, I don't know, there are subscribers involved? Yeah that's absurd, especially in a world where being inundated with 'cunt' and death threats normally doesn't result in such responses, at least if you're conservative. That conservatives want to rush to get in on the bandwagon - especially Lydia, who in any other case would be accused of doing so only due to massive gay-hating 'homophobia' on her part? Yeah, that's deplorable too.

As for ruining the careers, there's a difference. Those politicians tried mightily to ruin other people's careers. They, finally, failed. But they immolated their own careers in the process. Cruz was allowed to get up onstage and give his pissy little speech. What a shock - it turns out even his supporters hated his attitude. How much sympathy should I have for Cruz destroying himself because he attempted to destroy someone else, and failed miserably? That's leagues different from even what Milo experienced, where his voice on a worldwide platform was cut off, to the apparent approval of the increasingly SJW-like "conservatives".

tl;dr version - we live in a world where conservatives and whites and men get savaged, and no one cares. Not even conservatives, who - as Jeffrey S knows - are sometimes all too happy to chime in with a 'Yeah!' The idea that nevertheless those groups must ride to the fucking rescue whenever someone mocks one of their lowlier figureheads, is insane.
But remember, Crude is just defending the argumentative tactics of Ed Feser. Or something. Not supporting vile insult at all. Got it.
Ed Feser was criticized for The Last Superstition because of his 'polemical tone'. He writes aggressively. I've read every interaction he's had on his blog - he suffers little bullshit, it is true. He will be aggressive. He will even mock. He's also surprisingly sharp with the photoshop now and then.

And I'm not on his level. Ed's a different category, someone who takes very intricate arguments (which I am forever an amateur at best with) and communicates them to the masses, in a way that enlightens them. He arms them with knowledge they can -use-. His intellect and his arguments are his primary weapon, but he has zero problem calling bullshit as bullshit, and engaging in some level of aggressive mockery. We're not in the same category, but at the same time, Ed is -vastly- different from typical Christian philosophers, and philosophers in general. Most of whom fall over themselves to be the most polite, sweet-toned, genteel person in the room, often to their detriment.

That, I think, is what Perilanda may be getting at. Ed talked in ways that few modern philosophers or theologians did. He still does. It -works-. He did it during a time where most critics of New Atheism always started off with talking about how brilliant Dawkins was or how atheists are such great and moral people. Ed cut the shit and accomplished something major in the process.

In a primitive way, the Alt Right does the same. If their Venn diagrams overlap, it's that both Ed and the Alt Right do not automatically kowtow to idols that most everyone else does. They do not pay lip service to glorious truths that are neither glorious nor true. After that, they largely part ways - Ed persuades through reasoned argument and little rhetoric, the alt-right is absolutely heavy on rhetoric - but that overlap is key.

Anyway, that's my response to all this. Not for Lydia's edification - she stopped reading at 'cuck' if she saw it at all - but I felt it needed to be said.

Monday, July 25, 2016

Lydia McGrew joins the alt-right.

Unintentionally of course, but it is what it is.

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your flashy theatrical rap garbage. Forget your idealism about your life in the hood and your idiotic belief that you can either gangbang, rap or dribble a basketball to success. Forget your goddamned 'people', and while you're at it, forget Malcolm X too. The black American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are single fathers and crack addictions. Obama's speeches make them feel good. So does dope. What they need isn't analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need to stop whining about their lot in life, go to the library, and learn how to read.
When asked if the above hypothetical passage flies, Lydia McGrew had this to say:

Actually, I thought at the time when I read the Williamson article that I _did_ think rather similar things could be rightly said about the black communities. Tough love, as it were. And not, ipso facto, racist. Indeed, *mainstream* conservatives used to say that the black community is dysfunctional and its own worst enemy and needs to pull itself up by the bootstraps. I suppose there are still some mainstream conservatives that do, though it's become less acceptable in the last twenty years or so. But I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't. 
Which isn't to say that I agree with every bit of your translation. I think in particular substituting "people" for "gypsum" is more than a bit weird. There are other bits I could disagree with as far as their equivalence to the original. But overall, the general level of straight-talk harshness in neither of the quotes offends me and is not the kind of thing I am condemning. 
So sorry your experiment backfired. Well, no, actually, I'm not sorry at all. I just tell the truth around here. You don't have to like it. 

To which I responded:

Backfired? Far from it, Lydia. It means that harsh, racially-focused condemnation of a community's failings isn't horrible or condemnable at all. 
Which means, in one fell swoop, you've managed to defend a whole lot of what the alt-right says yet is routinely attacked and denounced for. 
Lydia McGrew... welcome to the alt-right! 

Meanwhile, at WWWtW

Apparently the alt-right conversation lit up a bit after my last comments. News to me - I hadn't been back there since the last dustup.

So, a few comments.

First, to Perilanda - whoever that is - well, thanks for the kind words. Always pleasantly surprised when I know more folks are reading this than I suspect, and some are actually getting something out of it. Humility's probably not my strongest point, though; I'm just realistic.

Chillanodon, meanwhile, chimed in with:
It just sickens me that today, in the current year, a large, loud, black woman can't be paid thousands of dollars to play a large, loud black woman in a super-lazy-cash-grab of a movie without going on Twitter and receiving texts from anonymous users that imply she is, in fact, a large, loud black woman who does resemble other things if you squint hard enough.
Ah, you bastard, you got me cackling! But it's true.

To this end, let me clear up a few things.

First, I don't think the entirety of conservatism - even the alt-right-hating wing - has been mistaken, or wrong, or in need of repudiation. It'd be hard for me to condemn, say... literate, well-spoken, intellectually forceful arguments. I'm a Feser-fan and have been since the olden days. You can't have a strong appreciation of A-T metaphysics and classical theism and think reasoned argument is useless, or God-forbid, counterproductive. It has its place, and that place is important - it's for a certain class of individual.

Convoluted legal arguments won't budge most people in the world, for example. But if they manage to convince a judge? Well, that's going to have one hell of an impact potentially. That's important, and it's necessary.

But it ain't the only thing in the world by a longshot, as Ted Cruz - damn good lawyer, I hear - hopefully realizes by now.

Worse, conservatives have had to face a torrent of abuse laid against them, largely in popular media they don't have much control over. And they've tried to combat this abuse in the worst possible way - by striving to prove that it's not true, to an audience that couldn't care less if it WAS true, because what's important is the accusation and the stigma rather than the reality. The result has been, over and over again, not just criticism of fellow conservatives, but the destruction of them when they commit some social sin: people get fired from their jobs, banished from social circles, attacked and ridiculed.

Lately, they get banished from major social media platforms. For life. In Milo's case, not for actually saying anything himself, but because people who follow him did unspeakable things, like make fun of some windbag of an actress. I know, because I read his damn tweets.

And, once again, it becomes a great opportunity for some conservatives to huff and chide one of their largely-allies and talk about how vile some of those tweets were and suggesting that it was all deserved and how we shouldn't be sympathetic (or outraged) on Milo's behalf, because the REAL story is how mean he is.

As a guy who used to play some of this game, sincerely: no thanks. Also, fuck that action.

Fuck the attitude that the principle rule of being a conservative is vicious, unrelenting self-policing of tone, lest someone accuse us collectively of what they damn will accuse us of anyway, or because we're committing some suspiciously modern sin. To hell with the constant fretting of whether this or this word, or action, or even -thought- may shock and mortify the victim classes (or more specifically, their self-appointed keepers.)

By the way, that doesn't mean I think conservatives or the right should unanimously turn a blind eye to, or mindlessly celebrate, each and every action deemed 'non-PC'. I'll say if I think some joke about this person or that person or this group or that group is wrong-headed, or unfunny, or the like. Others should too. However, just saying 'Yeah I didn't like that joke' doesn't seem to be an option - and God forbid, the idea that you can say 'I don't like the joke, or the comment, but how dare you try to purge them for it you lunatic' seems alien to a good share of conservatives, or at least conservative bloggers and writers.

To put it succinctly, consider this: the conservative obsession with being the least-offensive person isn't some wise and wily move, crafted to evade the nastiest charges of the left. It is defeat itself. It's a concession that yes, as a matter of fact they CAN control your language, your behavior, your associations, and ultimately your thought, because they can determine what's stigmatized and you'll react accordingly. Conservatives have said that they can't out-spend the left on social services, because the left has no limit with what they're willing to spend. Sorry guys: they're willing to out-pander you to every victim class as well.

One of the things you CAN do better than them is - oddly enough, for Christians - out-blaspheme them. You can out-laugh them, you can mock more, you can enjoy more speech, and you can have a lot more fun. And you can care a whole lot less about their precious stigmas, their ever-more-labyrinthine rules for their secular religion. That's one area they can't outdo you, because to even try would be defeat for -them-.

Trump learned that rule, and he won the nomination - and will quite possibly win the presidency. Milo learned that rule and he won a ton of fans and notoriety. Laughing at their rules, mocking their sacred cows, engaging in a bit of secular shamelessness, and refusing to whip and attack and savage your allies for the high crime of wrongthink is not just more fun. It is, often enough, the right thing to do.

Christians should not worship and honor idols, ladies and gentlemen. Secular ones are no better than pagan ones.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Fast thoughts 7/24

* The Republican convention was satisfying, at least as a Trump enthusiast. There's a bit of poetic justice in watching the Colorado delegation in particular get railroaded on the convention floor via, shall we say, strict adherence to the convention rules. The fact that they were trying to kick up dust at this stage of the game says a lot, but oh well - I guess they 'have to work on their ground game', as they'd say.

* I was sad to see Milo get kicked off twitter, but given how many times they've attempted to punish him, it was kind of an eventuality. Twitter, like Facebook, tries to squelch voices it doesn't like, and Milo's been in their crosshairs for a while. Team Morality at WWWtW huffed and puffed about this, talking about how this was deserved because... well, Milo's followers (not even Milo himself) tweeted mean racist jokes at the actress, and this is absolutely reprehensible. My own view is that I've stopped giving a shit about self-policing racism and sexism among people I'm otherwise sympathetic to (or just find funny), and further that the bar for 'despicable racism' is way too high anyway. I'll worry about sexist comments when making fun of a man's appearance or gender is unacceptable, and I'll worry about Harambe jokes re: black women when mocking 'whitesplaining' is a nigh-universally fireable offense. Or maybe the whole world SHOULD be more relaxed about such jokes in the sense of a free-for-all.

* Speaking of attacking one's own allies, I've come the conclusion that Ted Cruz honestly has no idea how badly he comes off at times. I think part of the problem is that he's made a career out of being the annoying shit to the right people (I liked him flat out calling McConnell a liar, etc), but I'm worried that his ability to be a real shit does not have an 'off' switch, and thus far he's just luckily channeled it in the right direction. His convention floor speech was the most clear case of 'being given the rope to hang oneself with 'that I've ever seen, and I think thoughts about how he's wisely positioning himself for a 2020 run are, shall we say, insanely optimistic. Actually just insane.

* An upside of the Milo banning was that it's provoked some people to come out of the woodwork to support him. Gadfly Notch, being one. Even - shockingly - Wikileaks, who I think are fast changing from 'left-wing favorite' to 'target of left-wing hate'. As of this writing they've managed to skunk Wasserman-Schultz, who has had to resign in the wake of her emails being outed. Not bad work. Who would have thought rogue hacktivists would be cheering on alt-right figures and taking down Democrats this election? We've got one hell of a ride ahead of us.

* The alt-right's performance has been the best thing to come out of this election, and the result has been the rise of a host of figures who are weird, eloquent, funny, and... to be honest, kind of reminiscent of Batman villains. That may or may not be related to me wanting to see Lauren Southern dressed up in a Harley Quinn outfit. Regardless, they're superior replacements to mainstream conservatives, much as I've liked some of George Will's work in the past.

* The Democrat convention hasn't even started yet and already blood has been drawn, with Wasserman Schultz going down faster than Milo at a Black Lives Matter march. Sanders is under pressure not to endorse the Lizard Queen, but let's face it - the guy has no balls, and he'll do as he's told. But between the heat, the Wikileaks scandals, and the wild card that is Black Lives Matter, this shit may be hilarious. If so, it'll be amazing to see happen after the supposedly Hitleriffic Trump, in Cleveland of all places, hardly resulted in any protests at all. (Ohio being an open carry state may have had something to do with that, as I imagine the aura of 'Uh, don't Republicans tend to carry guns?' tends to put the damper on more excited displays of troublemaking.)

Saturday, July 23, 2016

The difference between the alt right and conservatives

Alt Right: I think there are bigger problems on the horizon than tending to the delicate social sensitivities of the left's most precious victim classes.

Conservatives: Being a conservative is first and foremost about keeping in mind the delicate social sensitivities of others, since maintaining the social order is paramount. What's the point of solving bigger problems if people think we're jerks in the process?

Principles uber alles

Praising someone for their commitment to their principles, regardless of what those principles actually are, invites a kind of twin sickness.

First, it obfuscates the necessity of *good* principles. If simply having some standards that one commits to (whatever they may be) is praiseworthy, then we undercut our ability to encourage people for having good principles, or discourage those who have bad ones.

This leads to a compensatory measure: by denying that people with 'bad' principles are really principled at all. Hitler did not sincerely believe he was doing the right thing - if he did, then he was principled, and we can't have -that-. Instead, he had to never really believe what he was saying, and the whole thing was just a bid for power and glory, or maybe just madness.

Play that game and you can at least describe a world where only people beholden to 'good' principles really exist after all. Convenient!

But if it's not true - and if it's easy to realize that it's not true - then you're setting the groundwork for a horrible and confusing culture of misdirection and mistrust.

Which, to a degree, seems to be exactly where we are right now.