Tag: mailvox

A banned commenter wishes to establish something for the record and I am inclined to allow it.

But let the record show that you can not answer a simple question.

I admit I never thought I’d see the day that VD would run away from a question.  You are the guy who makes fun of people for being afraid to debate you.  Yet, a simple question has me banned.

Noted.
Tank

To which I responded:

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re not lying, you’re just a moron. I have refused to answer thousands of questions over the years. Yours was off-topic and did not merit any answer.

You’re also socially clueless. You come into my place making demands and “calling me out”, then act surprised when you’re thrown out?

I ban everyone who acts the way you do.  But yes, we’ll make sure the record shows this on the blog.

Every. Single. Time.

If you ever wonder why I exhibit such open contempt for gamma males, imagine having to deal with this sort of thing EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. the entitled little freakshows don’t like an answer you’ve given them, or the way you’ve refused to answer them, or how you haven’t responded to their email, or that you haven’t responded to them within their expected time frame, or have committed any of the myriad of deeply personal offenses that triggers their ever-bubbling sense of outrage.

After yesterday’s new Voxiversity release, I’m getting a number of emails like these:

I was recently introduced to you by Owen, and after learning more from your past post. I learnt that I am a recovering Gamma. Although you made it clear that you don’t like gammas, I am writing this email in the hopes that it is different for recovering ones.

While investigating it further, I have came upon this point of Gamma behavior:

Now that you think about it, in this last year or two you can recall several women cracking jokes at your expense, mocking you, degrading you to their friends, and otherwise holding you in low regard without any fear of consequences. 

It was during a group discussion and she mocked me at not being good with woman, coming to tears just thinking of it. (God, why am i so weak…) This one hits me the hardest as it has happened at a church group and I wasn’t able to defend myself, I didn’t know how to interact with women all my life.

They are good guys, and I tend to make it a habit of mine to make myself the butt of the joke to lighten the mood, but this humiliation cuts close to bone if I am being honest. I take humiliation from the guys regularly and are okay with it for the most part. Please talk more about how to move past that gamma stage if you would like.

First, let me make it clear that what I dislike so intensely about gammas is their common pattern of behavior. It’s nothing personal. I just dislike dishonesty, posturing, false poses of superiority, unasked-for criticism, passive-aggression, and cowardice, all of which happen to be behavioral attributes of the average gamma male. And I certainly approve of when a gamma finally gets sick of himself and decides he’s going to stop handicapping his potential by continuing to behave that way.

So, I very much recommend that every gamma who wants to improve himself read the following four posts at Alpha Game, the series titled Graduating Gamma:

1. Step One: Physical
2. Step Two: Spiritual
3. Step Three: Emotional
4. Step Four: Mental

A British insider interprets the latest Parliamentary procedures concerning Brexit:

HM Government has just cancelled the 13 and 14 March Commons votes for ‘no deal’ and ‘extension’.

The vote on the deal will proceed 12 March. HMG expects to lose by over 100 votes.

No one has said it, but I expect them to have a 3rd ‘meaningful vote’ on 26 March. We’re only having the 12 March vote because the Commons pushed Theresa May into it on 27 Feb.

Attempts to resolve the backstop on the Irish border are going nowhere. Barnier says that HM Attorney General Geoffrey Cox is seeking a legal solution to a political problem. We’ll continue with the ‘failure theatre’ right up to the end.

I think that they would prefer ‘no deal’ to an extension because an extension would require us to hold EU elections, where we would significantly boost the populist bloc.

WP explains the current Marvel situation:

There were two Marvel comics universes. (For simplicity I’ll say two though that is not accurate.)  One was the main one and one was the ULTIMATE universe which was meant to be a more gritty version which started in the year 2000.

The character Nick Fury was always a white man but in the ultimate version they made him a black man and they specifically made him look like Samuel L. Jackson. One could assume that they did this hoping to force the hand of higher-ups to cast Samuel L. Jackson for any future movies that were made.  That is what eventually happened.

Becoming the guy in charge of a 300 million dollar movie is hard.  Becoming the guy in charge of a comic book is much easier. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury demonstrates that becoming the guy in charge of the comic can mean you decide how the 300 million dollar movie looks.

SJWs appear to have noticed this.  They made a WOKE replacement for all of the main Avengers.  Little black girl Iron Man, womyn Thor, Asian Hulk, black Captain America etc.

In recent years Marvel Comics seemed to want to force a female character to be their flagship character.  A big problem with this was that most of their female characters that people like were X-Men and Fox owned the movie rights to X-Men so those characters were neglected.  They decided to make Captain Marvel into their Wesley Crusher.

For reasons they also re-tooled Captain Marvel to be more repulsive and masculine, they did this repeatedly even though the comics were failures. With this in mind it’s notable that a Captain Marvel movie got made at all – no one cares about this character or could reasonably expect it to be very profitable.

Guys like Robert Downey Jr. eventually have to age out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  It would appear that the SJWs knew that and created the WOKE replacement comics to be the source material for the 2.0 Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Which may explain why Disney is looking to eject the comics altogether, since they know that Marvel Comics (SJW edition) is not only NOT going to plant more movie seeds, but is actively attempting to control the movie products. After all, if Disney wants SJW versions of the IP it owns, it is perfectly capable of producing them on its own. Soy Wars (nee’ Star Wars) is sufficient proof of that.

John Hawkins is just a little behind on his reading

Respectfully, a phrase that has been in use for almost a hundred years and essentially means exactly the same thing as Christian values to the general public seems like a weird thing to choke on out of a 1500 word column especially since Jews aren’t a problem at all for America. No argument at all from me on how big of a factor immigration and immortality are for the country….

1. So, about that hundred years….

2. Jews aren’t a problem at all for America…. 

Judeo-Christian values are NOT and have never been “exactly the same thing as Christian values”. Or, for that matter, Jewish values. In fact, the term is considered to be offensive and anti-semitic by many Jews. From the Jewish Press: There’s No Such Thing as Judeo-Christian Values:

Let’s be clear: Far from “sharing” one tradition, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from marrying Christians, setting foot inside a Christian church—and we can’t even drink from an open bottle of kosher wine that has been used by a Christian. We reject the Christian idea of salvation, we abhor Christian divine teachings on every subject, and we are repulsed and outraged by incessant attempts by Christian missionaries to bring us into their fold.

It is particularly disturbing when Klinghoffer makes statements which reveal his complete assumption of elements of New Testament Pauline ideology, for instance, the requirement that wives submit to their husband’s authority. There is no mandate on precisely how a woman should behave with her husband—Jews expect the happy couple to work it out for themselves. Also, while divorce may be a tragedy, and God cries, it is in no way banned—in Judaism, that is. The story in Christianity, and Klinghoffer’s “Judeo-Christian Biblical America,” is different.

Incidentally, we have more in common with Muslims than we do with Christians; Jewish law permits Jews to enter a mosque… but not a church….

Jews and Christians differ on every single fundamental principle—even on the meaning of core Scriptural texts. More crucially, Christians rely on the Old Testament for legal delineation; whereas Jews rely solely upon our rabbinic tradition. We never, ever turn to our Bible for legal guidance, only to our rabbinic literature. To suggest that our Sages had anything at all in common with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Carter or Pat Robertson is a slap in the face of 2500 years of scholarship.

“Judeo-Christian” is as valid a concept as happy-joylessness, or tall dwarves. Klinghoffer’s yearnings for this repugnant “ideal” is a deviant phenomenon without a trace of commonality in traditional Jewish thought, ancient or modern.

A conservatism that quails from accepting the fundamental distinctions between Judaism and Christianity is inevitably doomed to be one that cannot accept the distinctions between male and female, good and evil, and American and Not-American.

A reader writes concerning the outcome of her decision to take action with the family SJW:

I wrote to you a little while ago, detailing some of the pain and agony my SJW sibling had put our family thru in the last year, and you advised us to dump her, saying that it wasn’t worth it.  So we had dumped her locally recently, holding family events just with our adult children and grandchildren, and they’ve been delightful and relaxing.

But I was concerned about when my elderly parents return from [REDACTED] this spring and felt we’d have to go back to the SJW abuse for their sake. I’ve been thinking since your note, and had a talk with my dad this week, and we reviewed the history with sibling, including my family’s behavior (which my dad feels has been pretty exemplary), and he pretty cheerfully agreed that our family should do things separately from sibling at this point.

He’s at a loss, because he says SJW never listens to anything he tries to tell her, and hasn’t for years, but he also doesn’t believe that we should be treated so badly, including our adult children. I wish she could get a different perspective that values family over politics, but she has a history of bad decision making, and I am just really relieved that we can look forward to a summer that is positive and relaxing when my parents return, that we won’t be baited, ambushed, sabotaged or abused at my parents’ home, and that my parents see the situation and appreciate what we’ve been through with her. Anyway, thanks so much for your straightforward advice and encouragement.

I don’t take the idea of excising a family member, or an entire branch of the family, from one’s life lightly. But it is precisely because family is so important that it is vital to excise serial bad actors from the family without regret, because they have a reliably destructive effect on everyone in the family.

If a family member makes it clear that they have no interest in maintaining familial harmony, or simply refuses to behave in a civil manner, then one should not hesitate to leave them to their priorities and exclude them from family activities. They have already made their choice, one is simply honoring it and permitting them to experience its consequences.

The prodigal son would not have learned from his experience had his father not permitted him to reach rock bottom and repent. Enabling an abusive family member is not helping them, to the contrary, it is complicity in their abuse.

Please note that that notwithstanding this singular email exchange, I am not beginning a career as an advice columnist. Since I am not an advice columnist, I simply ignore the vast majority of emails sent to me seeking advice. I do macro, not micro, and to the extent that I ever offer micro advice, it tends to be considerably more brutal and succinct than you are likely to be seeking.

Notes from a British Brexit observer:

Reviewing in retrospect, Tuesday seems to have been mostly theatre.

Fundamentally, it is a Leaver population, but a Remainer parliament, Remainer cabinet and Remainer prime minister. Ordinary Labour party members are Remainers. Ordinary Conservative party members are ‘no-deal’ leavers.

The Independent Group are nonentities who will immediately lose their seats at the next election. They are powerless and irrelevant, but get a hearing in the media because they have all the correct opinions. They have only one donor, a retired Jewish property developer.

The number of Conservative MPs on the payroll vote (have some sort of government job) who are threatening to resign for the purposes of preventing ‘no deal’ has notably dropped from 25 last week to 15 this week. Only 6 of them have their heads above the parapet. I could see a situation where it is actually only these 6 who are actually prepared to resign 27 Feb or 12 March. It is notable that nobody resigned at today’s Cabinet meeting. They all know that they are finished at the next election if they vote to prevent ‘no-deal’. They will probably be ‘de-selected’ by their local parties anyway – our version of ‘primaried’.

At Cabinet today, the PM promised that on 12 March, she will allow Commons votes on her deal, on delay, on ‘no deal’, and on another referendum – assuming that the Speaker agrees. Those calling for a referendum deliberately want to skew the question to guarantee the result they want – a full Remain. Conservatives that break ranks are likely to be countered by rust-belt Labour MPs breaking ranks in the other direction. No one wants to break ranks, because it will finish their careers, but they will if they have to. Caroline Flint is our version of Joe Manchin, and her group could vote for Cocaine Mitch. Caroline also has genuine principals – “that’s what my voters want, I disagree, but will do what they want.”

Remember that analysing by electoral district, 2/3 of the districts voted to Leave. If the current crop of MPs refuse to vote to leave then we’ll choose a new crop that will.

Cameron’s referendum gambit was taken because he could see that we were simply starting to vote for whoever was necessary to obtain Brexit, which was going to doom the Conservative Party. By having a referendum, he hoped to isolate the EU issue from the rest of party politics and prevent the replacement of the politicians. Well, we’re seeing that the politicians may have to be replaced and the referendum did not bring catharsis, only paralysis.

People forget that the Leave vote is so huge that if translated directly into the Westminster electoral system, it would result in more than 2/3 Leaver MPs. This is what Cameron was trying to prevent by holding the referendum.

We need a new bunch of politicians anyway because the current crop have revealed their universal uselessness. The whole point of Brexit is to make different policy choices. We’re going to need a better lot than the current crowd to make and implement those choices.

I am still optimistic that we can get ‘no deal’ reasonably soon, but if it takes longer, then so be it. Theresa May’s deal is worse than remaining. If we can’t escape cleanly, better to team up with Salvini and gum up the works.

Jeremy Corbyn has secured his position within the Labour Party for the moment by agreeing to support another referendum, but I think he has doomed the Labour Party at the next general election. The Conservatives were already making inroads into Rust-belt districts in 2017, taking mining and manufacturing areas that had voted Labour for the last 90 years, on the strength of Brexit.

Wednesday is going to be interesting because there may be an attempt to seize control of the legislative agenda from the government. But unless they are able to seize the agenda (doubtful) the real action has been postponed yet again to 12 March. Theresa May is basically hoping that people will blink. But no one has much incentive to blink.

An Australian reader informs us that you can submit questions for Jordan Peterson to answer during his upcoming appearance on QANDA, an Australian panel show where audience members can ask questions via a video upload.

Ask a Question

Do you have a question for the Q&A panel?

Q&A is our national conversation. We want questions from every corner of Australia.

Send us the text of your question on this web form or by using your ABC account.

Include your contact details and if we shortlist your question, we’ll get in touch to show you how to ask your question by Skype, video or web.

Have fun, if you are so inclined. In the meantime, the New Zealand media is deciding that Jordan Peterson is more tedious than a threat of any kind:

On Wednesday, the crowd can hardly contain their excitement. As we wait for Peterson, someone brings a couple of water bottles on the stage and applause breaks out. When Peterson enters, people stand up and roar with delight. He sits down, opens his laptop and starts talking.

Soon, tired self-help advice comes: “Look for beauty during dark times”; “Wake up at the same time every day”. Peterson says if you want to achieve anything in life, you need to make sacrifices. When he was a PHd student and trying to write a book, he used to party and drink a lot. He realised that in order to achieve his goals, he had to sacrifice his drinking. Wow, what triumph of the will. What a brave tale of conquest against all odds.

After about half an hour, he finally says something I don’t know. When we dream, our body is paralysed so we don’t act out our dreams and only our eyes are moving. Sometimes we don’t quite wake up and we can’t move and that’s when people hear voices and see aliens. Well, I have experienced this half-awake state without realising it was perfectly normal to be paralysed for a few seconds, and it was terrifying. I feel a bit like that now – the room is hot, the guy next to me is manspreading and I am in the middle of the row so I can’t move. I feel trapped in Peterson’s interminable stream of consciousness. My chaotic brain is lost and wishing for some male order. I keep yawning uncontrollably. The thought of getting an ice cream after the show keeps me awake.

I was expecting sensational insights, or at least controversial thoughts, but most of what we are getting is self-help gibberish. Maybe Peterson is not so such a threat to humankind after all.

From a UK observer of the Brexit shenanigans:

The EU is prepared to offer Britain an extension to the Article 50 period. The offer is from 29 March 2019 to 18 April 2019, a total of 14 working days. Theresa May has wasted more time than this repeatedly since November. In return for agreeing to the extension, the EU wants £7bn. i.e. £500m per working day. Whilst there is probably a majority in Westminster for an extension to Article 50, such a financial penalty could be sufficient to extinguish that majority and deliver Brexit on time.

It is notable that they are making this offer before we have asked for it. Previously they said they would only make an offer if we asked. They are clearly worried about the economic contraction of the Eurozone currency economies. In particular, the EU estimates that Germany will lose 100,000 jobs in a ‘no deal’ scenario.

One of the things which the EU was adamant that Britain should pay for as part of its departure was the cost of offices in London which would no longer be used for European agencies. Mr Justice Smith ruled this week that the 25 year office lease of European Medicines Agency, signed in 2014, is not legally frustrated by Brexit. There is no legal obstacle to the EU continuing to run its affairs from Britain, and therefore the EU is liable for the full 25 year lease of £500m. There talk of appealing to the European Court of Justice, however, the law and the contract is very clear. There is a reason that international companies choose English Common Law as the basis for their deals, even when neither of the parties is actually English.

As part of Brexit, the German government has considered setting up English language courts in order to attract international business. They have completely missed the point that what attracts contractual parties to London is English Common Law, not the English language. It is the same thing that keeps the financial industry here, together with the fact that the banker’s wives get bored in Frankfurt, Paris and Geneva. Don’t underestimate the attractions of London’s social life. Places like Frankfurt don’t even have the quantity and quality of office accommodation to attract anything other than minimal “post office box” offices to establish a legal presence. Similarly, most of the European Medicines Agency staff will remain in London to seek other healthcare jobs and the Agency will need to be re-staffed with new people.

When the £39bn EU financial demand was first mooted, several groups of lawyers took a look at the basis for this demand and concluded that the EU did not have a legal basis for its demands. Ensuring that the EU does not get a penny to which it isn’t legally entitled is part of demonstrating responsible behaviour to the EU. Today the EU is saying that any discussion of future relationship after a ‘no deal’ scenario would be prefixed by a demand for the money. Britain should not attempt to strike a deal with an organisation which is clearly behaving outwith the law. How could we possibly trust an agreement with them? They are not “agreement capable”.

According to CatholicAnarchist Bear, Jordan Peterson is still going on about me in New Zealand.

Pretty funny how JP is giving you free publicity on live NZ live TV, this time he said you are a man completely in love with his own intelligence.

Jordan Peterson: I think the tactics to describe what I’m doing are generally reprehensible, but that’s not surprising, it’s part and parcel of the way political discourse is conducted today. A lot of epithets and namecalling, none of which is justified in my estimation.

Hayley Holt:  And a lot of pendulum-swinging. You’re not a friend of the radical left, so people may assume you are a friend of the radical right, but that’s not true is it?

Jordan Peterson: No the radical right is not very fond of me. There is a book written recently by a man named Vox Day called Jordanetics which is a criticism of what I’m doing from the radical right perspective. It’s a particularly low-blow book, I would say, written by someone who is dreadfully in love with his own intelligence, um, but its fine as far as I’m concerned. It’s a good thing because I’m not a fan of collectivists on the right either. I think it’s a mistake to make your primary identity your group, it doesn’t matter if it’s a nationalist perspective, or an ethnic or racial perspective, or a sexual perspective, it’s a fundamental error and an extraordinarily dangerous one.

That’s like saying Owen Benjamin is a man who is dreadfully in love with his own height. I may enjoy being highly intelligent, and I may rely upon having more cognitive firepower at my disposal than most on a not-infrequent basis, but this is the sort of comment that is made by someone who knows nothing of the experience himself. What those of lesser intelligence fail to realize about the UHIQ or the subject savant is that we actually have a tendency to take our intellectual gifts for granted; we are far less obsessed with them than our observers and critics are.

In other words, it’s not that we think we are so special, it’s that we find it very hard to believe that other people can’t do what we do. My father, the designer of various military and aeronautic technologies who did his doctoral work at MIT, genuinely could not believe that anyone was even remotely puzzled by math. “What’s there to be confused about?” he would ask in disbelief. “It’s all literally right there!” It’s like imagining a Frenchman to be impressed by the fact that he speaks French. Of course he does, it’s part of what makes him who and what he is!

Anyhow, it’s clear that Peterson is attempting to accomplish two things here. First, he’s trying to rhetorically disqualify a book that is significantly damaging him with his fan club by discrediting the author with epithets and namecalling. Second, he’s attempting to use my criticism as a way of positioning himself as a centrist and a victim. And, of course, because he is a habitual liar, he doesn’t even hesitate to lie about the book, about the author, and about himself.

All you really need to know about Peterson can be seen in this one interview, especially the way he so readily resorts to the rhetorical tactics he declares to be reprehensible in lieu of substantive responses? I invite you to count the number of lies and deceptions he tells in that last paragraph alone. Without bothering to do so myself and based only on an initial read, I’ll put the over/under at seven.