“Christianity under siege”

Donald Trump, of all people, is speaking out in defense of Christians around the world, when far too many Churchian leaders prefer to preach about tolerance and parodies of marriage:

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump touted his faith at Liberty University on Monday, telling the conservative college that Christians have to ban together because their religion “is under siege.”

“We’re going to protect Christianity,” he said. “If you look at what’s going on throughout the world…Christianity is under siege.”

Trump pointed to targeting of Christians by terrorist groups in Syria and urged Christians to work together to use their “power” within the United States to enact change.

He added that “I’m a Protestant. I’m very proud of it, Presbyterian to be exact. …[but] bad things are happening, very bad things are happening.”

To be precise, Christianity needs no more protection than reality does. It simply is. But Christendom does.

UK debates Trump ban

And even Piers Morgan, who is far from the brightest bulb in Albion, is appalled at the stupidity on display in the UK:

Why I’m so embarrassed today for Britain. The same parliament that hasn’t banned a single UK citizen from returning after fighting for ISIS is seriously debating banning Trump from its shores

As I write this column, members of the UK Parliament are debating whether or not to ban Donald Trump from entering Britain. They’ve allocated three hours of time to do this.

Time that could have been spent debating terrorism, famine, nuclear weapons, the Middle East refugee crisis or the Syrian War.

But no, instead British law-makers have concluded their own time is best served seriously considering a proposal to ban a man who may end up being the next President of the United States.

The reason they’re doing it is, of course, is because Trump recently called for a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. in the wake of an horrific mass shooting by two Islamic terrorists. Like many, I didn’t agree with what Trump said and indeed, I wrote him an open letter at the time saying it was ‘dangerously wrong and bigoted’.

But to ban a foreign politician for expressing an opinion is utterly absurd. Particularly a foreign politician who stands an increasingly good chance of becoming leader of the world’s biggest superpower and Britain’s supposedly closest, most powerful ally.

Can you imagine a situation where President Trump, if he is elected, is actually banned? It would make Britain the laughing stock of the world, and confirm to Americans that we’re just as pathetically petty and small pond in our thinking as you’ve always suspected.

What they should do is put it to a referendum. Let the people of Britain – the actual British people, not the millions of invaders – decide if they would rather ban a) Donald Trump or b) Muslims from the UK. I suspect the Donald might not do so poorly.

But regardless, it would be hilarious if Parliament banned Trump prior to his winning the Republican nomination, and then the election. Nothing would make it more obvious that the rest of the world no longer gives a damn about what is now nothing more than a powerless, petty province of the EU.

If the UK wants to matter again, it has to get out of the EU. #Brexit.

And these are the polite ones

A Swedish woman has a close encounter with a group of orcs:

Man: ‘Can I make sex with you?’

Girl: ‘What did you say?’

Man: ‘Can I make sex with you?’

Girl: ‘But, he tried to touch my a**, do you think that’s ok?’

Man: ‘Who?’

Girl:’He, the guy who just walked past, your friend! Is it ok to touch my a**, or what?’

Man: ‘I don’t understand what you mean.’

Girl: ‘I’m sorry? What don’t you understand? He touched my a**. You’r friend grabbed my a**, what do you want? What do you want?’

Man: ‘No, No. Can I make sex with you?’

Girl: ‘No. Never.’

Man: ‘Why?’

Girl: ‘Absolutely not. Go! Leave!’

Man: ‘Why?’

Girl: ‘I am recording this whole thing, so yeah, mate keep going.’

Man: ‘I’ll give you money.’

Girl: ‘What did you say? Do you think I’m a w****?’

Man: ‘Calm down, I’ll give you money.’

Western women are all whores, right? Or at the very least, strong, independent women who don’t need a man to take care of them. After all, that’s what the police are for….

So, are you ready to stop shrieking at the nationalists, calling them “racists”, and help send all the orcs back to Mordor yet? Or do you still prefer to relax and enjoy it?

Mailvox: leadership is socio-sexual

CD wonders about how socio-sexuality relates to politics:

I read an interesting article recently. It was in Politico, but the basis seems sound)

Putting that together with the various “game” categories you use, it looks to me like there may be a built-in dynamic for people.  When things get really bad, the deltas naturally turn to an alpha who seems to have the right ideas.  It looks like that may have been triggered in the US.

On a slightly different topic, I have been trying to determine the relative percentages of deltas, betas, and alphas.  By gender, since I think the percentages differ.  (I ignore sigmas, since the percentage is so low, and gammas since — who cares?)  I have some rough numbers from personal experience, but I haven’t been able to find any research which sheds light on this.  Are you aware of any?

There is no way that socio-sexuality doesn’t affect politics. It affects every aspect of human endeavor, and it is a much more reliable predictive model than nearly any form of psychology I’ve ever encountered.

But you can’t ignore Gammas, in fact, I have constructed a literary theory of socio-sexuality which Delta Man’s has applied to the Gammas that explains a considerable amount of how science fiction has devolved over the years.

As for research, considering that I expanded the concept and articulated some of the various socio-sexual ranks, I can say with certainty that absolutely zero academic research on the topic has been done. But there will be, because it actually works, not only to explain, but predict.

I’ll be posting it at Alpha Game later this week, but it was remarkable how much Delta Man’s Gamma model correctly anticipated Naomi Novik’s book Uprooted, which is one of the leading contenders for this year’s Hugo Best Novel. Now, Novik is a woman, not a Gamma, but either what applies to Gammas can be applied to women or Novik is following the Gamma lead in her books.

Of course, she’s also married to a writer, so… regardless, it is really remarkable how the model can be used to correctly predict not only the behavior, but even the hair color, of the women encountered by the male protagonist.

Alarming the Left

Even old double-dyed Reds are beginning to worry about how out-of-control the SJWs are, now that they’re being targeted too:

The last few years have seen the dawn of a new kind of political correctness which I think of as “PC 2.0”. This is the movement that seeks to de-platform Germaine Greer and wants every trace of Cecil Rhodes removed from Oxford. It’s the kind of thinking that has made gender so confusing that I don’t even know what the right view is any more, although I’m pretty sure that my view will be the wrong one, whatever it is.

Suddenly, those of us who had never worried about being seen as politically unsound are being cast as ageing, right-wing bigots. It’s weird finding yourself on the “reactionary” side of the argument with one of the world’s most famous feminists. Yes, in the blink of an eye, Germaine and I have become those crusty old people who start spouting unacceptable platitudes after a couple of drinks.

It’s going to be amusing to see how the Wil Wheatons and John Scalzis of the world start behaving once the SJWs of the SF world turn on them. No amount of snarky goodthink is going to save a rich old white guy from their tender attentions once they decide he has offended them by existing.

Once you decide to ride the tiger, it is the tiger who decides exactly when, and how, you’re going to get off.

How fortunate that there is an answer for those on whom the tiger turns.

Divisional Weekend, Day 2

Carolina is certainly off to a fast start. It’s not looking good for the Seahawks, given that the Carolina defense is better than the Vikings defense that held them to 10 points.

Interesting to see Cam Newton giving thanks right before the first snap of the game too. Who says a sanctuary must be indoors?

Lessons in Rhetoric: Christian edition

LB engages with a Christian SJW on the attack and observes they don’t behave any differently than their godless cousins, they merely rely upon different lies and double down on the sanctimony. A dialogue with analysis:

C-SJW: “Baptists have a habit of preaching ‘against’ the things of this life rather than preach Christ Jesus & Him crucified. They never point people towards the Holy Spirit, Who leads & guides into All Truth, comforts us & empowers us to live the Life that is INSIDE of us: Christ IN you, your hope of glory. Being in agreement about what we’re supposed to oppose hardly produces the Love of Christ in us to share with a hurting world.”

Analysis: There are a lot of dialectical bunny trails one might chase. But the SJW’s primary attack works on two levels: 1. rhetorical holiness posturing, and 2. a dialectically false interpretation of Scripture as New Age niceness congenial to the worldly Zeitgeist.

LB: “Concern troll is concerned. Go censor all the Biblical examples of preaching “against” things. You’ll be left with genealogies and genocides.”

Analysis: Direct dialectical refutation, but succinct and dismissive to retain rhetorical frame. To the dialectical, the SJW is done. But due to brevity, the rhetorical will hear the slap without seeing the bullets. This baits the SJW to come in hot, stupid, and overconfident. He responds in rhetorical kind.

C-SJW: “Put down the crack pipe & talk plainly. I have no idea of what you are speaking.”

Analysis: Insult + dialectical bait. If I expand and explain, I lose. Instead, I switch to rhetoric and reframe his incomprehension as stupidity.

LB: “In you is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias.”

I know his pride is invested in superior Biblical knowledge, so I drop an obviously Biblical reference on him that I know he won’t get. Pride directs him to Google. Google then directs him to Matthew 13:14:

“And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive”

This is part of a longer passage in which Jesus explains that he deliberately speaks in confusing parables so that an undeserving people would NOT be saved. The reference simultaneously insults the C-SJW, refutes his universalist niceness, and silences his objection to my obscure speech, all using a direct New Testament quote from Jesus Christ himself.

C-SJW: “LOL, are you vexing me?  LOL  You are full of pride & it makes people not want to be around you. If you can’t walk in love & understanding, you can’t walk in the Light.”

Analysis: It’s a hit! Two all-capital LOLs. No different than a negged girl laughing off tingle-tension, although less aesthetically appealing. He starts reframing hard to rebuild his ego, launching all kinds of random and rabbity accusations. He has no possible support for them as I’ve done nothing but quote a single line of Scripture! It’s rhetorical and psychological, not dialectical.

He’s suddenly given me a lot of material in just four sentences, and it would be easy to be overwhelmed by target selection. But going off on a tangent would be a welcome psychological relief for him. I need to maintain and intensify the pressure, which means continuing to drive down the rhetorical middle. That would be his holiness posturing, which is now the only barrier between me and his fragile gamma ego.

LB: “By “walk in love and understanding,” I assume you mean “accuse people of smoking crack.””

Analysis: Barrier penetrated: hypocrisy demonstrated. Zero dialectic breather. Short reply highlights the verbosity of his butthurt reaction.

C-SJW: “Or calling me a troll”

Analysis: This is the SJW in retreat, now spewing squid ink. He’s trying to settle for moral equivalency rather than retain his superior holiness posture, and there’s no more attempt at offense. He’s crying foul and looking for the ref. Now it’s time to encircle and destroy. Mustn’t let him escape with a failed offensive and a minor tacit concession.

LB: “Not only are you a concern troll, you are too stupid to avoid exposing yourself as a posturing holier-than-thou hypocrite within the space of two comments. But you proved yourself a liar in your first comment: “They never point people towards the Holy Spirit”

I Googled “sanderson1611 Holy Spirit” and found 4 youtube sermons on it in 3 seconds.”

Analysis: The correct response to the cry of “foul” is to do it twice as hard – because it hurt. By repeating the accusation, I deny his lie of equating “concern troll” with “troll”. I then reject his frame of equal culpability, making the hypocrisy charge explicit. I don’t know what untried rhetorical options he has left at this point, other than Fall Silent.

C-SJW: *crickets*

Analysis: QED

This is really well-done rhetorical jujitsu. Knowing when to utilize pure rhetoric and when to launch a concise dialectical strike for rhetorical purposes is an art, not a science, and LB switches back and forth between the two very effectively here. The key, as he shows, is to identify the SJW’s primary point of pride and, Belichick-style, attack it. Then one has merely to recognize when emotional pain has been felt, as indicated by the nature of the reaction, and press harder on that point.

As LB implicitly noted, “laughing” is SJW for “you are hurting me”. Don’t get distracted and deviate into dialectic at that point, just press harder on the Schwerpunkt.

You want orcs, you’ve got orcs

If the latest absurdity out of Germany doesn’t make you laugh, you’ve got a heart of stone:

FURY is growing in Germany over mounting evidence of ANOTHER cover-up of migrant sex crimes after it emerged a welcome party for refugees held two months before the Cologne rapes descended into a mass groping session.

Police
and victims have furiously demanded to know why organisers did not warn
them that refugees had committed abhorrent sexual harassment amid
speculation such information could have helped avert the sickening
attacks on New Year’s Eve.

Young women had to flee the welcome
event in terror after being groped by gangs of migrant men, even though
organisers repeatedly interrupted the music with messages in Arabic
urging them to stop their harassment.

Wow, even though they repeatedly interrupted the music? Unstoppable! You can imagine the total puzzlement of the German organizers. “But vee have TOLD zem to stop attacking zee young vimmens! Vee told zem TWICE but zey do not stop! Do zey not know es ist verboten?”

It will be interesting to see how long the German SJWs try to deny the simple reality that orcs are going to behave like orcs and that the Magic Dirt isn’t working. Probably about as long as it takes for German economists to figure out that all this immigration is not, in fact, good for the German economy.

The shame of the SJWs

The Ralph Retort postulates that the root source of SJW behavior is to be found in shame:

Every SJW has something that they’re deeply ashamed of, something that makes them feel guilty or insecure, and this is the key to understanding everything else about them. You may have noticed that our enemies have enough skeletons in their closets to fully replenish the world’s oil supplies if they were underground – from pedos, to sibling sex-assaulters, to literal shit-eaters, to guys that think that rape is funny, to pedos, to guys that fail to report rape, to trannies that sleep with men without disclosure, to pedos, to women who abuse their boyfriends, to virulent racism, to pedos, to general all-around sociopathy – nearly all of these people’s lives are complete and utter trainwrecks, and this is no coincidence.

Of course, nearly everyone is ashamed of something, so that doesn’t explain SJWs all by itself. SJWs are made by how they deal with it. There are a lot of healthy ways to deal with shame, depending on the underlying reason for it. You can seek to improve your habits, you can repent and make amends to people you’ve wronged, you can seek forgiveness from God, you can realize that it’s nothing to be ashamed of and come to terms with it, you can find some escape to help you cope, etc.

But SJWs deal with it in the worst way possible, and that’s the factor that makes them SJWs. The SJW seeks to rationalize away their shame by pinning the blame for it on everyone else. “There’s nothing wrong with me,” they tell themselves, “I only feel bad because society has oppressed me with it’s arbitrary, regressive norms. In fact, I’m more progressive and enlightened that everyone else for realizing this. They should be ashamed! I should be judging them!”

From what I’ve seen, SJWs disproportionately come from the low-end of the social totem pole and the ugly end of the attractiveness spectrum. I suspect that gamma rage-against-society and ugly female rage-against-society also play a substantial factor in what motivates SJWs to behave as they do.