Mailvox: deceptions and delusions

AP wonders if transtemporal quantum editing could be considered one of the great wonders anticipated by the Bible:

Just came home from work to catch the Darkstream and your references to possible trans-temporal manipulation. Never thought about it before, but it’s a hella scary idea. Puts me in mind of an incredibly powerful lie scripture predicts:

“For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”

The real elect know our stuff, historically and currently. Not bragging, but just recognizing the Spirit was given to guide us into all truth. And he does his job. But with all the time I’ve spent reading the word of God, if something could make me question almost anything, it would be a completely unexpected, entirely unprecedented new level of manipulation; the sort of magic trick that makes the serious, committed believer in Jesus Christ actually wonder if he is losing his own mind. His memories are suspect. His intellect is breached. His spirit is … well, who knows?

When you find yourself questioning not just the validity of the input but the very operation of the machine God himself built, you’re really in trouble.

Which makes me think what you’re suggesting is not out of the question. The really bad stuff the apostle John predicted is absolutely coming, and maybe some of it’s already here. I appreciate being pushed to consider such things, because we need to guard against attacks from every conceivable—and inconceivable—direction.

I don’t find the idea to be scary, but rather, yet another reassuring confirmation that the divine victory has already been won, the very victory whose initial offensive we celebrate tomorrow. Christians have been prepared for over a century for a battle between what our eyes see and what our hearts know. That is why the Christian must be dedicated to the truth, seek knowledge, and pray for discernment.

I always found it intriguing that one of the strongest scriptural condemnations was targeted for those who modify the words of the Bible. Perhaps that was a warning for the very modifications that are being observed and reported now.

I don’t pretend to be a theologian or to have memorized verses from the King James Version. But do you really believe my knowledge of the latter is so poor that I would score a pathetic 1 out of 20 on a fill-in-the-blank Bible quiz?


Mailvox: cult confirmed

PC has read Jordanetics and he is concerned about recent developments in cultsville:

I have just read your paragraph in Jordanetics:

“There are a number of signs that will alert us if Jordanetics begins to transform into a full-blown religious cult. For example, if Peterson’s followers … start founding institutions for the study and propagation of the 12-Rule Path” 

I found this quite chilling, as a mere week ago, and very shortly after the book was released, such an institution appears to have been founded. There is also the typical (and creepy) All-Seeing-Eye symbolism on their website, and a very messianic image of Peterson.

Yeah, that’s really not a good sign.

Now Mike Cernovich has seen through the evil, cowardly charlatan. It’s only a matter of time before everyone who hasn’t already drunk the Kool-Aid does. Read Jordanetics if you want to get up to speed fast. I sent Mike a copy, so he’ll be well-equipped to deal with the attack of the Low-Status Lobster Cult.

Mike Cernovich
Jordan Peterson is a coward. That’s not a beef. It’s my assessment of his behavior. Remember when he said Kavanaugh should resign. And now he won’t stand with Carl / Sargon in any firm way.

Mike Cernovich
Jordan Peterson won’t debate adults (only college kids), said Kavanaugh should resign, and won’t stand firm with Sargon / Carl. He’s a coward.  And none of his followers can defend his cowardice, so they lash out.

Mike Cernovich
He has shown himself to be a coward, first by suggesting that Kavanaugh resign, and now by refusing to stand with his friend Carl / Sargon. So yes he’s a liar. He preaches courage while failing to live it – the tale of all religious hucksters.

Mike Cernovich
One area of study @jordanbpeterson might be interested in – What happens when people in your position refuse to take a firm stand? I would encourage you to read some essays by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.


Mailvox: LEAVE JORDY ALONE!

KE can’t understand why I despise Jordan Peterson and is upset that I was so indelicate as to observe that Jordan Peterson’s wife is attractionally challenged:

I don’t understand why you see fit to judge Jordan, when he is causing a large number of individuals to enter the realm of religious thinking. Do you think none of Jordan’s following will end up growing past him? He isn’t a cult leader. The mirroring and unwillingness to put forward concrete facts is due to his humility and goal of teaching people to think through concepts themselves, with the freely given admission that he doesn’t know everything. He always gives disclaimers when he’s not an expert. You don’t know the future, and you cannot make final judgement on what Jordan is doing, and whether his sins are wholly outweighed by his virtues. You are neither God nor Jesus Vox, you have fallen so low as to attack a man’s wife because of your own insecurity and resentment. It makes me so sad because I genuinely love you. Please reconcile. Outlove Jordan instead of this hateful sneering or you will live to regret it.

I responded to KE with all the restraint and gentle humility for which I am so rightly known:

Satan worship is in the realm of religious thinking, you moron. Do you think it would be desirable for him to convince young atheists to start cutting out hearts and offering them to Huitzilopochtli? Jordan Peterson is one part Tony Robbins, one part L. Ron Hubbard, and one part Aleister Crowley. He’s a exceptionally dishonest, very evil man. He even admits as much!

It’s hardly my fault that Jordan Peterson’s wife is unattractive. I’m not her plastic surgeon. I didn’t make him marry her. And my pointing out a readily observable fact is an absolutely relevant response to the ridiculous accusations that I am even remotely “jealous” or “envious” of the man. No wonder he’s always out on tour. And on anti-depressants.

Now, if you would simply read Jordanetics, you would understand why I am so openly contemptuous of the wicked charlatan.

Of course, being a gamma, KE couldn’t just leave it at that.

I’m sorry that you feel unappreciated Vox, you should know that what you do, despite your comparative lack of recognition is just as meaningful and worthwhile as what Jordan does. Maybe one day you’ll be as well known as he is today, but reacting so angrily will only serve to diminish that possibility.

I’m not angry. Nor do I feel unappreciated. Why don’t you stop trying to hurt people’s feelings like a woman and try dealing with reality instead? Jordan Peterson is an evil fraud. You’re going to feel very, very stupid when you finally figure it out.

Now try to stop being such an annoying little gamma male. This sort of nonsense is precisely why people don’t like you.


Mailvox: the truth is winning

Readers are using the bestselling Jordanetics to deprogram the lobster cultists:

Just wanted to say thanks for your work on Jordanetics. I loved the book and hope to convince my lobster cultist [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] to read it before the end of the year. I think they are a bit afraid to. My [REDACTED] is pretty ashamed that he was a big Sam Harris fan before I pushed him to reconsider.

I spoke to [REDACTED] and was surprised to hear her reaction to Milo’s forward. Like so many others, she claimed it came off as envious and unpersuasive. She said it sounded like the bitter response of someone who didn’t know how to walk the line of acceptable discourse attacking someone who does. Myself and another friend (who likes Peterson) asked her how that explains Peterson objective, documented betrayal of Milo. If Peterson is merely trying to walk that fine line, does that justify lying to his audience and his “friends”?

Ha, well, as I was writing this [REDACTED] texted me saying she was wrong about Peterson. She just read your bit about his involvement with UN and said “fuck that guy.” You made a very strong case, and it’s clearly getting through.

The reader is, of course, very welcome. I’m pleased to see how effective the one-two combination of Milo’s very personal Foreword followed by my dispassionate approach has succeeded in penetrating the meandering fog of meaning with which Jordan Peterson hides his true objectives and philosophy. I’m even more encouraged to hear that Peterson fans are nervous about reading the book, as that indicates they are already beginning to have their doubts about him.

An erstwhile gung-ho Peterson fan posts an important review:

As a former Jordan Peterson fan myself, I initially dismissed many people’s criticisms of the man, Vox Day included. I didn’t think JBP was the savior of mankind or even remotely Christian…just a man who stood up to SJWs and the thought police and wanted to help young wayward millennials.

However after really listening to VD’s arguments and looking into JBP’s content in his books, I cannot in good conscience, especially as a Christian, support Peterson anymore. This book is extremely thorough and meticulous in going through each and every rule in his 12-rule set and shows the bait-and-switch for each one—with each rule building up JBP’s philosophy that can be correctly identified as anti-Christian along the lines of Aleister Crowley and WB Yeats.

This isn’t about jealousy, envy, unfounded hatred, etc. about the man. There is a lot about Peterson himself that is more to be pitied than yearned for.

I urge everyone, especially those who were gung-ho about the Lobster Man like I was, to put aside the strong proclivity to protect him for just a second and read this book. It makes a very strong case that JBP isn’t just a charlatan talking about the psychological landscape, but rather a a sort of gnostic spiritualist talking about creating a religion as the successor to Christianity with him as the self-appointed prophet.

You simply cannot rely upon a deceiver to tell you the truth. And Jordan Peterson, first and foremost, is a shameless deceiver. The great thing about the publication of Jordanetics is that the genie is now out of the bottle and on the hunt. The Lobster Pope may have his tour, his ecstatic fan base, the media, CAA, the United Nations, and the Trilateral Commission all supporting him, but he is now in a race with the inexorable truth. It will run him down, sooner or later, and he knows it.

UPDATE: Soon….


Mailvox: seeing through the word-salad

This email exchange with a former academic fan of Jordan Peterson may prove illuminating:

Academic: About [REDACTED]. He is a good guy.  He got sucked into Jordan Peterson the same way I did—he thinks in symbolism and heard Jordan apparently talking about the kind of symbolism I study. I am worried for him and for some of my other academic colleagues who are friends with Jordan. His fall is not going to be pretty and many innocent people are going to get hurt.

VD: Yes, I rather imagine a lot of people who drank the Kool-Aid are going to be extremely disappointed. But if they were less narcissistic, they wouldn’t have fallen for Peterson in the first place. I can’t tell you how many of his fans and followers have told me “he sounds like me”. Yeah, well, that’s his game. That’s the con.

Academic: Exactly. And guilty as charged. I was originally sucked in by his Logos-Christ speak—until I realized that it was all my projection onto his smoke screen. I am so thankful that you and Milo did the book—Peterson is a real danger, much more so than those who are more clearly our enemies.

False prophets are usually worse than open and avowed enemies of the faith. And you should always be very careful to read what is actually there, rather than what you imagine might possibly be. This is a fundamental error that I see people making every single day, on this blog, in the YouTube comments, and in real life.

In my experience, if something sounds agreeable to you, then you should be MORE skeptical of it, not less so.


Mailvox: How not to critique

This dialogue rather nicely addresses the two most recent Darkstream topics, Jordanetics and learning how to think effectively at the same time. It is perhaps most useful to contemplate this in juxtaposition of how I have gone about criticizing Peterson and his work.

MC: You are confusing the dialectic process which dates back to Socrates himself with dialectical materialism. “Political philosopher…” yeah, right. I challenge you to a livestreamed debate about your essential premise that Jordan is utilizing Marxism to formulate his philosophy.

VD: No, I’m not confusing that. No, that’s not my essential premise. Yes, I am one of the bestselling political philosophers alive, with three #1 bestsellers in that category. And no, I’m not going to debate someone who has never read my work and misrepresents my statements. Peterson is not utilizing Marxism to formulate his philosophy, but he is utilizing the same structural approach that Marx did. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is structurally identical to Chaos-Order-More Perfect Order aka 12-Rule Path to Balance.

MC: You said verbatim that “his intellectual approach is fundamentally Marxist.”  This requires a gross misunderstanding of what the dialectic process— I.e., thesis-antithesis-synthesis— actually involves, and its rich history. It was developed in its earliest stages by Socrates through the Socratic method, and it was adopted by the scholastic Christians as the premise for their dialectic. Far from being philosophically Marxist and anti-Christian, Peterson’s adoption of the dialectic method is both a rejection of Marxism, and an acceptance of a method that has been used by Christians for hundreds of years. As for your credentials, I’m not arguing about how many best sellers you have. Any professional, career political philosopher would laugh at your claim that Dr. Peterson’s intellectual method is Marxist. And I’ve read more of your work than you think. The challenge to debate is still open.

VD: Yes, and obviously I misspoke as I intended to say that his structural approach to his philosophy is fundamentally similar to the Marxist approach. You are trying to build an entire narrative on a false foundation. And you are completely wrong about that being my “essential premise” even given that misstatement. I will never debate you, because you are not honest, you are primarily interested in demonstrating that you are a Smart Boy. You’re not a mind reader, you are wrong, and you haven’t bothered to even do your homework on this subject. So, drop it before I remove you from the channel.

MC: Now you’re making a different claim— and I appreciate that you’re no longer saying that Peterson’s intellectual approach is fundamentally Marxist. That may not have been considered an essential part of your argument to you, but as someone who watches your videos fairly regularly (and hasn’t criticized your work once until today), it matters to me how you paint the people you criticize. If you had claimed Jordan was fundamentally Marxist and stuck to it, that would have been an extraordinary claim. And in my defense, I am not at all concerned about being viewed as a “Smart Boy.” I am concerned about discovering the truth, wherever it comes from. And by the way, I’m still buying the book because I think there may be worthwhile criticisms in it. But I could not in good conscience let such a drastic accusation slide so easily. Kick me from your channel, if you will, but I think banning and refusal to debate are beneath you. Isn’t that what we criticize the Left about?

VD: Yes, it would have been an extraordinary claim, moreover, it would have been completely in contradiction to every single reference to Peterson and Marxism in the book I just wrote. Not that there are many, since Peterson is not only not a Marxist, he doesn’t even know very much about it despite his constant blathering about it.  The point is that your criticism was almost completely off-base. At no point did you ever stop to confirm that the meaning you quite reasonably assigned to it was intended, nor did you possess enough information to know that it was obviously an unintentional statement. Why would I ever debate anyone who suggests a totally irrelevant debate topic? There is literally nothing to debate.

So, what is the problem with this critical approach? Some of you will already have a pretty good idea of not only the problem, but the underlying reason for the problem, but we will ignore the latter as being obvious to those familiar with the topic.

First, never begin with a superior posture. Second, never make a definitive value statement at the start. Third, be very cautious about building a mountain out of a molehill, especially from a single piece of evidence. Fourth, always place more confidence in the written word than the spoken one. Fifth, refrain making any personal judgments in the early stages. And that’s just in the first paragraph.

Sixth, accept the responsible party’s expression of his intentions unless there is reason to believe he is lying or being evasive. Seventh, do your homework. Eighth, always be slow to leap to judgment. Express your suspicions, do not make concrete assertions.


Mailvox: cowardice vs Christianity

A German reader describes why men cannot stand fake and hyperfeminized churchianity in lieu of genuine Christianity:

In one of your recent videos – I think it was one of the videos on Jordan Peterson – you mentioned that men really trying to improve on their lives tend to go the the gym and to read the new testament. This statement I can fully confirm from my personal experience. Being a gamma most of my life I slowly but steadily work myself out of the gamma’s self-absorption in recent years and going to the gym and practicing my refound Christian faith are two important pillars in that respect.

The motivation to go the gym I got already years ago and independently of your blog and videos. It’s another story with my refound Christian  faith. I was raised and educated in a Christian family and – as you also write in a blog post from May 2nd, 2018 – I think it was that very Christian education that contributed to me developing gamma habits in the first place. For example I remember my mother stressing that Jesus was a superior man for not defending himself and being a victim. Combine that with a weak father with strong gamma traits and you won’t be surprised that I developed the typical passive-aggressiveness of a gamma. Just to name another example: I remember attending a bible lecture as a child where the (male) member of the church community who served there as a teacher told us that women were somehow stronger than men. I don’t remember the context, I only remember my astonishment (“don’t have men naturally more strength than women?”) but somehow accepting his statement in the end.

When I discovered men’s movements and the manosphere some years ago I tended to regain an interest in God as the strong father I would have wished for my childhood days. At the same time I rejected the Christian faith and even resented it because I blamed it for turning me into a full-blown gamma. Especially verses like “turning the other cheek” brought about my general rejection. My relationship with God remainded being more of a superficial interest than a deep-rooted faith at this time.

The beginning of the breakthrough back to my Christian faith came roughly half a year ago with watching your video “Hate is a Christian Virtue”. This was the starting point for my growing understanding that Christianity isn’t about cowardly backing down and being submissive to evil and harmful people. I began to understand the Christian faith from a new and masculine point of view. I began to understand that it’s also about being strong and clear in one’s stand against attackers. Now I’m reading bible verses daily again and listen to sermons regularly (if you don’t now it already I highly recommend John MacArthur’s series on Social Justice and the Gospel). I even found a group of Christian men practicing the Christian faith and supporting each other in their manhood.

So first and foremost I want to thank you for your helpful work on the socio-sexual hierarchy and Christianity. Moreover I’d really appreciate it – if your time and interests allow it at this point – if you would further elaborate on the topic of Christianity and why it involves masculine strength rather than being opposed to it. In particular I’d really like to know your interpretation of verses like “turning the other cheek”.

The key to understanding the concept of turning the other cheek is to grasp that motivations matter. God knows your thoughts! You are not going to fool Him. If you are refraining from striking down the man who violently humiliates you out of cowardice, then you are not turning the other cheek. You are not seeking to be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. You’re just being a coward and there is less than zero spiritual benefit to you from your failure to respond. Better that you hit your attacker back, and do so harder than he hit you.

Turning the other cheek is only for the man who is strong enough to demonstrate his forbearance as an example of God’s mercy and impregnability, just as carrying the legionary’s equipment for an extra mile can only apply to the individual who is able to carry it for the first mile. One cannot strive to be a perfect man when one is not even truly a man.

That’s merely my opinion, of course. I am a political philosopher, not a theologian.


Mailvox: well, no

I was somewhat amused to receive a request to promote someone’s IndieGoGo campaign this morning. I didn’t take any offense at the request, and I’m sure it’s a perfectly good campaign and all, but I have to imagine that he hasn’t been aware of what’s been going on around here lately. Please consider this my standard reply to anyone who would like me to promote a campaign on IndieGoGo.

Dear X,

I’m sorry, but I will not promote anything on IndieGoGo. Nor would I recommend that anyone use them. They retroactively cancelled our successful campaign there and refused to give us the money that we raised from our backers, then made false and contradictory accusations in order to try to retroactively justify that refusal. So, I hope you’ll understand that we will not promote the platform of someone who has deplatformed us.

Best regards,

Vox

And for those of you who missed AH:Q 2.0, just be patient. We’ll introduce 2.1 later this month. Everything is in order. Trust the plan.


Mailvox: a review of The Consuming Fire

A very successful SF writer sends his review of John Scalzi’s The Consuming Fire, the second in his The Interdependency series, in case anyone happens to be curious about it.

Review: The true tragedy of The Consuming Fire is this: if this book, and The Collapsing Empire, had been written as one volume, it would have solved many of the problems besetting the first volume and made the combined volume far more satisfactory.  As it is, although The Consuming Fire is vastly superior to its predecessor, it lacks the satisfaction one may glean from a well-written Peter Hamilton, Brandon Sanderson or Iain M. Banks.  It’s also far too expensive for what one gets out of it.

The Interdependency – a network of star systems held together by the Flow, a series of hyper-dimensional rivers running through the higher dimensions – has finally discovered, thanks to the efforts of Cardenia Wu-Patrick, Marce Claremont and Kiva Lagos, that the Flow is collapsing and the Interdependency, as they know it, is doomed.  With only one planet within the system capable of supporting life without massive support from off-world, and that in enemy hands, the stage is set for a brutal civil war …

… Except it isn’t.  The book effectively separates into two halves.  One side covers Cardenia Wu-Patrick’s desperate attempts to convince the Interdependency that the Flow is indeed collapsing (something that should have been made easier by the complete collapse of one Flow stream) and facing a conspiracy that should have been able to overthrow her with ease, but shows such striking incompetence that their entire plan falls apart far too quickly.  The other side follows Marce as he (aided by the researcher who, accidentally, started the Bad Guys plotting) discovers that the Flow’s steady collapse may be opening up new streams, including to a system that was cut off hundreds of years ago.  (No, not long-lost Earth.)  They take a starship to the system, where they find a handful of survivors – and proof, perhaps, that the shift in the Flow may not be entirely natural.  The Interdependency’s sins – or those of its founders – may have come back to haunt it.  And then, with the discovery of a handful of new streams and the plotters defeated, the stage is set for a brutal civil war …

(Didn’t I just say that?  Really?)

Unlike The Collapsing Empire, this volume does manage to get across both the scale of the disaster facing the Interdependency – with brief asides touching on the effects on the wider universe as the collapse picks up speed – and the problems facing people who attempt to convince the bureaucracy and established interests that the sky is falling, although one expects that this particular version of ‘the sky is falling’ hasn’t been heard that often within the Interdependency.  If Scalzi was hoping to draw a link between the collapsing Flow and climate change, he failed.  The cold fact is that the people who insist that the climate is changing – and that human intervention is forcing the change – have been screaming ‘the sky is falling’ for so long that everyone else has simply stopped listening.  Here, one would expect the novelty alone to ensure that the claims got a fair hearing, although Scalzi is probably right to suggest that not everyone would want to believe.

The Marce plot works better, I think, although much of it is predictable and fails badly when the two plots interact.  It allows the reader to see both the fate in store for the Interdependency and, also, to pick up a flicker of hope (although Scalzi teases us with hints, rather than direct answers).  It’s clever of Scalzi to have Marce interact with the ‘enemy’ physicist, although it says nothing about the competence of the Independency’s security forces that they didn’t pick her up long ago.  (Or the bad guys, in not having her quietly hidden away somewhere or simply eliminated.)  It’s amusing to see that the lack of peer review bit both sides hard.  The bad guys weren’t the only ones to miss a few important details.  Kudos to Scalzi for making a point many would have missed.

However, the plot following Cardenia Wu-Patrick and Kiva Lagos is considerably weaker, owing to a combination of incompetence on both sides.  The bad guys appear certain to win – they pull off a spectacular prison break – until sheer chance, not remotely foreshadowed, blows their plans out of the water.  Scalzi does this very poorly, it must be noted.  The conspiracy is doomed because of the growing crisis, sure enough, but the interests of the competing parties are so different that the conspiracy is probably doomed anyway.  It requires the plotters to either give up most of their interests or start planning to stab their fellows in the back.  Arguably, this is what happens.  The bad guys run rampant until they are challenged, at which point they fold with astonishing speed.

The sexual politics are also quite irritating.  It’s amusing to have Cardenia Wu-Patrick worrying about inviting someone to bed when she can have him (or her) exiled or executed for saying no.  Scalzi neatly encapsulates the dilemma facing those who want to exonerate Bill Clinton for his conduct in office.  Kiva Lagos, who is the person who really needs those thoughts (as she’s as guilty as Slick Willy), doesn’t have them.  Cardenia Wu-Patrick acts, at times, like a lovelorn schoolgirl mooning over Marce (and worrying if he fancies the other physicist); Kiva Lagos is as sexually aggressive as ever, taking an important call while being serviced – that is the exact word used – by an enemy lawyer.  Thankfully, we see less of her in this story than the previous one – another moment when combining the two books would have been considerably more effective.  Truthfully, I wouldn’t object to having all the major power players in the book be women if they weren’t so strikingly incompetent. 

It cannot be denied, however, that Scalzi dropped the ball in a number of places.  There are no scenes set on End, leaving that plot thread dangling for the moment.  To be fair, End is immaterial to the overall plot until the Independency finds a way to get back in touch with the lost world, but it’s still irritating.  Scalzi also has some of his characters veering backwards and forwards with terrifying speed, missing obvious opportunities to push their agendas because of the demands of the plot.  And most of his characters are basically snarky.  It’s sometimes hard to tell them apart.

Scalzi also takes a number of shots at organised religion, making it clear – right from the start of this book – that the Interdependency’s religion is based on a lie.  This is no steady corruption of a number of prophets, or a man who worked miracles, but a lie that was used to bind the Interdependency together.  There are shades of the fake religions of Foundation here too.  The main characters have no qualms about cynically manipulating the beliefs of their people to achieve their goals.  If you happen to be religious, you may find this offensive; if you are not, you may let it slip by.  Scalzi tries to add a hint of ambiguity with a character who may – or may not – have had a religious experience, but it’s hard to take it seriously.  It’s a neat piece of background, but one that ultimately fails.  Which is a shame, because there are concepts here – in the hands of a different writer – that might have been worth exploring.  What do you do if your fake religion suddenly has to deal with a very real prophet?  Or someone that cannot be branded a fake without calling your entire religion into question?

Overall, if Scalzi had combined these two books into one, I would have given them a much higher rating.  A combined volume would have avoided the problems plaguing the separate books – and probably had better editing – and settled a handful of issues before moving on to the third volume.  As it is, both books are ultimately unsatisfactory.  Scalzi appears determined to wring as much money as he can from the series, despite the limitations of the plot, but neither of his volumes have the sheer meat of Game of Thrones and its early successors.  It took me less than an hour to read it.  There are some improvements, yet the glacial plot movement and sheer incompetence of the plotters and counter-plotters is a major downer.  So too is the crudity of some of the characters.  In short, the book is too expensive for what it gives us.

Rating: Two out of five.


Mailvox: Fight the good fight

A Christian reader shares his experience of returning to his converged home church:

I wanted to drop a note and let you know what a comfort your postings on what is happening in the church have been to me. My wife and I recently rejoined the church I grew up in and am just now realizing how bad the necrosis actually is. This church has been a community bulwark for over 150 years but over the last decade has succumbed to the conciliatory vacuousness of SJWs in the exact sequence of events you frequently describe. I can’t imagine they will even be able to stomach proclaiming the narrow path of salvation or deity of Christ five years from now.

Your posts are like receiving an explicit diagnosis for the rare disease no one has been able to diagnose for years. I pray it is not too late to effect an intervention of some sort. I think it is safe to assume your occasional thoughts on this matter are greatly appreciated by many like me.

Remember, we will win the war. But we’re going to lose more than few battles along the way. The important thing is to never submit and never stop getting back up again. We’re the special forces operating in enemy territory, undertaking the mission in the supreme confidence that our Commander will launch the orbital artillery and send in the space marines at the precise moment He deems right.

If you want to understand that exact sequence of events he describes, read SJWs Always Double Down. It’s all in there.