Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: how to eject the Cult of Nice

JB asks how to go about restoring the worship of Jesus Christ to the nominally Christian church where the Cult of Nice has taken root:

My own church is not infested by SJWs, but it is solidly in the Church of Nice camp.  There have never been any horror story sermons such as those described by Dalrock on his blog, but the big ministry push is to send as many people to Mexico on “mission trips” as possible… and sometimes they bring natives back with them.  Also, the pastor expressly avoids “politics” in his teachings but routinely uses examples such as Jackie Robinson and Holocaustianity in his sermons.  I’ve never heard anything outrageous from the pulpit, but neither have I heard anything truly inspiring.  The best word I can think to describe my church and its leadership is “lukewarm.”

I used to think my congregation was fully Churchian, but in a weekly class on Christian Ethics I decided to stop being “Nice” myself.  We talked about standard political issues like economics, abortion, environmentalism, etc.  The leader was a well-meaning man but in his research prior to our discussion on immigration he apparently could find little Biblical support for immigration restrictionism.  At the beginning of the immigration class, he explained to everyone that he was originally anti-immigration but his research forced him to conclude that the Bible mandated open borders.  Fortunately, I reread Cuckservative the night before and (thanks in large part to you and John Red Eagle) systematically demolished his argument and built a Christian case in favor of immigration restrictionism.  My case was not “Nice” by any stretch.

However, rather than being excommunicated from the class because I dared say that Christians can morally support borders (a heresy in the Churchian mindset), I was invited to explain my position in more depth the next class and many people congratulated me and wished to learn more after the class was over.  Even the class leader seemed relieved to hear that a Christian case for immigration restrictionism was possible.  If there had been an SJW in the class, I would have been ejected.  Instead, I became a thought leader for the rest of the course and the class as a whole became less “Nice” and more “Christian” in the true sense.

This event led me to conclude that my congregation wants to be Christian but is Churchian out of ignorance and timidity.  This ignorance is shared at the top of our leadership.  No one appears to be fully SJW, but many do seem to believe that Churchianity is Christianity whether they like its repercussions or not.

I’ve been asked to help teach a discussion course next semester on why children raised in the church tend to leave it as they get older.  Of course, I believe the “Christian alt-right” explanation that modern Churchianity is poison and that a true Christian church would draw everyone back into the pews.  But I’m not sure using pure red meat such as Cuckservative immediately as a main text is as solid a strategy as using some softer stuff to build the students’ tolerance for alt-right theology.

How would you bring an ignorant, but apparently receptive, congregation back into the Christian fold from a surface-level Churchianity?

 Alt-right theology, now there is a simply terrifying term! Anyhow, I would start with a private meeting with the pastor first, and if he is supportive, with the elders next. It’s important to determine if you have an amenable authority or a hostile one before taking action, as that will significantly effect the way in which your campaign proceeds.

The next step would be to develop a program called “Back to the Biblical Basics” which the pastor could draw upon for his sermons and the Sunday School teachers and Bible Study leaders could utilize for their weekly activities. These subjects should be selected for undermining the various Churchian and Cult of Nice concepts that have gradually crept in over the years. Each topic should be based around a single Bible verse that contradicts or otherwise destroys the Churchian narrative, such as the way Matthew 15:25-28 destroys both the equalitarian and the immigrationist aspects of that narrative.

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
 
But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

“Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

“O woman,” Jesus answered, “your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

I would welcome similar suggestions in the comments; I expect 10-12 would be the minimum to provide a foundation for the “Back to the Biblical Basics” program.

And JB’s instincts are correct. Christians steeped in the Cult of Nice should not be encouraged to read SJWAL or Cuckservative, much less the relevant Alt-Right sites. They are not ready for it. Instead, they should be asked, relentlessly, if the narrative position they are upholding is one of which the world approves or not, and if worldly approval of its positions is the primary objective of a Christian Church. For every argument they make, from “we must be welcoming” to “everyone is equal”, have a verse to hand that demonstrates it to be the extra-Biblical, non-Christian nonsense that it is.

The third step is to embrace the consequences. Some church members will acknowledge Scriptural authority. Help them grow in understanding, conviction, and courage. Other members will reject Scriptural authority, cling to the Cult of Nice, and will probably threaten to leave the church. Don’t try to talk them out of it, but rather, help them go, as per the example of Gideon. If church members are more of the world than of the Church, then they belong in the former, and not the latter. The Church has no need of numbers; just 12 Apostles were all that was required to shake the world.

Mailvox: when is firing justified?

CC asks the wrong question:

Assume an employer discovers he has in his employ a vocal and known racist. Assume the presence of that racist in his employ is hurting his business due to people choosing to no longer do business with him. Is he justified firing the racist?

The answer is to this rhetorical query is, of course, yes? So, is a person who opposes racism justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist?

I don’t know why CC is even asking me this question. I believe in, and advocate, free association. That means that an employer can fire any employee for any reason he chooses.

So, I’m absolutely fine with an employer firing a racist simply for being a racist. What I would ask CC is this: is he likewise fine with an employer firing a black for being a black, a Jew for being a Jew, a woman for being a woman, a pregnant woman for being pregnant, a feminist for being a feminist, or a Communist for being a Communist? Because I support all of those hypothetical firings as well, on both logical grounds and on the basis of being protected by the Constitutional right of free association.

What is not fine, however, is those who are not involved attempting to put pressure on the employer to fire the racist, the black, the Jew, the woman, the Communist, etc. because they do not approve of the employee. Remember, Ben Shapiro did not say that he would refuse to hire anyone who is a socialist, he did not say he would not do business with anyone who employs Jews, he said that racists should be hunted down.

That is not free association.  That is not eucivic behavior that is compatible with either civilized society or peaceful coexistence. Society can survive many things, but it cannot survive this aggressive ideological totalitarianism aimed at extinguishing the acknowledgement of observable reality. SJWism is both dyscivic and dyscivilizational.

What SJWs want is thought policing and enforcement. They want certain thoughts protected from criticism and certain other thoughts eliminated. A person who opposes racism can only be justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist insofar as anyone else is equally able to call on people not to do business with other establishments for any other reason.

If that’s the war the SJWs want, that’s precisely the war they’ll get. But judging by their frightened response to something as minor as The Complete List of SJW, it seems unlikely that they are genuinely up for it. Because they know, as well as we do, that it is a war they will lose. Badly.

Mailvox: “one of the most substantive debates I’ve heard”

MC rather enjoyed the free trade debate:

This was fantastic.  Clearly one of the most substantive debates I’ve heard.  Both of you made your points well and it really gave the audience the ability to truly focus on the subject matter and the pertinent points of each argument.  I was impressed with Dr. Miller as he did not seem like your typical Academic, but really a guy that is interested in honest discussion (although naive).  Would love to hear more of these.

I am of the opinion that Free trade works well in theory, in a perfect world with honest players, but such a world does not exist this side of heaven.  I believe due to the fallen nature of man, protecting the nation-state is much more important than the benefits of open free trade, because of the eventual destruction of the culture and national identity.  I think the founders understood this much better than us, which is why they advocated tariffs and an American First mindset.

Great debate, I was very impressed, this is really good stuff.  More Please!

I’m glad everyone enjoyed it so much. I intend to keep doing this sort of thing and more at Brainstorm, and the more people that support Brainstorm by joining or simply showing up for the free events, the more high-quality guests like Dr. Miller and Dr. Hallpike will be interested in participating.

Speaking of the debate, some of you will recall that I felt the purely logical aspect of my critique of free trade could be improved and further refined. In that regard, a syllogism occurred to me that I believe  succeeds in succinctly and conclusively refuting Dr. Miller’s corruption argument for free trade.

  1. Dr. Mill argues that free trade is beneficial because it reduces corruption by removing power from the hands of elected politicians and transferring it to the board members and executives of multinational corporations, who are presumed to be less corruptible than politicians by virtue of being answerable to the Invisible Hand of the free market.
  2. But it is the board members and executives of multinational corporations who are the primary actors responsible for corrupting the politicians.
  3. And the causal factor of the process of corruption is, obviously, more intrinsically corrupt than the various parties being corrupted by it.
  4. Therefore, Dr. Miller is incorrect, the hypothetical ability of the Invisible Hand to rein in the corruption of the corporate interests is insufficient, and free trade will tend to increase corruption by transferring power from state politicians to multinational corporate interests.
  5. Therefore, free trade is not beneficial.

Mailvox: atheism and the motte-and-bailey analogy

BJ, an atheist, didn’t feel the topic that was debated in On the Existence of Gods was entirely fair.

As an atheist, I agree that Vox won the debate. His arguments were more
persuasive and coherent. Dominic was a good sport, but he was attacking a
castle with no cannons, no towers, no ram, not even a ladder. I don’t think it is a fair debate topic, though that is not Vox’s fault.
It’s what Myers originally claimed and what Dominic agreed to. But it’s
not a fair view on the subject.

This is the standard motte and
bailey for defending theism. You replace ‘proof of god’ with ‘doubt of
science’ and hope no one calls you on it (Dominic didn’t). Then you push
the atheist into admitting they can’t rule out the possibility of the
existence of something which may resemble a god or gods. Most people
consider that a win.

The problem I have with that is no priest
suggests the possibility of a god or gods, they talk about very specific
gods with very specific rules, demand very specific obedience, and ask
for very real money. None of them can prove their god is real but that
is the bailey position; when they are under attack they retreat to the
motte position, which is just “you can’t prove god(s) DON’T exist.”
Kinda weak basis for tithing 10% of my income.

On the one hand, this is an entirely reasonable point with which I agree entirely. In fact, I repeatedly point out, in both On the Existence of Gods and in The Irrational Atheist, that the argument for the existence of the supernatural, the arguement for the existence of Gods, and the argument for the existence of the Creator God as described in the Bible are three entirely different arguments.

One could further observe, with equal justice, that none of these three arguments suffice to establish the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth or the existence of the Holy Trinity as described in the Constantinian revision of the original Nicene Creed.

The problem, however, is that BJ reverses the motte-and-bailey analogy as it is actually observed in the ongoing atheism-Christianity debate. For example, even in the debate he criticizes, Dominic’s sallies were initially directed at all forms of supernaturalism before being knocked back by my response which observed that the supernatural is a set of which gods are merely a subset.

More importantly, there was never any retreat to the Christian bailey. It simply wasn’t the subject at hand; the purpose of the debate was to challenge the atheist claim to the motte claimed by PZ Myers. And as for Dominic supposedly failing to call me on the very rational and substantive grounds to doubt the legitimacy of science, particularly as it relates to science’s ability to address the subject of gods, that was an intelligent tactical move on his part, because I would have easily demolished any attempt to rely upon science in that manner.

As readers of this blog know, I don’t regard science as being even remotely reliable in its own right, I consider its domain to be limited, and there is considerable documentary, logical, and even scientific evidence to support that position. It is certainly an effective tool, when utilized properly, but it is not a plausible arbiter of reality.

In any event, those interested in the subject appear to find On the Existence of Gods to be a worthy addition to the historical discussion, as it is currently #2 in the Atheism category, sandwiched between a pair of books by Richard Dawkins. If you haven’t posted a review yet, I would encourage you to do so.

Mailvox: an epiphany

A reader has a realization:

A long time ago, there was a comfortable Establishment, which ran the roost via handshakes and insider back-scratching. The Right People got the right rewards, and all was good for the  Establishment

Then a bold, brash newbie shows up, and, despite pissing off the establishment by being exceptionally politically incorrect, becomes more and more successful until the Establishment decides that Steps Must Be Taken, and the Newbie must be destroyed. They’re destroying the accepted procedure, and they don’t care. . .

The question: Who am I talking about: The Puppies. . . .or Donald Trump ??

I’ve realized it’s the SAME STORY, and the ‪#‎NoTrumpers are just the PuppyKickers in a different venue.  How is gaming the convention rules any different from E Pluribus Hugo?

This is why the Puppinette referred to me as “the Donald Trump of science fiction”, which is, of course, a grand compliment indeed. But in both cases, we are the change that the establishment does not want to see.

Mailvox: you are in their sights

DD knew about SJWs, but he erroneously believed that they wouldn’t target him:

I’ve been a reader of Vox Popoli on and off for a few years now, but I was stupid because I didn’t think the SJW stuff was relevant to my life experience. Until it was:

The TL;DR version is that I volunteered hours and hours of my time at an indie horror site over the course of about 8 months, but once the SJW proprietor learned that I was a conservative, he kicked me off the staff and attempted to blacklist me in the indie horror community. Which is pretty much a non-threat, but he figures it’s a big deal.

The culture war is relevant. It really is everywhere, and there’re no more sidelines to sit on. You were right about all of it, and I’ve since purchased SJWs Always Lie to get the full story and learn the best tactics.

You must understand this: SJWs are out to get everyone who does not submit to their Narrative. EVERYONE. This includes you. The fact that they haven’t attacked you yet only means that you’re not currently on their radar.

But at least he’s learned his lesson. He’s right: “Your forbearance is weakness.”

Don’t be weak. Don’t be quiet. Don’t be an easy target. Make sure they know that if they come at you, even with the benefit of an amenable authority, they’re going to come away bloody even if they manage to win.

“We need alternatives”

Melampus the Seer sees the future:

We need alternative platforms. Deplatforming is the very basis of SJW institutional tactics, and it works. Let’s use it ourselves, on our own platforms.

A related question: why haven’t conservatives built their own platforms? I’ve worked for a number of startups. They were all hard left to the core. Why so few conservative entrepreneurs?

We do. And literally scores of VFM and Dread Ilk are in the process of making it happen. You will be called on to help in various ways soon. Be ready.

Why haven’t conservatives built their own platforms? Because conservatives are conservative. I could have built a search engine back when Yahoo was just getting started, but I could see why people would pay to play games. I couldn’t see how one could make money simply by collecting free traffic, and in fact, one can’t do so unless one can a) rely on an unending supply of free labor or b) find investors who are either 1) willing to lose it all in order to be ideologically supportive or 2) are only buying in long enough to flip the company to the public.

Guess what sort of people are happy to work for free, lose vast quantities of money to further their ideological goals, or work for predatory investment banks? Hint: they’re not conservatives.

Conservatives are much more likely to build up their businesses organically, often by bootstrapping themselves. They would rather be building up their business than running around trying to play the flim-flam game of “raising money”. And that’s now how any of the social media giants were constructed.

In the rare instance a conservative is involved in a project like this, he’s often pushed out by his former partners. One of the reasons Wikipedia has been going nowhere for years is because the guy with the actual vision, Larry Sanger, was pushed out by an SJW flim-flam artist, Jimmy Wales, who promptly surrounded himself with mediocrities who don’t know how to do anything but continue what they’ve been doing from the start while begging for money they don’t actually need to not do what they aren’t doing.

And finally, conservatives tend to be paralyzed by the fear that someone, somewhere, might make money from their efforts. For leftists and SJWs, donating publicly is a form of virtue-signaling. They love to give both time and money and will do so at the drop of a hat if they think doing so is going to generate social credit for them.

A conservative, on the other hand, doesn’t value that sort of social credit, and has historically been much happier giving to a charity that will buy Rolls Royces and hookers for its executives or a church that will use his money to house illegal aliens next door than to a prospective techno-magnate, because at least the former won’t make any profits off his donation.

This is beginning to change, of course, now that conservatives realize they have been totally outflanked and lost the techno-cultural high ground. How much it has changed, we will see in the next six months.

Mailvox: they boldly ran away

 A Canadian reader is amused by rabbits doing what rabbits do:

Over Family Day weekend someone torched the rainbow flag at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.  The response of the campus SJWs was to…cancel their own parade.

The Pride Collective at UBC cancelled a Wednesday parade as part of OUTweek celebrations in response to what it called “a suspected hate crime” on campus over the weekend.

A rainbow pride flag was found burned off the flagpole – located between Brock Hall and the old Student Union Building — where it was raised Friday to kick off OUTweek, an annual event aimed at celebrating gender and sexual diversity

The Pride Collective announced its discovery of the incident and plans to cancel the parade in a statement posted to Facebook late Tuesday.

“Needless to say this event has not made us feel safe on campus and affirms the continual need for more to be done in regards to support,” read the statement. “OUTweek 2016 is about creating safer spaces and we are incredibly disappointed that this has happened during our celebrations. This speaks to why we need OUTweek in the first place as well as to the history of terrorization of LGBTQ+ spaces on campuses – and how this plays into a larger culture of homophobia and transphobia.”

In a follow-up to the initial statement, the collective said it may consider holding the parade at a later date but added: “At this time we feel unsafe organizing and leading an event that has a high amount of external visibility.”

Whoever the magnificent bastard was, he got the SJWs to punch themselves while running away.  Ah rabbits.           

The best part is that there are better than even odds that the rainbow flag was torched by an SJW seeking to play the victim and drum up outrage.

Mailvox: a brief lesson in mainstream publishing

Dave doesn’t understand how publishing works:

Why didn’t those same gatekeepers that kept your books from being published disallow the contract offer from the start? How dysfunctional are these publishers that one entity signs you to a book contract but another doesn’t allow anything to be published. Did they sign you with the intention to convince you to write something that would be acceptable to the gatekeepers?

  1. Because they didn’t know about it.
  2. More dysfunctional than you would believe. 
  3. No.

It’s pretty simple. Editors have a good deal of leeway. The vice-presidents, vice-publishers, and marketing executives very seldom know much about the books that are being signed. They won’t have seen the book because it hasn’t been written yet, so all they know is what the editor, who is the internal champion of the author and the book, tells them.

The usual process was this:

  • Editor runs across one of my books or the blog.
  • Editor reads the book, reads a little of the blog, and contacts me.
  • At editor’s request, I come up with a book concept.
  • Editor likes concept, offers book deal.
  • Book deal proceeds, up to and including contract signing.
  • Female director of marketing is asked for input, googles me, throws hissy fit and insists that the project be canceled due to my being “too controversial”.

After this happened for the third time in a row, I stopped talking to mainstream publishers. When I am approached by an editor – which has mostly stopped now that they are all familiar with Castalia House – I just tell them that I am not interested in mainstream publication. For me, at any rate, it’s a complete waste of time, especially since the rising percentage of SJWs at the editorial level means that the number of left-wing gatekeepers is increasing.

And I suspect most authors who lean to the right are gradually going to come to reach the same conclusion that Mr. Cole and I have, especially as the bookstores continue to die off.

Mailvox: a woman’s take on female suffrage

It’s nice to see a woman actually reflect upon the issue rather than reacting emotionally to it. Ironically, only women who could most likely be trusted with the vote are able to do so. I’ve yet to run into a woman who is able to even try to defend female suffrage on any basis beyond a) personal feelings, b) “fairness”, and c) an appeal to the Unicorn of Equality.

I read “Mailvox: Stampeding the Sheep” with great interest.  The first time I ever heard someone suggest that women should not vote was my mother when I was a child.  I am 47 years old so it was some years ago.  The second time I heard this was from you.  I use to think my mom was just nuts, but her words left me wondering.  Here’s why:

  • Invincible:  I believed I could do everything a man could.  I graduated from the United States Air Force Academy, served as an intel and targeting officer for 7 years before realizing my true vocation was wife and mother.  Although my mom despised women in general, she hated the idea that I married (right after graduating) and started to have kids.  She was terrified I would be completely dependent on a man like she was.  Why is this important?  Simply because the feminists have ingrained in my generation a complete (and unreasonable) fear of male dominance.
  • Vote:  Why should women not vote?  I thought about this for years.  I consider myself more intelligent, more politically astute, and more educated/well-read than most men.  However, that does not outweigh one important limitation:  emotion.  This is what you brought up in your post.  Unlike men, women must be TAUGHT not to act on their emotions.  For us, this is an immediate response to whatever happens around us (perhaps this is one of the reasons we immediately bond with our babies so it’s not a bad thing if used correctly).  Men, on the other hand, hold back their emotions, but if they do not eventually act, they explode.  My experience tells me women explode immediately without thought and men explode later with thought.  Most women vote because of how they FEEL.  Bad move.  It has destroyed our societies and made us completely dependent on government.
  • Need: Women also have an innate need to be cared for, protected, and loved.  This is why the male European inaction regarding the Muslim invasion is so appalling.  The problem is the Baby Boomers are responsible for two generations (Gen X and the Millennials) that are incapable of doing anything (Yes, I blame the Baby Boomers, but I also blame the so called Greatest Generation who coddled, spoiled, and raised them).  Women just replaced their men with a colder, harsher, less faithful spouse, the government.  Unfortunately, while men are neutered, women think they are Black Widow.
  • Black Widow:  I really believed I could be as strong, as fast, and as fierce as any man.  I just had to work hard.  Why?  Because the feminists who indoctrinated me said so.  I’m ex military, dabbled in martial arts, love cross-fit, and keep a personal trainer.  No matter what I try to do physically, I CANNOT compete with a man (OK, I can compete with the young teenage boys).  The only thing that evens out this playing field is a gun (arm up feminists because men aren’t going to help you).  The feminists set their little darling daughters up for complete failure.  We could not compete in this way, but our mom’s insisted our self-worth must be measured against a man’s.  What did that mean?  ALL women are failures by this standard.  That reality hit me hard because it meant women are useless (this kind of supports the Muslim teachings doesn’t it?  Thanks, feminists.  No wonder you are silent with Islamic FGM)
  • Baby Making:  Yep.  This is what completes a woman.  It is not to say that some women cannot succeed in careers.  Many have exceptional skills and should pursue their God given talent.  However, the feminists told us making babies is for stupid women (you know, the surrogates they pay to have their babies for them).  That’s NOT true.  The first time I felt that I actually accomplished something, was the day I first held my daughter. 
  • Men:  My fear of only men having the vote was unfounded.  My man would NEVER vote against his family’s best interest.  Neither would any man I know.  There is a trade off, however.  Men, you need to man up and demand your rights.  That means putting women in their place which, according to my Catholic teaching, is above you. This is what distinguishes the Christian West from the rest of the world.  As life-bearers, women continue life, nurture it, and sustain it.  We pass on culture, tradition, and history.  This is why Islam cannot coincide with Christians:  they hate, despise, and denigrate women.  I believe the primary reason the Islamic world is such a hellhole is because the proper role of women was annihilated.  Well, the West has also harmed the proper role of women, just not to the same degree as Islam (Islam also has the benefit of more than 1000 years to make their brain damage permanent).  Men must reassert their proper place and women need to climb back onto their pedestal. 

I have so much more to say, but I am grateful if you read this.  Mr. Day, you are right and if more men stand up, women will be much happier.  Most of my generation don’t even know what happened because we never saw what the Baby Boomers had (their moms in their proper and much happier roles in the home).  I’ve seen both sides of this issue.  The feminists built a very dark place for their daughters.  Will we recognize what they did before it comes crashing down?  I doubt it.  Perhaps Islam will open women’s eyes to what they have and thank God everyday for Christianity.  If we want men to protect us, we cannot vote against them.  They alone must have this power.

The reality is that female suffrage can only be eliminated through despotism, most likely of the sort that comes about through societal collapse. The one possible non-catastrophic solution, which is probably already too late now that Obama and Mutti Merkel have combined to unleash a Muslim invasion of the West, is direct democracy.

And that is why I am an advocate of direct democracy with full female suffrage: it is both possible as well as an improvement on a system that is clearly incompatible with societal survival and Western civilization.