Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: atheists always bait-and-switch

Mr. Rational demonstrates why no one trusts atheists, including their fellow atheists:

You’re playing semantic games here by deliberately selecting a nonsensical phrase, Vox.  “The Significance of Human Existence” makes perfect sense, and yes, random events in human history are perfectly understandable in that context.

This is another example of your need to have a First Cause for everything.  It’s just a more advanced version of the animism of savages.  You can’t not see intent and agency in everything because it makes you insecure, and like the left’s search for racism in society what you need to find will be found… somehow.

E.O. Wilson is one of the greatest minds of our age, and you reduce yourself to paraphrasing his book title in a silly fashion.  Talk about ankle-biting.

This is simply embarrassing for Mr. Rational. It would appear that the sight of “one of the greatest minds of our age” being caught out has triggered him. Badly. That “silly fashion” of which he complains is the most generous interpretation of Wilson’s title possible; the alternative is that Wilson is every bit as dishonest as the Richard Dawkins and Sam Harrises of the world.

I am not playing a semantic game. I am observing that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DEFINITION of the term “meaning” that allows E.O. Wilson to be considered simultaneously a) philosophically competent and  b) intellectually honest. As another commenter has already noted, Wilson’s book was not titled The Significance of Human Existence, but rather, The Meaning of Human Existence. A second bait-and-switch is not going to justify the first.

Also notice how the triggered little gamma male immediately leaps to making the philosophy personal. He cannot accept that “one of the greatest minds of our age” is either incorrect or lying, and that fact that I am the one who caught him out only makes his acceptance of that easily observably fact all the more difficult. Unlike both Wilson and Mr. Rational, I am perfectly willing to contemplate the possibility that there is neither intent nor agency in human existence, it is only that unlike them, I am sufficiently competent to understand and accept the logical consequences of that lack of meaning.

You’re too short for this ride, Mr. Rational. I will not again be rescuing your very stupid, very dishonest comments from the spam where they clearly belong, and will henceforth spam them. Since there is neither meaning nor significance in that decision, he really has no grounds for complaint. And even if he did, well, what could that possibly matter?

Groggy thinks I made a mistake.

Vox, carefully parsing the dictionary definitions above which you provided, “what actually is” is not a valid definition to extract.

what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import

It does NOT say that meaning can be “what actually is”.

It says that meaning can be:

  1. what is intended to be expressed or indicated
  2. what actually is expressed or indicated
I actually share Groggy’s interpretation, but as I mentioned above, I felt that it was best to be generous and give Mr. Wilson’s defenders the maximum amount of rope with which to hang the man. Rather than being able to quibble over the parsing of the definition, his defenders are forced to either admit to his error, admit to his dishonesty, or commit their own intellectual sins.

Mailvox: midwit history

It’s no secret that I am not a fan of midwits. These responses to my previous post on Fake Americans and their Fake History may help explain why. They are the walking, talking examples of Dunning-Kruger in action. When I talk about them being relative retards, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m describing. Be sure to note how JM actually thinks he is correcting me.

According to your theory Britain, Canada (until two decades ago or so), Australia and New Zealand should be the best examples of freedom loving people in a land where the rule of law exists, where the government is not massive and social and economic freedoms are respected, in other words, Switzerland or close to it since their populations are by far MUCH MORE ANGLO than whatever you find in the U.S., less “tainted” by Germans, Italians, French and so on. I think we can all safely agree and that ALL the countries mentioned and less free and their populations endure more oppressive governments (female idiocy to the max, PC quasi-dictatorship, socialist policies, end to the right to bear arms, etc etc.). The worst part is that peoples of those countries CLAIMED FOR, ELECTED, AND ENACTED their governments actions with glee, only a tiny minority resisted or tried to do so. 

That’s ridiculous. The “British brethren” of the British Empire were obviously a different subset of Anglo stock than the American settlers. Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is a necessary requirement of reliable community support for individual liberty and limited government, but it is not a sufficient one. Many Canadians are descended from British settlers who were loyal to the crown and were driven out. Australia is descended from criminal deportees; if you ever wondered why Sydney is a center of gay depravity, look up the crimes for which many of those criminals were deported.

As for the British themselves, they went through several hundred years of exporting and killing off their best and boldest. It should be no surprise that those who remain today are little more than island-dwelling dodo birds, blithely welcoming the newcomers who have already replaced them in their capital.

Anyone who thinks Switzerland is a bastion of individual liberty has never spent more than five minutes there. A friend of mine who worked in Zurich for five years collected various fines I would not have believed possible, including one for excess noise after 10 PM and another for turning on his fog lights when the amount of rain did not necessitate doing so. To put it his way, “imagine a homeowner’s association run by uptight German women.”

Whether you like it or not, your theory is full of holes and cannot explain why the peoples whose entrance you decry were allowed to enter en masse by the “virtuous protestant men of British stock” that inhabited the US back then, while the countries that should be shining examples of freedom due to their Protestant ethic (hahaha) and Anglo-saxon “pure” heritage sink ever so low. You don’t seem to realize that Irish and Italians were brought as low cost labor not out of a “duty bring white men of good character”. You don’t seem to realize that if anything, the mixture of European peoples in the U.S. might have slowed down the destruction of the liberties that many Americans take for granted etc.

This guy’s binary reasoning is so inept that he would similarly argue that my theory of NFL defense is full of holes and cannot explain how the Vikings were able to score on the Rams; obviously if the Vikings reached the end zone, then the Rams must have intended for them to do so.  And the idea that the addition of various peoples with no tradition of liberty or limited government somehow managed to slow down the destruction of now-vanished American liberties that their most illustrious members openly worked to destroy is simply too stupid to be mendacious.

Every generation has a faction arguing that relaxing the rules can’t possibly do any harm. The Founders were no exception; the fact that they were naive about immigration and failed to adequately protect their posterity from themselves does not change the fact that their original vision for the United States in no way approximated anything even remotely close to what we see today. The irony is that in JM’s arguing for American civic nationalism and the irrelevance of national origin, he is actually making a strong case for utterly ruthless ethnic cleansing, as evidently permitting even one otherwise unobjectionable exception is sufficient cause to give future civic nationalists grounds to destroy the nation.

Sertorius is similarly confused, but less obnoxious:

The Framers absolutely intended a British ethnostate, yet welcomed all white men of good character. Which was it? And since “intention” implies instrumentality, where exactly are the plans–even if they’re just jottings on a cocktail napkin–that will bring forth such a polity?

Both. First, they had a very different definition of “white” than we do today. Second, they only intended to allow enough whites of good character to permit them to fully assimilate through interbreeding. (Notice that they didn’t establish a reliable mechanism for policing “good character” either, therefore they must have intended to import criminals and Satanists, right?) Third, they had set up a structure in which the several States were supposed to be entirely sovereign. They felt that this arrangement would suffice to address any fundamental differences; what would it matter to Massachusetts or Virginia if Pennsylvania was adulterated by Germans? Of course, the Civil War proved them wrong only four-score-and-change years later.

The Founding Fathers didn’t intend a single British ethnostate, but rather, a number of distinct British ethnostates as well as a few mixed white ethnostates. If you recall, they were rather favorably influenced by the historical Greek city-states. This is exactly why citizens of the USA should be praying for a reasonably peaceful breakup and non-violent ethnic cleansing instead of desperately trying to preserve the unsalvageable.

The real problem the civic nationalists have with history is that it clearly spells out the horrors that are likely on the way for the West. They avert their eyes and offer silly, nonsensical arguments about the intentions of the Founders in order to dispel the fear that is quietly gnawing at their bellies. But it won’t work, and in any event, nothing they say, and nothing I write, is going to make any difference whatsoever. I have no doubt that back in 372 AD, there was a Roman living in the town of Marcianopolis who was looking on in disbelief as 200,000 desperate Visigoths were permitted to cross the Danube to protect them from the Huns. Because refugees.

What could he have done about that? What possible difference could his arguments and his opinion have made? I like to think that Roman was smart enough to leave Marcianopolis and go very far away before Fritigern rose up to pillage the Roman north and slaughter the Emperor Valens at Adrianople six years later.

Mailvox: this is how you do it

Yesterday, I responded to an email from this gentleman which indicated that he did not understand how rhetoric worked. My response was not particularly gentle. This was his reaction:

Your email and blog post were humbling and appreciated. I read both of your SJW books last weekend after hearing about them on Instapundit. Your message and stand for Christianity inspired me to check out your blog and eventually contact you.

Clearly I’m misunderstanding one of your fundamental lessons on communicating with the rabid left. Also, another mistake I made was to assume that SJW was how the left describes itself which lead me down the path of “better” rhetoric.

On the tangential topic of the impact your books are making, I was also inspired to contact [someone currently under SJW attack.] I sent him a note of support and the link to SJW Always Lie. He was very appreciative and I’m hopeful your book will help him save his job.

The main point of this email is to thank you for taking the time to respond and continue to teach, especially when your “students” frustrate you. Thanks. What you are doing is so important. I appreciate it.

Some of you have asked about the difference between Delta and Gamma. Well, you’ve seen Gamma responses; this is not what those look like. This is how a competent individual accepts authoritative criticism and correction.

“Oh, did I get it wrong? All right. Let me try it again. Thanks.”

Notice the complete lack of defensiveness, the total unwillingness to rationalize or justify or explain away his previous mistake, and the complete absence of bitterness or unease at being told he was incorrect. That’s the difference between a Delta confidence and Gamma butthurt.

This is why most men like and respect Deltas, regardless of their own social rank. Deltas don’t create drama or cause trouble when they are accurately criticized, they just correct course and carry on.

Mailvox: still not getting it

I’m getting very, very tired of this tedious line of woefully uninformed thought. This is neither the first time nor the one hundredth time I’ve heard the same clueless sentiment expressed:

Linguistic Kill Shots aka a New Lexicon

It strikes me that our language to describe the malice and evil the Marxist Left perpetrates is weak. For example, Social Justice Warrior actually sounds kind of cool and virtue signaling is vaguely academic.

While the language is accurate, none of it is persuasive. As part of meme war, I’d like to propose the re-branding of leftist actions to better convey the harm they cause, much like the left re-branded tea partiers “tea baggers.”

To get the ball rolling (although not that well. this begs to be crowd sourced):

Social Justice Warrior —>  Social Justice Parasite

Virtue Signaling —> Virtue Implants (as in fake, like breasts)

Scott Adams owes all of us an apology for convincing people that because they’ve read his blog and his book, they are suddenly masters of strategic persuasivery. Yes, let’s “rebrand” one of the most effective pejoratives coined in recent years and replace it with something obvious and utterly harmless that no one will ever use. All because conservatives are uptight about words and prone to sperging about dialectic. FFS, read the Social Justice series already!

From SJWAL:

The correct strategy is to fight dialectic with dialectic, expose pseudo-dialectic with dialectic, and fight rhetoric with rhetoric. And the most important thing about implementing that strategy is to understand that with rhetoric, the actual information content is largely irrelevant.

Rhetoric is all about what emotions you trigger in the other person; when SJWs talk to each other, they try to inflate themselves at the other’s expense in order to sort out their position in the SJW hierarchy. Of course, SJW metrics are all but unintelligible to normal, sane human beings, so it can be amusing as well as educational to watch them attempt to simultaneously exaggerate both their importance and their victimhood. The perfect Queen of the SJWs – and she would be a queen, never a king – would be a mixed-race lesbian Swedish immigrant who was abused as a child by a conservative white Republican politician and kept as a sex slave by neo-Nazis with Confederate-flag tattoos prior to writing a bestselling novel about a fictionalized version of her terrible experiences, appearing on Oprah, and starring on a science fiction TV show popular with white nerds.

The basic idea is that if you can make the other person feel small or angry, you are winning at SJW rhetoric. This is why SJWs are constantly accusing other people of being mad or upset; it’s just another way of them claiming to be winning the conversation. If you can make the other person submit, run away, or fall silent, then you have won the conversation, and you are higher in the SJW hierarchy than he is. So it doesn’t matter what you actually say, and in fact, resorting to straight-up namecalling, the more ridiculous the better, is often the fastest and most efficient way to get through the conversational process with an SJW. If he launches the usual “sexist, racist, homophobic, Nazi” line, don’t blink and don’t defend yourself. Just hit him right back with “racist, child molester, pedophile, monster” and watch him run. If you’re of a more delicate constitution and are not willing to go that far even when attacked unprovoked, try “creepy” and “stalker” on the men and “psycho” or “ugly” on the women. This will usually have much the same effect.

You will know your rhetoric is effective when they block you online, or in person if their eyes widen with shock and their jaw drops. And you have mastered the art of rhetoric when you can make an SJW retreat in tears or cause a room full of people to gasp in disbelief before bursting out laughing at the SJW.

Again, you must keep in mind that the actual information content is irrelevant. SJWs communicate in competitive emotion. If you’re not doing the same, then you’re not communicating with them, you’re doing little more than serving as a punching bag for their verbal strikes. I realize this probably doesn’t make sense, but that is because you are a normal, sane individual who thinks rather than feels. But keep in mind that just as their argument “X is Not X because feelbad” makes no sense to you, your argument that “X cannot be Not X due to the law of non-contradiction” makes no sense to an SJW.

Don’t try to work through the logic of it all. Just try it. It works. Chances are that you’ll be as surprised as I was to discover how effective it can be to speak in rhetoric to the rhetoric-speakers. When Milo Yiannopoulos destroyed a feminist on live television during a public debate concerning modern Britain’s hostility to men, it wasn’t his smooth recitation of relevant facts that left her reeling in shock and disarray; she blithely ignored all of that. It was his dismissive use of the word “darling” that literally muted her. Her wide, staring eyes and gaping mouth made it very clear how powerful a well-placed, well-timed rhetorical bomb can be.

Calling an SJW a “social justice parasite” or a “social justice whiner” doesn’t work. It will NEVER work. They know they are parasites and whiners. That doesn’t burn. But they WANT to think of themselves as warriors, and they know they are not. So, when they hear you calling them a “warrior”, they hear the sarcasm and contempt in your voice, and it burns.

Rhetoric follows a different logic than dialectic.

And before any self-appointed champions of Gab jump in to push their false narrative that I am being hypocritical due to my advice about ways to effectively respond to a verbal rhetorical attack, please trouble to note that context always matters, especially when it comes to the law. You will note that I have not changed the text of SJWAL in light of the subsequent situation nor do I have any need or reason to do so. SJWAL addresses the verities of rhetoric, not the vagaries of the law.

Mailvox: posturing and plagiarism

Tublecane accuses the Zman of plagiarizing David Stove

If those paragraphs you quoted in your update are supposed to be Z-man’s words, uttered without reference to their source, oh boy. I thought they sounded familiar, so I checked my copy of David Stove’s Scientific Irrationalism and Z-man copies verbiage found on page one. Right down to the year 1580, the letter “A,” and the phrase “uncommonly ignorant.”

Stove, being much brighter than the Z-men of the world, wasn’t making an “everything scientists say is factual, so shut up” argument. He doesn’t even share Z-man’s opinion on Popperian falsifiabilty, though he lays into Popper and finds him guilty of launching a line of irrationalism (or a “postmodern cult,” as the subtitle has it) in the philosophy and historiography of science. A line which isn’t so bad with Popper but gets worse and worse as you go through Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend.

The point about accumulation of knowledge, which is robust in Stove’s book, is neither here nor there regarding the subject at hand. Z-man thinks he’s dealing with nihilists, and nihilists would have trouble with facts accumulating. But of course that has nothing to do with how you characterize varieties of “science” in the 16 Points. Science since 1580 could have simultaneously been more wrong than right and still served to advance human knowledge.

Upon closer inspection, Z-man explicitly mentions David Stove’s Popper and After, but in a separate post from the one in which he steals from it.

I call plagiarism!

Moreover, plagiarism that would be insulting to Stove, RIP, since he wouldn’t be caught making an argument as silly as Z-man’s.

I haven’t read any of David Stove’s books, so I can’t testify to the accuracy of the accusation of plagiarism. But it’s not particularly surprising to be informed that the argument the Zman’s was making is not his own, as 8 hours before Tublecane posted his comment, I had made this observation: “One definitely has the impression that the Zman has not read Popper, or even Kuhn, himself, but rather, has read what people have written about Popper.”

In any event, this demonstrates why it is important not to feign knowledge you do not possess, not to pass off the arguments of others as your own, and not to express opinions on subjects you do not know very much about. Especially on the Internet, someone is bound to eventually notice that you are an intellectual fraud.

The power of omninationalism

This email from MD may tend to confuse more than a few of my more unvarnished critics.

I am a 32 year old Kenyan man. Kenyan being a full-blooded African as we say. I have been mulling writing this email for sometime now. It is primarily to say thank you for the good work you are doing. I came across your blogs sometime in 2011/2012. I started off with Alphagameplan(AGP) and really started on Vox Popoli(VP) at the beginning of 2014. I think I have read all the posts on AGP but haven’t really dug into the VP archives.

I got to reading the manosphere as I searched for a way to make sense of women. I am relatively intelligent (have an engineering degree) and struggled in my relations with the opposite sex. I would say I had several gamma tendencies and self sabotaged myself in this area for a while. In addition I have grown up in a staunchly Christian home struggled to reconcile my Christian faith and the local way of gender relations. This local way primarily involves sleeping around a lot. Our traditional family and moral structures have heavily eroded my modernity.

Anyway in short I came to learn how to relate with women, succeeded and moved on to learning the basics of civilization. I got married this year to a wonderful Christian girl from a family which also acknowledges the Lordship of Christ and hopefully will be a dad soon. Your take on women, men’s roles and relationships and marriage really gave me hope when I had almost given up on having a Godly marriage. I hope I do not sound too spiritual but it is the truth.

I tell my wife that your writing helped me reconcile rationality and Christianity. I always felt lacking in apologetics when people around bad mouthed Christianity. Now I have a fairly good framework for tackling the why and when they bad mouth it. One of the sad bits about the intelligentsia here in Kenya is that they suppose that their intelligence qualifies them to look down on believers.

A lot of people here are Christians because of the promise of a better tomorrow, me included. I have seen how far belief in Christ has brought my dad and mum. Unfortunately many Christians have no theological grounding and are taken advantage of. Basically people (especially intelligent ones) consider Christians to be idiots. Your writings have exposed me, sharpened my critical thinking skills and given me hope.

The post ‘On the necessity of Christianity’ gave me hope. It may not be in  my generation or the one after it but that one day the same transformation it have on the backward Germanic and other European peoples will be seen here in my homeland. Especially if we embrace the transformative power of Christianity.

Thank you. Even as you defend the West, you have allies even here in the supposed dark continent.

He is quite welcome, of course. He is also far from the only African reader here. And the fact is that it is men like MD who are the best hope of the global South and the West alike, Christian men who are willing to accept the hard task of accepting even the most bitter truths, and then taking on the challenge of building their families and their nations despite the additional degree of difficulty involved.

His comparison of the historical backwardness of the Germanic peoples with the present backwardness of his own is an apt one. Things will not always be as they are now. A reckoning is coming. A winnowing is coming. And it is strong Christian men who will serve as the foundation for the successful societies to come, wherever they may be.

Yes, Africa faces serious challenges, both material and spiritual. But imagine what an Africa that somehow, through the will of Man and the grace of God, managed to surmount them would look like. Imagine how iron-forged and formidable it would be!

We can only play the hand that we are dealt. It is our responsibility to play that hand to the best of our ability, rather than spend our lives lamenting the fact that someone else, somewhere else, happend to receive better cards.

Mailvox: another challenge to Amazon fails

Macmillan throws in the towel:

Two years ago Pronoun set out to create a one-of-a-kind publishing tool that truly put authors first. We believed that the power of data could be harnessed for smarter book publishing, leveling the playing field for indie authors.

We are proud of the product we built, but even more so, we’re grateful for the community of authors that made it grow. Your feedback shaped Pronoun’s development, and together we changed the way authors connect with readers.

Unfortunately, Pronoun’s story ends here.

While many challenges in indie publishing remain unsolved, Macmillan is unable to continue Pronoun’s operation in its current form. Every option was considered before making the very difficult decision to end the business.

As of today, it is no longer possible to create a new account or publish a new book. Pronoun will be winding down its distribution, with an anticipated end date of January 15, 2018. Authors will still be able to log into their accounts and manage distributed books until that time.

For the next two months, our goal is to support your publishing needs through the holiday season and enable you to transition your books to other services. For more detail on how this will affect your books and payments, please refer to our FAQ.

Thank you for the time and attention you’ve contributed to this experience. It has been a privilege to publish together, and we look forward to meeting again. #keepwriting

Sincerely,

Macmillan Publishers

We gave Pronoun a shot, and from a user’s point of view, it was actually very good. The interface was solid and very easy to use; you could get a book published on every major ebook platform in less than ten minutes. The problem, and the reason we eventually withdrew most of the books we put on it, was that it simply didn’t perform from a sales perspective.

The only real volume came from Amazon, and being on Pronoun meant not being on Kindle Select and Kindle Unlimited. Even accounting for the lower compensation on KU – a complete book read is about one-third the compensation for a Kindle book bought – KU brought in about 10x more revenue per book than all the other platforms.

This does not bode well for the major publishers. KU is cutting deeply into their sales and they can’t do anything about it because they can’t put their books on it. As for us, KU accounts for about 10 percent of our unit “sales”.

It’s too bad, because KU’s too-low KENP page-rates do not bode well for Amazon responsibly managing its monopoly position; I expect that sooner or later, they will squeeze the authors and publishers more tightly than anyone will find comfortable. But people simply don’t want to buy ebooks anywhere else. That’s why we don’t often put them on the Castalia store anymore.

Mailvox: inventing sin

TB is unhappy with the descent of his church into worldly racial cuckery:

I was baptized in the Seattle church, where there was none of this bunk. We’ve moved to the Portland church and have been part of the church here for four years. The last year or so has caused me concern. Our minister, Steve Johnson, is from the south and has been experiencing white male guilt as he gets older.

What is with men turning into mush pies as they age? Reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt.

The one thing I am certain of is that any solutions to the problems mentioned in the linked content by anyone in agreement with the content in the letter , provided the proposer of the solutions informs of the desired result, will fail. Our church was very Bible and Jesus focused. That focus is weakening, but hopefully only in our local church and not the ICOC as a whole. So many churches are terrible, I’m not looking forward to finding a new one.

More and more Churchians are revealing themselves to be lukewarm, far more concerned about seeking the world’s approval than they are about following the lead of Jesus Christ, far more fearful of the judgment of Man than of the judgment of God, and unwilling to condemn genuine sin while constantly posturing in condemnation of that which is not, and has never been, sinful.

We write this letter not as Democrats or Republicans or as partisans of any political philosophy, but as Christians who are partisans of the kingdom of God described in the biblical text.

We write because of the racial tensions that now engulf our nation—racism against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other ethnic minorities. But what has triggered our concern at this particular time is the tension that surrounds black/white relations—an extension of America’s original sin, the sin of slavery.

The question begs for an answer: how will we who claim the name Christian respond?

The choice before us is clear. We can allow the racism that abounds in America’s popular culture to set the agenda for the church. Or we can allow the biblical vision of the kingdom of God to determine what we believe, how we feel, and how we act.

The biblical text is clear: racism is a sin. It violates Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves.

But here we have another choice. We can read the biblical text through the lens of American culture or we can read the culture through the lens of the biblical text.

Put another way, we can acknowledge that racism is a sin and behave accordingly, or we can act as if racism is only a minor problem or, even worse, participate in the racism that scars such large segments of this nation…. But racial bigotry is only half of our problem. The other half is widespread misunderstanding on the part of many white Americans—including many white Christians—of the unique set of challenges that faces American citizens if the color of their skin happens to be black.

Nothing has reflected that reality more clearly than the popular response to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Racism, as a concept, did not even exist until it was coined in 1902; the Oxford English Dictionary  gives 1936 as the first recorded use. The idea that it could possibly be a sin, much less the very worst sin of all, defies not only the Bible and nearly two thousand years of theological literature, but reason and the calendar too.

Remember, Christians are given a spirit of discernment and we are to judge things by their fruits. And the fruits of the false concept of racism as sin are deeply poisonous indeed. They have proven to be incredibly destructive of individuals, families, societies, and nations alike. When I was a child, I used to wonder how it could be that so many supposed Christians could ever be so deceived by the Antichrist as to literally worship evil.

Now, as I see Christian ministers angrily denouncing racism and sexism from the pulpit even as they embrace Babelist globalism and sexual abomination, it all makes perfect sense. Aslan is not a tame lion, and God’s definition of sin is not determined by temporal human sensitivities. Neither racism nor hurting someone’s feelings by your beliefs are sins, and anyone who tells you they are is not merely lying, he is a servant of the spirit of Antichrist.

This is really not that difficult for any educated believer. By EVERY single definition of racism utilized by the anti-racists, both Jesus Christ and God are revealed to be sinners by their overtly racist words and actions. Therefore, the perverted theology of anti-racism is obviously and necessarily false, and quite possibly blasphemous as well. And in that vein, notice how many female names are among the letter’s signatories.

Every so-called pastor who preaches against racism should be expelled from the pulpit. And if he refuses to repent, from the Church. They are among the wolves in sheep’s clothing of whom we were warned.

Mailvox: It is none of your business

Non-Hollywood Reporter finally manages to be on-topic.

Vox, your greatest mate who you said you’d stand by forever said he attended several Hollywood parties where he witnessed “very young” boys being raped. You knew this at the time.

Your best friend who you stand by also said he wouldn’t name the rapists because it would be “indiscreet”.

Have you asked your best friend Milo to name these pedophiles publicly, or at least make a statement to the police?

If not, why not?

Why do you keep deleting these questions and never answering them?

Do you think you can delete them forever?

First, Non-Hollywood Reporter is lying and has been banned and spammed for spamming unrelated topics in a monomaniacal manner. Milo is my friend. Milo is not my best friend. Second, it is absolutely none of Non-Hollywood Reporter’s business what I have discussed with Milo or anyone else. Nor is it anyone else’s business. One of the reasons even people who don’t particularly like me tend to trust me is because I am demonstrably capable of keeping things in confidence. Third, I do not owe any answer to the Non-Hollywood Reporter or anyone else for someone else’s decisions and behavior, be they ally, friend, or foe.

I will never permit anyone to use me to put additional public pressure on a friend or ally. Go ahead and try to attack me on the basis of questions I will not answer if you like. You will do so in vain. My track record on this particular issue more than speaks for itself and will continue to do so in a very material way. So, for that matter, does Milo’s, as he has publicly identified three more pedophiles than virtually every journalist and reporter who has condemned him for not doing more than he has.

I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That’s three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.
(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.

I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows.

I kept deleting the questions because they were a) off-topic, b) obviously rhetorical, and c) primarily intended to discredit and disqualify me and others. I certainly can delete them forever if I so choose; the moderators and I will simply prevent any comment by Non-Hollywood Reporter from even appearing momentarily on this blog. However, I chose to address them today to make several points.

  1. No commenter will ever succeed in pressuring me to do anything. Even the attempt to do so is sufficient grounds for banning and spamming. /pol/ is not your private army. Neither am I, my VFM, or the Dread Ilk.
  2. I do not even betray the confidences of my enemies. I absolutely do not betray the confidences of my friends and allies.
  3. Your ignorance of my actions is not evidence of the non-existence of my actions.
  4. I am not perfect. I am as fallible as any man. But as those who know me and work with me can attest, I am consistent.
  5. I do not answer to anyone but my Lord and Savior, and His Father.

Mailvox: Churchian convergence, Senator Cuck, and Generation Rebel

CK discovers that truth is now hate in the eyes of the converged Churchians on Facebook:

Apparently saying that 3 does not equal 1 now qualifies as “hate speech.” An episode unfolded yesterday here in town that exposed just how far gone even most conservative evangelicalism is in riding the inclusivity train right off the cliff.

A local Christian women’s Facebook group, after a couple months of ambiguity, determined to update their policy to clarify that they were open to Christians only, not unbelievers. My friend politely asked what this did and didn’t mean, since there were Mormons in the group as well, who by definition are not monotheists. The group admin *deleted* her comments, then, when confronted, insisted that she had somehow done so by accident.

So my friend dutifully posted again, bending over backwards to coat her words with grace and love, and merely noting that it was important to be clear that Christians and Mormons don’t really share the same faith at all, so the group should be simply be renamed for the sake of clarity and accuracy. A Mormon friend of hers cheerfully rejoined and said that actually Mormons are Christians, and another said, “Yeah, we believe the Trinity—three distinct beings in one Godhead, etc.”

My wife piped up briefly to say, “Well, see, that’s the problem. Actually Christians don’t believe in three distinct beings” and quoted from the Athanasian Creed. One of the Mormons responded fairly defensively seeking to justify the Mormon view from Scripture.

At that point, the group admin shut down the thread, declaring that it was not glorifying to God, the devil was at work, it was hateful and slanderous, and posted a general rebuke warning people not to debate their beliefs. This was the cue for the other (mostly conservative evangelical) people in the group to pile on and accuse my wife and her friend of “hate speech.”

Meanwhile, BP in Arizona is entirely unimpressed with his departing senator:

I know you keep being right on just about everything, but it is still strange and impressive to watch it happen, again and again, exactly as predicted.  Watching Senator Jeff Flake (may God forget he was our countryman) talk about muh principles, while blubbering about all of Trump’s failure of character, leadership, etc, ad nauseum, and then quitting, announcing he isn’t running for re-election…

Well, you nailed it, exactly, again.  Flake is everything you said conservatives are and have become was illustrated perfectly in that self-important speech, in all its limp-wristed glory.  What an amazing cuck.  It also amazes me that the idiocy he says is self-evidently false, and yet he stands up there and says it anyway, illustrating he’s an evil, duplicitous, lying, traitorous bastard, or he’s just the stupidest, most egotistical asshole ever.  Arizona is going to be so much better off with him and McCain gone, and so will the rest of the country.

Drain the swamp, and MAGA!

And finally, a woman writes in of her husband’s unexpected enthusiasm for Alt★Hero:

So Sig. Other, after over 10 years of mocking me for my mild interest in comics, has not only backed the Alt-Hero campaign at the figurine level, he suggested Rebel as a middle name for our daughter. While the name would be a tribute to his Southern heritage and not the character, he admitted he wouldn’t have thought of it if it weren’t for Alt-Hero.

Thought you’d be amused. Alt-Hero is changing hearts and minds already.

I am indeed amused. But taken in the whole, it should be readily apparent that across the increasingly divided West we are now caught up in a full-blown culture war. It is still a cold war, in that it is merely livelihoods rather than lives that are being lost, but it is clear that the conflict is gradually heating up.