Case in point

I think it’s rather cute that SJWs still think that any shaming technique has even a ghost of a chance of influencing my behavior in the slightest. See, that’s the problem with their approach. Once you throw everything and the kitchen sink at someone and they’re still standing, absolutely nothing you do has any impact whatsoever.

The Notorious S.J.W. @InnerPartisan
Oh hey, on his blog, failed author Vox Day is now publishing personal information of people who wrote negative reviews of his latest “book”.

This is a beautiful example of SJW behavior at its most blatant.

“failed author”: has published more than a dozen books, has been nominated for multiple awards in more than one genre, currently has had the #1 bestselling book in its category for more than a month. This is not only not failure, it is considerably better than the average author manages.

SJWs always lie!

“is now publishing”: Classic point-and-shriek. Of course, everyone knows I do this, I’ve been doing it for more than two years now. Not only will I continue to do it, but I will use my contacts at Amazon to ferret out anyone I can’t readily identify on my own in order to expose them. I’ll even make sure the SJW’s employer learns what they’ve been doing and learns about all your questionable online habits.

“negative reviews”: Obviously false. I don’t object to negative reviews. I object to negative non-reviews.

SJWs always lie!


“his latest ‘book'”: It’s not merely a book, it’s a bestselling and very highly-rated book. What is the point of claiming a book is not book? Not only does The Notorious S.J.W. contradict himself – how can I be a “failed author” and still publish a “latest” book – but he’s willing to deny objective reality in order to attempt to minimize and marginalize.

SJWs always lie!

I appreciate The Notorious S.J.W. for being willing to advertise my latest book by demonstrating, in real life, the very concepts I am attempting to elucidate and explain in SJWs ALWAYS LIE: Taking Down the Thought Police.

We also learned that Mike Brendan is a racist who hates Native Americans and Mexicans. He gives them “a two middle fingers down.” Mike Brendan is a racist who race polices minorities on Twitter and unminorities them.

Put a fork in the Republicans

They’re done. They’re not only sell-outs, they’re never going to be seriously competitive with the Democratic Party because apparently they have hamstrung themselves and agreed to never challenge voter fraud:

The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

    The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.

    The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.

    The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

Do you seriously believe any party that would agree to such handcuffs is even remotely capable of defending American interests?

The end of the 1st Amendment

Don’t think that the government is going to protect you from the global jihad. Not only is the US government resolutely refusing to go to war with ISIS, but it is actively importing the terrorists and settling them in your cities. This detailed recounting of the attack on the Westgate Mall is sobering indeed.

On Saturday, Sept. 21, 2013, the Somali militant group al-Shabab carried out an assault on Kenya’s Westgate Mall in one of the worst terrorist attacks in the country’s history. A group of young gunmen stalked the halls and stores of the upscale Nairobi shopping center, and methodically murdered at least 67 people. News of the attack seized the world’s attention, dominating international media coverage for days.

But much of that reporting was confused and contradictory, mirroring the litany of false and misleading statements made by Kenyan authorities. There were between 10 and 15 gunmen, the interior minister said. Two or three of them were Americans, said another cabinet minister. Together they took hostages, used heavy explosives, and pulled off a three-day siege, according to other government sources. Except none of these things were true.

Far from a dramatic three-day standoff, the assault on the Westgate Mall lasted only a few hours, almost all of it taking place before Kenyan security forces even entered the building. When they finally did, it was only to shoot at one another before going on an armed looting spree that resulted in the collapse of the rear of the building, destroyed with a rocket-propelled grenade. And there were only four gunmen, all of whom were buried in the rubble, along with much of the forensic evidence.

During the roughly three-and-a-half hours that the killers were loose in the mall, there was virtually no organized government response. But while Kenyan officials prevaricated, an unlikely coalition of licensed civilian gun owners and brave, resourceful individual police officers took it upon themselves to mount a rescue effort. Pieced together over 10 months from more than three dozen interviews with survivors, first responders, security officers, and investigators, the following account brings their story to life for the first time since the horrific terrorist attack occurred exactly two years ago.

I impression that the war in the USA will start when an attack of similar scale takes place in the USA and Americans begin to respond in kind despite the best efforts of the federal government to defend their attackers. There is no assimilation taking place; observe that one of the four Somalis involved in the attack grew up in Norway.

The First Amendment will be rejected by the American public long before the Second. As it has been said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and few Americans will stand by freedom of religion when doing so jeopardizes their right to life, liberty, and happiness. Between the Scylla of godless pedophiles and the Charybdis of Sharia, the USA is no longer a society fit for a First Amendment.

After the Breivik shootings in Norway, I said that future Europeans generations will likely regard him as a national hero akin to William Tell and Vlad Tepes. In light of the way events are beginning to take shape, I may have been in error. They may well make him a saint.

Jews aren’t white

We are reliably informed by the Senior Rabbi at Adas Israel that Jews are not only not white, it is racist and offensive to suggest that they are.

Even today, some of us remember being called anti-Semitic names, having pennies thrown at us or being beaten up because we are Jewish. But that young woman I spoke with this summer, and most of her young adult Jewish peers today, can hardly fathom being singled out, being treated as “other,” because of their Jewishness. And the main reason why anti-Semitism is no longer mainstream in our society is because sometime in the last half century, we convinced America that we, too, are white….

The brilliance of being Jewish, though, is that we stubbornly refuse to fit into any social construct of power or oppression. We are simply Ivri’im, people from “somewhere else,” people who struggle with God and justice, who demand that the rest of the world does, too, and see every human life as sacred because we are all in the image of God. And the truth is, we have never belonged to one race alone. The Torah tells us that we left Egypt with the “erev rav,” with a mixed multitude of peoples. Around the world there are Jews of color, Asian Jews, Jews of all kinds. The idea that Jews are white is not only ridiculous, it’s offensive to who we really are!

So Jews are no longer white. Do try to keep up. It sounds as if Rabbi Steinlauf is attempting to prepare for the New America that is no longer a white country. That, or he is following the lead of the Learned Elders of Wye and is preparing to jump ship into a non-white nation as a successfully diversified America sinks into economic collapse and civil war.

I wonder if it has ever occurred to Rabbi Steinlauf that it’s not his business what the rest of the world elects to struggle with. And I can’t help but note that the Jews appear to have done a brilliant job of fitting into a “social construct of power” in Israel. I guess it’s a little easier to stop stubbornly refusing to fit into those social constructs when you finally get to the top.

SJWs shift the Narrative

Classic virtue signaling trigger manipulation. The Left is now being pulled into defending pedophiles by hardcore SJWs at Salon:

I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine. My pedophilia essay outraged the right. My attempt to humanize a real problem brought out their nastiest rage

My article
“I’m A Pedophile, But Not a Monster”
was published last week and it has been a whirlwind since. I’ve spent
days doing radio interviews, even an appearance on TV (HLN’s Dr. Drew on Call), but mainly just answering the hundreds of emails that have poured in. Yes, the vast majority of them have been supportive.

While
there has been a visible backlash, predominantly from the political
right, in private it has been a different story. This piece has
generated debate and controversy all over the world, well beyond my
wildest imaginings. When I first approached Salon with the idea, my
editor was receptive, but throughout the process of refining the piece,
she asked me if I really understood what I was getting into. Her concern
was palpable. I assured her I did, which was mostly true; I had no idea
it would blow up as quickly as it did, and the bigger it got, the more
of a tempest it became. Even so, I have no regrets. I knew when I wrote
it that it was going to be an important piece, something unique and
necessary. And so it was.

Remember, SJWs are all about the Narrative. And what we’re seeing here, as many have recognized, is the SJWs deciding that it’s time to move on from Bruce Jenner and “transphobia” in order to start normalizing pedophilia. Because he “outraged the Right” and brought out “their nastiest rage”, that is the signal that his position is the virtuous one. As for the pedophile’s claims to have never touched a child sexually, do recall the truism: SJWs always lie.

We will see all the same arguments that we’ve seen since homosexuality was normalized. It’s not their fault, love is love, no one is harmed, you’re a bigot and on the wrong side of history if you dare to judge them on the basis of a sky fairy, and so forth. These are the early days, and we’ll know they’ve been officially normalized in SJW eyes when McRapey hires Nickerson to do some art for him in order to signal his virtue.

But we are not the previous generation and we do not fall so readily for their moral modification sequence or the ever-shifting narrative. Our answer is a straightforward one. We reject tolerance, we reject pedophilia, and we reject pedophiles. They are monsters and there is no place for them in any rational or moral society.

Reviewing the reviewer

It’s amazing how predictable SJWs can be and how easy it is to smoke them out. I posted this tweet about SJWs Always Lie this morning:

Vox Day @voxday
172 five-star reviews in a month and the #1 bestseller in Political Philosophy. What more do you need to know?

Which quickly prompted this “review’ by one Jeremy Lance Software Engineer, Educator, Project Manager, Utter Geek, Jack of All Trades (Master of a Few), who works at Perficient in the Greater Detroit Area and is on the Penguicon Board of Directors.

I feel like I’ve seen better delivery mechanisms for these thoughts on …
ByJeremy K. Lance on September 30, 2015

Not especially well written, and not very well thought out. Even if I agreed with the subject matter, I feel like I’ve seen better delivery mechanisms for these thoughts on bus benches and bathroom stalls.

I feel like I’ve read more convincing fake reviews by people who don’t speak English and have never heard of the book being reviewed. Of course, Jeremy Lance is precisely the sort of SF-SJW loser you’d expect to engage in Amazon activism. He’s a tech nerd with a blog who isn’t very intelligent, went to community college, and just happens to be – surprise, surprise – an overweight alcoholic with drug problems prone to depression and “suicide”.

It was during this narrow window of my life that I found myself sitting in the bedroom that I rented from a friend holding the shotgun he kept beneath his bed and crying. It was a place I found myself in a lot around that time. Several times each week—sometimes several times in a single day—I would find myself sitting with that gun simply trying to work up the courage to use it. For weeks I kept returning to that familiar position, wanting so much to no longer be alive and being trapped in life by a fear of literally and figuratively pulling the trigger.

On this occasion, though, I was committed. So much so that I had written my note, had dressed in the clothes that I wanted to be found in, and had gone and sat in the bathtub with the shower curtain pulled closed—I certainly didn’t want to make my exit more of an imposition on anybody else than it needed to be, they’d already put up with so much.

So brave. Thank you for this. Fucking Gamma drama queens. Those “suicide attempts” sound about as genuine as the “book review”. I’ll bet he found himself in that place a lot. For weeks, he kept returning to that position, waiting for someone to find him and stop him in the nick of time.

Anyhow, if you happen to work at or with Perficient, you should probably be aware that Jeremy K. Lance is a mentally unstable SJW. Can a responsible corporation really afford to take the risk of continuing to employ an individual like Jeremy K. Lance who is known to have access to firearms, to abuse drugs and alchohol, and who observably poses a risk to himself and others?

I was a bit amused to see Lance call himself “the David Foster Wallace of software development” when he’s quite clearly not qualified to call himself that.

UPDATE: The icing on the cake:

Milo Yiannopoulos ‏@Nero
@voxday You are cruel, vindictive, mean and heartless. Never change!  

Russian airstrikes in Syria

Vladimir Putin was not bluffing:

US officials are now widely briefing that Russia has started carrying out airstrikes in Syria, following a vote by the Moscow’s upper house of parliament this morning approving military action in Syria.

Valentina Matvienko, the speaker of the Russian upper house of
parliament, says senators approved Vladimir Putin’s permission for
airstrikes in order to crush the “hydra” of terrorism:
 
We proceeded from the fact that first of all it is in the interests of national security of Russia for many reasons. Because
if today this hydra is not crushed at its roots, where it is already at
war, if we do not destroy “Islamic State” today, Isil could come to
threaten the entire world, including Europe and Russia.

This is very interesting from a grand strategic perspective. Note that Russia is portraying itself as a defender of Europe against Islam, and an ally in that fight, whereas the USA has been actively fostering the Islamic invasion of Europe.

A lesson learned

Since I hammered Ken White of Popehat for his howler on the UN report on “cyberviolence”, it only seems fair to point out that unlike an SJW, he did not double-down:

I was right in saying that we need to scrutinize any specific proposed laws or policies that arise from this report. But I was wrong to downplay the rhetoric as mere rhetoric, and to say it was premature to criticize it. On a more serious look, the report’s rhetoric suggests an effort to use the language of violence to cover non-violent and protected conduct. That is of particular concern since it is directed at the UN….

I screwed up. I didn’t blow a closing argument or put the wrong pacemaker in someone or crash a car, but I offered my thoughts without exercising due care. The easy reason was that I rushed, because I was busy. The harder reason is that some of my attitudes colored my approach.

I expected that the report would not be read, that its contents would be overstated and distorted, and that it would be treated as an open and explicit call for censorship because of the people involved with it. I wasn’t wrong to think that. But I was wrong to let that thought stop me from a more careful examination, and to allow myself to breeze by the implications of the rhetoric while looking for the specific proposals that weren’t there. If I had looked at it from a “is this rhetoric bad or not” standpoint, instead of a “imagine the reaction to this” viewpoint, I would have gotten it right.

People have been getting suckered by the Left’s “it’s only rhetoric” and “it’s just this one brick” for over a century now. That’s how the income tax got started. That’s how Britain joined the European Union. If there is one lesson to be learned from White’s mea culpa, it is this: rhetoric is not irrelevant.

Rhetoric is a form of persuasion and it is MORE effective than logic, science, data, reason, and dialectic for the vast majority of human beings. It is never to be dismissed lightly or ignored, not even by the dialectical thinker, because the manipulation of human emotion is one of the most powerful means of inspiring human action.

Furthermore, one should never assume that facts are either true or false on the basis of how one feels about the individual supporting or opposing it. Even the Devil can quote Scripture, after all. But if someone is known to be dishonest, or an SJW, or affiliated in any way with the United Nations, one should always take the time to carefully scrutinize any assertion they make as well as any source they cite.

Subhuman scum

I wouldn’t have thought it would be possible for me to think less of McRapey. I was wrong.

And yes, in case you’re wondering, I support Planned Parenthood, and have the donation receipts to prove it.

I’ve always found the idea that I, of all people, am jealous or envious of John Scalzi to be bizarre, as I think anyone would have to be insane to want to have anything to do with such a grotesque, twisted creature.

Although this was rather funny.

JartStar ‏@JartStar
@scalzi Did you get the baby parts you ordered with your donation?

Thoughts on tolerance

RationalCyclist contemplates the contradiction of an increasingly intolerant society extolling tolerance:

It occurred to me that things have a tendency to engender their
opposites. I’m no anthropologist / sociologist; surely there is a
buzzword or catchphrase to describe the phenomenon where prominence
given to any one particular human virtue ends up bringing about its
opposite, either by necessity filling a void, or by stimulating an equal
and opposite reaction.

This preamble, being a roundabout way of introducing a rather neat
assertion that I have assembled relating to the nature of tolerance in
societies founded on Christian and Islamic systems.  In a nutshell:

I) Tolerance is a virtue intrinsic to societies built on a Christian foundation, often taken to grotesque ends by members not possessed of its corresponding virtues of modesty/humility who prefer to exploit it to flatter their moral vanity.

II) Tolerance is a necessary coping mechanism in structurally hypocritical cultures subject to endless strictures on every form of activity, as is often found in Islamic cultures, where it accordingly finds more natural limits.

To many, the first statement will sound baffling.  The second outright offensive.  Allow me to explain.  Firstly, it is worth clarifying that the ability to express intolerance of certain actions and behaviours is probably as essential as the capacity to tolerate individual differences is to the moral health of any given culture.  Which brings me to a second point of clarity relating to terms.  It merits a brief iteration of the six possible attitudes one may adopt toward any given point of principle:

Rejection = disbelief + opposition
Tolerance = disbelief + passivity
Submission = disbelief + support
Denialism = belief + opposition
Acceptance = belief + passivity
Celebration = belief + support

It is surely a sign of how progressive we have all become that we can move so nimbly between Rejection and Celebration these days, no? Perhaps another category is needed to describe criminalising people for failing to celebrate things that were illegal less than five decades ago.

On the surface, celebration and rejection would appear to be the most principled stances to take on any given subject, which is no doubt why those who have an existential need to think well of themselves avail themselves of their use with such frequency.

I have no criticism or analysis to offer here, I just thought it was an interesting way to go about looking at the subject.