Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: what would you do?

David of One is curious what I would have done if I had found myself in Steven Gould’s position:

It isn’t hard to imagine, Vox, you having had become president of that foul organization only to discover … to realize at some formal function that you were in the midst of a great number of unwashed and perverse “artists”. Such an occasion and realization that you were in the company and leader of eaters of the dead that relish the flesh of the living young. In truth such is the case now of modern day vampires of the living with the exception you are not, by God’s grace and love, a leader amongst perverters of the the mind, body and soul. Such would surely be the making of a real life horror story.

I cannot help but ask you what you would have thought and done if such a situation were to have actually occurred during the annual formal function when such a realization might have occurred?

I would have held my tongue, smiled and concealed my realization, and done my best to learn as much as possible while I was in their midst. Then I would have quietly launched inquiries and hired private investigators with the organization’s money to look into the backgrounds of the most suspicious parties.

Once I was in possession of the necessary information, I would have spoken directly to the various parties and given them the opportunity to come clean, with the warning that the relevant information had already been sent to the relevant authorities. I would also have made sure that multiple parties beside myself were in possession of it; those who keep information to themselves create an incentive to be silenced in one way or another.

(In case it is not clear, neither I nor Daniel are researchers. We are merely the initial outlets for those who know considerably more than we do about all of this sort of nasty thing.)

After they either came clean or declined, I would have released a statement to the organization and to the media, with links to the full report. Then I would have asked the SFWA Board, and the membership, to vote on expelling the various individuals and stripping them of all honors.

SFWA instead voted to elect the man who selected Samuel Delany as a Grand Master. That’s on their heads, and on their consciences.

Clarke and the criminal connections

Leo is rather dubious about the evidence concerning certain of Arthur C. Clarke’s supposed idiosyncracies:

Still, a lack of accusations gives us nothing but rumors to work with. Did he associate with anyone later credibly so accused? That would be evidence for me.

Fair enough. It’s not like I know anything about it, although the false claims of his being cleared by the Sri Lankan authorities do tend to make me a little suspicious. Let’s see what is out there. Here is what there is from the 1998 Mirror piece based on the reporter who was sent from the UK to Sri Lanka to interview Clarke.

Sitting in a room he calls his Ego Chamber, Arthur C. Clarke  finally admitted his lifelong secret – not only is he gay but he prefers sex with beach boys. Clarke gives the name Ego Chamber to the study in his Colombo home because the walls are lined with his books and framed photos of himself with celebrities from the Pope to Princess Diana. The room has state-of-the-art computers, satellite TV, video recorders and other hi-tech gadgets which Clarke boasts he uses to communicate with pals at the Pentagon.

When we asked Clarke about suggestions that he may have been one of the original pioneers of sex tourism in Sri Lanka he gave a wry smile and said: “I am more amused than disgusted that anyone should think that. I am all in favour of efforts to stop it. But how do we stop it without interfering with the rights of responsible adults.”

Then he repeated a phrase often used by paedophiles: “I think most of the damage comes from the fuss made by hysterical parents afterwards. If the kids don’t mind, fair enough.”

In recent years Clarke’s name has been linked with two notorious paedophiles, one of whom – a Swiss millionaire – was kicked out of Sri Lanka on the orders of the president for abusing impoverished beach boys. He is now awaiting trial in Zurich accused of sexually abusing up to 1,500 young boys and like Clarke was friends with a lot of Sri Lanka’s top politicians, senior policemen and influential government figures.

Clarke is said to have attended parties at the tycoon’s home. When asked if he had, Clarke replied:

“I may well have done. I mean the very first man I met here in 1954 was a paedophile and made no bones about it. He was in intelligence in the army, a fantastic guy.”

Clarke said of his sexual preferences:

“Here it would embarrass everyone right up to the president. I mean, I am chancellor of the university, a public figure, that is the problem so I would be swallowed alive. I would probably be outed, you see.”

These days the frail, white-haired old man gets around with the aid of a wheelchair and crutches following a polio attack 15 years ago.

But Clarke’s fading health does not stop him enjoying his favourite pastime – playing table tennis with schoolboys at a notorious pick-up haunt for perverts called the Otters Aquatic Club. Crumbling and in need of a coat of paint, the Otters is a meeting point for Westerners who lust after young boys. Those who hang around its games room, pool and tennis courts are perfect prey and are easily persuaded to sell themselves for 1,000 rupees (pounds 10) – a small fortune to them.

Clarke goes there regularly in the afternoon, hobbling on a walking stick, to challenge boys – some as young as 12 – to a game of ping pong.

Asked what his definition for paedophilia was Clarke said:

“There are two different definitions, anyone who interferes with young boys who are not old enough to know their own minds and that’s my definition. It varies for me.”

Asked how he knew whether the boys really did know their own minds as he had not known them for long, he said:

“Because pure and simply they looked reasonably mature. Mature enough for me.”

Told one of them was just 13, he said: “If he really was 13 he will be a very mature 13.”

Asked if he thought that was morally wrong he replied: “No.”

Told that some of the boys had told us they would not have had sex if he had not given them money he said: “I’m sure. But I didn’t make anyone do anything they didn’t enjoy doing.”

Of course, one has to ask why a reporter would fly from the UK to Sri Lanka to interview an old man about his predilections unless he already knew what he would find. There is also more highly specific information from what appears to be a British conspiracy site:

US detectives, who arrested leaders of NAMBLA 10 years ago, say Clarke was named by other paedophiles they quizzed during an FBI investigation. The perverts had set up children’s homes in Thailand as fronts for their sick activities.

One of its leaders was Jonathan Tampico, 48, a top nuclear scientist who worked for the American Government. He served two-and-a- half years in jail for molesting a boy of 12 and is now on the run with a million-dollar warrant on his head for further porn offences. He told detectives he had stayed at Clarke’s home in Colombo and had swapped letters with the author.

Another known paedophile, former church minister John Wakefield Cummings, 56, is serving a 24-years-to-life sentence after admitting molesting 17 boys in his care.

He told police in Sacramento, California, that Clarke had been contacted at his Sri Lankan home by a paedophile who was on the run from the American authorities.

In a sworn statement made to an investigator for Sacremento’s district attorney, Wakefield Cummings told how the pervert fled to Sri Lanka where he was able to contact the paedophile community through Clarke. He then fled from Sri Lanka to Indonesia.

Detectives contacted a child welfare group to warn them about Clarke’s activities.

A senior Sacramento detective said: “We never had any reason to take action against Arthur C. Clarke because he was outside our jurisdiction.

“But Clarke’s name did keep coming up. We were looking into members of The Boy Lovers Association who all seemed to know or be aware of him. He ended up connecting to a lot of people we were investigating. Tampico was one of those who said he went to Sri Lanka. I have seen letters between him and Arthur C. Clarke. There was nothing overtly sexual in them but they were clearly corresponding.”

He added: “Cummings told us in the course of interviews that Arthur C. Clarke is a paedophile. He said Sri Lanka used to be a popular destination for the paedophiles. But then the government changed and they were all thrown out. He said Clarke was one of the few they didn’t expel because of his status.”

Ron O’Grady, of ECPAT confirmed he had been warned about Clarke by police in Sacramento.

Now, I know nothing about any of this so I can’t vouch for any of it, but it’s easy enough to confirm that at least the names are real. Here are public court documents relating to the arrest of the aforementioned Jonathan Tampico. Notice that he and his three fellow defendants are members of NAMBLA, the organization that published the newsletter to which Samuel Delaney admits subscribing. And John Wakefield Cummings is on the registered sex offender list in Clovis, California. Ron O’Grady, who died last year, was a New Zealand minister who founded EPCAT.

Perhaps Mr. Cummings was lying about Mr. Clarke. Perhaps Mr. Tampico was lying about Mr. Clarke. Perhaps Rev. O’Grady was lying about Mr. Clarke. Perhaps all these people from around the world were lying about Mr. Clarke in their discussions with the Sacramento police. But why? Why would his name even come up in the first place?

The Otter Aquatic Club also exists and you can even visit its website. Otter Aquatic Club is one of leading sport promoting club has been in
existence for the past 78 years and it is one of the largest and most
patronized clubs in Sri Lanka.

And then consider how many obvious signs there were about Clarke compared to how much evidence there was about Marion Zimmer Bradley prior to the revelations of last year. A lot of these people are still alive; some of the detectives involved may even still be on the Sacramento police force.

I have absolutely nothing against Arthur C. Clarke. I enjoyed several of his novels. I was delighted to republish the excellent story he wrote for There Will Be War Volume II, “Superiority”. But the truth is what it is. History is what it is. This world is fallen and Clarke would hardly be the first brilliant man of talent to hide a terrible secret.

The question is, will the science fiction world investigate the matter and face the truth, whatever it might be, or will it continue to avert its eyes and permit the monsters in its midst to operate with impunity? Remember, this is a community that awarded Samuel Delaney its highest honor just last year.

Mailvox: Arthur C. Clarke: Predator or victim?

TS objects to the inclusion of Arthur C. Clarke among the pedophiles of science fiction:

I just finished reading “Safe Space as Rape Room” and I’m disappointed that you continue to include Sir Arthur Clarke in your list of child predators.  Following up on our earlier email correspondence I spent time over several days looking at everything I could on the Internet about this.  And no, I did not go to Sri Lanka.  What I found during my research satisfied me that he’s innocent of the charge.

Clarke denied (on multiple occasions) that he ever said what was alleged in the Daily Mirror.  He is also on record saying that pedophilia is wrong.  None of his writings give any hint whatsoever that he favors pedophilia.  When Sri Lankan police and Interpol asked the Daily Mirror for tapes of the interview, they were not produced.  The Sri Lankan authorities are on record as saying that Clarke “has been cleared” of the pedophilia charges against him.  Why do you believe the Daily Mirror’s accusations but not Clarke’s denials and the Sri Lankan authorities?  And, and I think this is very telling, why did no one come forward after he died and accuse him of sex abuse (ala Jimmy Savile)?

I think you are seriously wronging Sir Arthur.  Please don’t put him into the same category with Kramer, Delaney, Zimmer et al.  He doesn’t deserve it.

Why don’t I believe Clarke’s denials? Because most criminals are not prone to openly confessing to criminal activity. Why don’t I believe the Sri Lankan authorities? I do believe them. But they did not clear him of the pedophilia charges made against him, they simply stated the fact that no actual charges had been made.

National Child Protection Authority (NCPA) chief Jagath Wellawatte said there was no case against the writer, who captured the world’s imagination with 2001: A Space Odyssey and visions of extra-terrestrial civilisations.

“We had no case against Clarke and no one had come forward to say they were abused by him,” Mr Wellawatte said.

The agency was established under new child protection laws enacted after the allegations against Clarke surfaced.

“We have not had any formal complaint or testimony from anyone saying they were abused by Sir Arthur,” said NCPA investigator WTD Wijesena. “We cannot go on the basis of rumours.”

That is not an investigation and exoneration. That is simply an absence of a victim willing to testify against a powerful and influential man. Furthermore, there is documentary evidence that the media went to some lengths to look the other way.

The News of the World spiked an exclusive story exposing the science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke as a paedophile, according to a new book about life inside the newspaper whose closure was announced a year ago today.

Can we say for certain that Clarke was a pedophile? No, not at this point. But what we can say is that the claims, by Clarke and others, that he was “celibate” and “unable to engage in sexual relations” for decades sound eerily like the same claims about Walter Breen’s impotence that were made falsely by Marion Zimmer Bradley before he was convicted of molesting children.

Mailvox: Safe Space as Rape Room

Reactions to the fourth installment of Daniel Enness’s Safe Space as Rape Room: Science Fiction Culture and Childhood’s End at Castalia House.

I just wanted to thank you guys for talking about this. I myself am a
survivor and have no Earthly idea why this stuff isn’t talked about by
the other “side” in this. It makes me a bit sick to talk about it or
read about it, but given the kind of fiction I enjoy reading it always
sort of worms its way back into my attention. I also get a sort of
garbage feeling if I say nothing or at least don’t voice my support for
people speaking out.

Granted, I disagree with a lot of what you guys have to say a lot of
the time, but bless you for saying this and I happily defend and support
your right to say the rest. I’m very sad of late to see that ideas are
now held as either dangerous or above reproach. As if we are all not
made poorer by the silence of a refusal to debate. I hold your
willingness to talk about this as proof absolute of the necessity of
maintaining diversity of ideas so that there are always people around to
call out other people for doing horrible things. The other “side”
deserves to be called out on this and I thank you for continuing to do
so.
– Andrew

This article in general – and Dozois’ comments in specific – helps me
understand why I no longer purchase modern SF: perverts and enablers
have gained publishing power, and have turned the genre into their
personal playground. When I tried to get back into SF in the mid-2000s,
I started off with Dozois’ yearly collection … and was promptly annoyed
at how the pacing of stories would be ruined by the seemingly
obligatory insertion of “non prudish” (to paraphrase Dozois) elements
that were irrelevant to plot or character development. These
distractions make the collection as a whole read as amateurish with a
light creepy undertone. I shifted over to Hartwell’s yearly collection
and found the selection a bit less annoying, but the overall quality of
both of those collections remained poor. Hartwell’s collection is
apparently no more, and I couldn’t care less if Dozois goes away.

If
there is going to be a renaissance of quality SF, it will have to come
from publishers with a mindset that the sort of writing represented by
Delany’s doesn’t have any sort of merit other than that of studying a
deranged mind. It is beyond me how anybody can read his work and not
get creeped out and repulsed; to praise such an author’s works makes me
seriously question the mental health of the persons quoted above. The
overall trend of SF sales now makes sense: most readers don’t want our
SF with a serving of creepy pervert.
– Hohokam

WARNING: The linked post deals seriously with child sexual abuse  in
science fiction and extensively quotes from the work of a science
fiction author who endorses, and is believed to have engaged in,
criminally abusive sexual behavior. Not for the faint of heart; contains
vulgarities, obscenities, and descriptions of extraordinarily deviant and
disgusting behavior. It is a grim, but factual description of the
depravity that is not only tolerated, but actively celebrated in the science fiction world.

Readers under the age of 18 should not, under any circumstances, read the linked post as it juxtaposes various comments about the SFWA Grand master and suspected homosexual child molester Samuel Delany with quotes from Delany’s own work, which is considerably more depraved than the average individual is likely able to imagine. This warning is not a joke. You won’t enjoy it. You won’t find it titillating. It will simply sicken you and hurt your soul. This is something you need to leave to the adults.

And yet, the adults must deal with it. The rock must be overturned. The evil must be exposed and the rot must be excised. The science fiction world has continued to avert its eyes from Delany’s behavior for decades, just as it previously averted its eyes from the behavior of known child molesters in their midst, such as SFWA members Marion Zimmer Bradley and Ed Kramer, until well after they were safely dead or imprisoned.

As for the SJWs and fandom, while you may not like the source, the fact of the matter is that because we are the outsiders, we are the only ones with the courage to confront the evil that lurks among you. Even if you hate us, even if you hate what we stand for, you should hate what the monsters in your midst are doing to your children and to your community even more. If you can’t find common ground with us in actively opposing the molestation of children, how on Earth can you expect us to be interested in finding any common ground with you at all?

George Martin loftily announced the following in reference to the Sad Puppies: “When people behave badly (in fandom or out of it), or do things that I
find immoral or unethical, I reserve the right to speak out about it, as
I did about Sad Puppies 3 last year.”

So, what are we to make of the obvious fact that he has been in fandom for literal decades, but has never found any of the behavior of the various child molesters of his acquaintance to be worth speaking out about?

Mailvox: the burning shame

Gammas never know when to stop. They always think that if they can just figure out the perfect thing to say, if they can somehow formulate the ideal insult and drop it at just the right time, they can completely flip the situation around and triumph like the secret kings they believe themselves to be.

By which I mean HS, or “Harry Savannah” as he calls himself, couldn’t
even flounce away properly. After loftily announcing that he
would let me “take the last word… like an obnoxious child demands,” he couldn’t quite manage to do so and emailed me a sixth time.

Did I say 16 yrs. old? Overestimated. Make that 13…Gamma.

I figured you’d be back again. You are such a Gamma that you can’t even flounce away properly. You see, when you talked about what an obnoxious child demands, that was a psychological tell. You were emotionally projecting. That’s why you’re trying to use my terms now, because you think they will hurt me the way they hurt you. But they won’t. They don’t apply.

I understand that it stings to know thousands of people are laughing at you. But that’s what happens when you are foolish enough to take on your intellectual and social superiors. Now, you can either learn your lesson and stop here, or you can keep digging yourself in deeper.

Your behavior is not Christian in the slightest, in fact, it makes Christians look more than a little bit crazy. You really should stop this now.

This is where the similarity between the SJW mindset and the Gamma mindset can be seen; both SJWs and Gammas believe that if they fake it long enough, their declarations will somehow magically come alive. It’s a sort of intellectual cargo cult; it certainly involves magical thinking.

UPDATE: Harry just. keeps. going.

You are a study, Junior, in adolescent tub-thumping. You know nothing about me but offer this blunderbuss: “…your intellectual and social superiors.” Are you for real? Can you actually be this intellectually pubescent? Also this teenage piece of work: “…that was a psychological tell.” Riiiiiiiight, Junior, that’s EXACTLY what it was…a “psychological tell”. Now I’m actually curious – how old are you?

Just a little piece of advice, lad, because I’m beginning to feel embarrassed FOR you. And it is just that. You seem to be without a capacity to feel embarrassment. Call it extreme adolescent hubris. Call it moronic, but for heaven’s sake take some adult advice at long last. Am I asking too much here?

I have warned Harry that if he persists in attempting to harass me, his email address is going on the blog. I don’t think it’s necessary to turn him over to the VFM, as he’s just an annoying Gamma male, not an SJW in attack mode. I get the feeling that he is an older individual who doesn’t really understand how social media works.

Just like a control-obsessed overweening bully – you make a threat. Very
good, the mask comes off. You persist in asking why I don’t stop
emailing you. Yet you do not seem to see that you do exactly the same.
Remarkable obtuseness. This could have stopped several steps ago in this
exchange. But, of course, you must have the last word – only to make a
threat after you’re wearied with it. But it is true that I offered to
give you that last word. So I am obligated to do so.  Let me finally say
that it is my judgment that you are a fraud as a professing Christian, a
disgrace – not even identifying as a believer a single time in this
exchange and engaging in a thoughtful manner anything of the substance
of my initial query, but preferred to petulantly complain about my being
“impolite.” Which, considering all the badinage in this tennis
exercise, seems down-right ridiculous in the end, no?

This is the second time he has implied he would stop. We’ll see. It’s really remarkable the way Gammas always seem to want to jump in, lecture you, and then have you obediently accept their very important message without saying anything.

Mailvox: interviews and the granting thereof

HS objects to my permitting Greg Johnson to ask me questions about my latest book, Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America.

I am a born again Christian. I believe you profess the same. Therefore, why would you grant interviews with someone so warped as Johnson on every level. He not only is a sodomite but an atheist, paganism-pusher, and sodomite-hostile to Christianity and Christians. Perhaps you are not a regenerate man nor do you possess much in the way of principles. This would then, of course, explain the matter. Johnson even says you “honored” him in your recent book. This is a disgrace, disgusting. Perhaps you will deign to reply to me and explain. But probably not. I think you have something of a duty as a professing Christian to explain yourself. Since I as a fellow believer have asked and being as that the question is biblically legitimate I think you are so obligated.

First, HS should get off his ridiculous high horse. It is neither polite nor Christian to demand an answer and offer a justification for doing so before one has even given the person one is asking the chance to respond.

Second, HS is wrong. I am happy to answer his question.

Third, since I first became a public figure in 2001, I have made a regular practice of answering anyone who wishes to ask me questions. Including HS, even though he is an impolite boor, and Mr. Johnson, even though he does not share my views on a wide variety of subjects.

Would HIS similarly criticize Jesus Christ for not only speaking with, but actually dining with, prostitutes and tax collectors?

HS responded in what can only be described as textbook Gamma style:

First, let me say I appreciate your prompt reply. Though I was surprised at its jejune and unsophisticated nature. My email was direct, even demanding and legitimately so. That is, if my charges were accurate. You deny nothing of what I have charged save an unimportant suggestion that you may not care to respond, which I initially addressed. Thus you tacitly acknowledge said accuracy. You are indeed accountable for unbiblical public behavior. And it is reasonable for me or any Christian to expect such from you or any other public figure also professing a Christian faith –  in some venue or other.  Your appearance of being in league with a patent enemy of the Gospel is scandalous. For you to argue this is plain contumacy. Further, your cliché reflex in bringing up the Lord in his ministry shows only hack disingenuousness. It is precarious ground to draw conclusions from Jesus’ ministry for general behavior on our part in any instance but you are clearly badly mistaken in this particular offering. Our Lord NEVER socialized with people who were decidedly hostile to Himself and hateful to his disciples. And this is precisely what you do vis a vis Johnson. In mere personal terms, as a Christian, how can you not be repelled by this individual on a number of levels? Forgive the digression. I notice that you didn’t trouble yourself to even identify as a Christian in your email. But then you may feel my impolite tone preempts this. Which brings me to a conclusion. That you are concerned with impoliteness and boorishness (complete nonsense – remember? You run a rough-and-tumble blog – “boor?” – lol) rather than the obviously important substance of my email further discredits you. Why do I not expect a reply that will be other than pure defensive/self-centeredness?

I have to admit, I really, really struggle to not hate Gammas. Literally everything they do is almost breathtakingly annoying; no wonder they get bullied and abused so often when they are young. I expect this is the kind of guy who tweets his breakfasts and genuinely believes his bowel movements are “obviously important” to everyone. Now, here is the interview with the pagan to which HS importantly objected so vociferously.

GJ: Seriously, the thing that gets me about what you call Churchianity, which is a good term, the Churchians today is they seem to want to deny that it’s moral and right to have any preference for your own children over strangers, for your own country over neighbors, for your own race over other races, and yet you zero in on that in the New Testament indicating that no, those sorts of preferences were regarded as natural.

Looking at Aquinas, for instance. Aquinas in his Questions on Charity basically he says, “Yes, God’s love flows through all of creation, but creation consists of hierarchies and concentric circles of relationships, and so you have a natural preference for your own over strangers, and that structure of preferences doesn’t impede the grace of God, and it’s not something that needs to be fought against or disdained.” And yet what you’ve got with Christians today is this pure xenophilia, this perverse attitude that your neighbor is not your neighbor. No, the neighbor is someone who is far more foreign than your neighbor, and in fact your preference for these foreigners often turns your neighbor’s life in to a living hell.

VD: Right, but again, these are people who call themselves Christians, but when they’re preaching immigration from the Gospel, they’re doing exactly what the Apostle Paul warned about, which is the whole wolf in sheep’s clothing. These are not Christians.

I’m not playing no true Scotsman here. I’m saying these are not people for the most part… And I’m talking about the leaders, I’m not talking about the average church members.

GJ: Right.

VD: These are people who worship at the Temple of Babel.

GJ: Right.

VD: I would not be surprised at all if many of them actually served some other god. I actually got the concept of SJW entryism from being told about a church that had been basically invaded by people who had managed to take it over and the crazy thing is, I mention this in the book, the same thing happened 20 years later at one of the churches that my parents attended. I actually know one of the pastors involved and my uncle was on the board of the church. They ended up getting invaded by these SJWs, who promptly announced that they had a vision for combining Christianity with Islam and wanted to call it Chrislam.

Now, you cannot possibly hold Christianity responsible for that, because that is anti-Christianity of a sort that Richard Dawkins never dreamed of.

GJ: Oh God, yes! The core issue is really the idea of charity and loving your neighbor and being kind to strangers and so forth, and that notion carries a great deal of moral weight even in the minds of non-Christians. It’s been perverted into an attitude where you measure your virtue by the degree to which you betray the people close to you and side with people far away. It overturns families, it overturns communities, and it overturns societies. It’s just a kind of moralistic absurdity that is an agent of chaos and destruction.

VD: And you’ve seen The Lord of the Rings. What do we usually call a good that is perverted into something else other than its purpose?

GJ: Well, you tell me.

VD: We usually call that evil.

GJ: Evil. Yeah.

VD: I think this Churchianity is absolutely evil. I think it is absolutely of the devil. I don’t think you even need to be Christian to pick up the scent of brimstone from it. I realize for your secular viewers that may sound nuts, and that’s fine, but my point is that the good news for the secular and the pagan Right is that true Christianity, the Christianity that exploded across the world, and the Christianity that caused the lands of Europe to become Christendom, is ultimately on your side in that regard.

There’s no question about that. Even someone like Anders Breivik recognized it. Breivik is not a Christian. He does not worship Jesus Christ, but he described himself as a cultural Christian because he understood that connection.

GJ: Right.

VD: In Europe, that’s going to be the big factor of change. It’s not an accident that Putin often speaks in religious terms. It’s not an accident that the forces that are rising in Poland and Hungary . . . Even Hungary, like you said, is fairly secular, but when you listen to the nationalists speak they often speak about the Christian heroes, the Christian kings.

GJ: Oh yeah.

VD: But the most important thing to keep in mind, and I think it’s something that can inspire seculars and pagans as well, and it’s something that I always enjoy telling atheists, because they say there are fewer Christians now in America than there were before and I always say, “Hey, we only need 11.”

How terrible, that a Christian should speak of Aquinas, and Christian theology, and of the words of Jesus Christ himself, with an unbeliever!

Mailvox: the power of freedom

A reader writes about a recent life-changing experience:

Yesterday, me and my wife took the second step in buying a gun — attending a four-hour Basic Firearms Safety Course .  The first step is finding out whether your town’s police authority will give out gun licenses.  Since [State] is a “shall issue” state, forget about getting a licence in [Big City] or another large city, forget it unless you’re well-connected.  The instructor said that this de facto ban was illegal, but what are you going to do?

All 40 seats were full.  This facility hold this class every day.   The instructor said that ever since the Paris attacks, they haven’t been able to keep up with the demand and would hold a second class if they had the range time.  The demographics were quite telling.  There was a 50/50 gender mix with six other couples.  There was one 18 year old guy and only one other guy under forty.  The rest of us were middle-aged and middle-class.  And… we were all white.

I wasn’t alone in having trouble practicing loading/unloading the full-sized guns.  My hands weren’t big enough, and I ended up waving the barrel around too much while trying to release the magazine clip.  Oops.  And my index finger ended up sliding down from alongside the barrel into the the trigger guard.  Double oops.  And I pointed the revolver up in the air when unloading it.  Nope nope nope.  Beginners mistakes; easily identified and fixable with training.

On the range, I got a very good cluster.  The instructor was astonished that I’d never picked up a handgun before, and my last time firing a gun was a 22 for the Boy Scout merit badge.  

I really enjoyed firing.  I lined up the sights, felt an adrenal rush, stopped thinking, slowly squeezed, and watched bullets hit the target.  It was a shock when the gun went ‘click’ instead of ‘pop’.  So here’s my problem.  All my life, I’ve been told guns are evil and as a upper-middle class white guy, I shouldn’t use one.  But it was fun, dammit!

Next step is to get a licence.  And more classes, leading up the practical purchase of a pump-action shotgun with an 18-22″ barrel that both my wife and I can handle.

The American militia is awakening. I have no doubt it will be ready when the time comes. None at all. Will it be enough? Only time will tell.

And if you haven’t armed yourself and your family, what are you waiting for? You can’t possibly say that you haven’t been warned. Repeatedly.

Mailvox: change is inevitable

Farmer Tom doesn’t like it and he is seriously thinking about taking his tractor and going home:

This place is really going down hill in a hurry.

The host is now full on Trump supporter.

The vast majority of the guests seem to be so uninformed as to not know who Nate is?

I guess it’s time to find somewhere else to hang out.

I liked the place when “The Yellow Bus” was new.

Some things have changed, and not for the better.

Translation: I’m a Christian conservative and I don’t like it if things aren’t going in the way that I approve at all times. If anyone feels this way, then don’t comment here. Stick to reading and stay out of the discourse. I have never been concerned with the opinion of those who prefer to stomp off in a huff or retreat to snarky sniping than to offer substantive criticism and to articulate their positions, no matter who they might happen to be.

Of course, it may be nothing more than FT not wishing to stick around to defend his self-assured Iowa prediction, as the most recent RCP average has: Trump 25.7, Cruz 22.3, Carson 15.7, and Paul behind !Jeb!.

I’m personal friends with the Iowa campaign managers for Trump and Cruz. I know Carson’s Iowa guy, Huckebee’s guy, hate the a-hole who was Perry’s guy. Met several times Rubio’ s guy, once in his Senate office.

I know these people and the insides of the system.

I can tell you right now that Trump will not win Iowa, he will get second or third.

1. Carson
2. Trump
3. Cruz
4. Probably Rand because the RP people will hang to the end.

Maybe he is right. Maybe he is not. I have no idea; I don’t do political predictions anymore. Regardless, the fact that you’ve been here for years means that I will occasionally cut you some slack, not that I will overlook it when you’re behaving like a run-of-the-mill anklebiter or a prima donna. I find it somewhat frustrating when Ilk demonstrate that, despite years of reading here, they still can’t manage to control their emotions, construct proper syllogisms, or gracefully accept being shown to be wrong.

As I told FT in the comments: This place has not changed, but the world has. In this electoral campaign cycle, Trump is the only candidate who matters, and it is not because of who he is or what he might do if he wins.

This is basic game theory. As I have said repeatedly in the past, there are only three issues that matter today. In their current order of importance, they are:

  • Immigration
  • Gun Control
  • Federal Reserve

We can ignore the latter. None of the candidates even understand the issue and none of them are likely to do anything about it. Trump, being a maverick, is the only one who might even look at the issue, but that’s totally speculative and therefore irrelevant.

On guns, Clinton and Sanders are terrible, Ben Carson is bad, and most of the Republicans, including Trump, are both good and reliable. I’m not at all concerned about Trump saying he would take a serious look at the no-fly list, that was in response to a question about Islamic terrorism and in no way indicates that he has any interest whatsoever in sailing against the populist pro-gun position.

Nate said that we would have come down hard on another candidate who said the same, which is true, because unlike all the other candidates, Trump speaks off the cuff and without having his statement massaged by fifty consultants. If Bush said it, you can bet he’s looking to push anti-gun. In the context that Trump did, he’s wondering why known terrorists are permitted to arm themselves; he’s more likely to jail or deport them than attack gun rights.

More importantly, no one is going to do anything about gun control. Obama has been calling for it non-stop, they’ve been staging multiple false flags to try to drum up popular support – yes, they have, there is no question about it – and yet people are gunning up like never before. Gun control is the most important issue, but it is not one that is any more relevant in this particular election than is the Federal Reserve. I trust every single Republican candidate in this regard, including Ben Carson, who has completely changed his rhetoric on the subject once being confronted with the American public’s cast-iron will on the topic.

That leaves immigration. And here, Trump is the only candidate who is even beginning to address the scope of the existential problem. All the Democrats, and more than half of the Republicans, actually want to make it worse. Even if you don’t support him, or trust him, the mere fact that he is in the race has changed the debate on the subject more than the combined efforts of every anti-immigrationist, every open-borders skeptic, and every anti-free trade economist. He has been a literal Godsend in this regard, no matter what happens in the end.

In short, Donald Trump has radically changed the culture, and culture always trumps politics. And that is why petty sniping about the usual politics is not only pointless, it demonstrates that you are too stuck in an intellectual rut to even understand what the rest of us are discussing.

Mailvox: the key to failure

Is often past success. It sounds as if Team Clinton is attempting to pull another Perot out of their bag of tricks. A loyal member of the Ilk writes:

I just received a robo-poll from “Victory Processing, LLC”, asking whether I might vote for “a successful businessman” in a three-way race between Hillary Clinton, a Republican, and “Fred Strauss”.  I thought you would want to know about this call, because it suggests that the Clintons are considering putting up another Ross Perot, so that they can split the Republican vote and win the election.  It also suggests that the Clintons are going to try to run a completely issue-free campaign.

The robo-pollster sounded like a pleasant, decently educated, middle-aged white woman.  She started with the usual questions — Do I always vote in presidential elections?  Do I consider myself to a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other?  Do I consider myself to be a Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, or Other?  If the presidential election were held today, would I be inclined to vote for a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Other?  Do I think that the people running the country are working for the rich and powerful instead of ordinary people?  Do I want an insider “who can get things done,” or an outsider who would bring “new ideas”?  There were **no** questions about the economy, or “Is the country on the right track or on the wrong track”, or foreigh policy, or immigration.  In fact, **there were no questions about any issues at all.**

Then the poll asked if I had a Favorable, Unfavorable, or Undecided view on each of Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump.  It also asked about head-to-head matchups.  If the presidential election were held today, would I vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, or be undecided?  Ditto for Clinton vs. Carson, Cruz vs. Clinton, and Clinton vs. Rubio.

Then the poll asked if I would consider voting for an unnamed “successful businessman” in a three-way race.  The unnamed candidate “grew a small family business from 2 stores to 600 stores in 30 states, with 40,000 employees.”  The poll asked if, regardless of my candidate preferences, whether I thought a third-party candidate could win.  Yes, No, Maybe, or Undecided?

Then the poll named the mystery candidate:  “Fred Strauss”.  The poll repeated the four matchups, this time with Strauss as a third-party option.  This time there were 7 options: “Definitely vote for” candidate X, “Probably vote for” candidate X, ditto for Y, ditto for Z, Undecided.

At the end, the poll asked some demographic questions.  Age range: 18-35, 36-50, 51-65, over 65?  Male or Female?  Race:  White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Other, Refuse to State?  There were **no** questions about educational attainment, income, profession, or employment status.

The poll ended by thanking me for my time, and saying that it was paid for by “Victory Processing, LLC”.

I hope this gives you and The Ilk some ideas about how the presidential campaign might unfold.

The other possibility is that Team Clinton is worried that Donald Trump will run as a third-party candidate if the GOP Establishment successfully denies him the nomination despite his popularity.

Which, by the way, he absolutely should do, given the way in which the GOP Establishment is now attacking him. Loyalty is only ever a one-way street for them.

The wages of female “pastorship”

It is death for a church. OL writes:

Just wanted to let you know that the church-in-exile formally known as North Heights Lutheran have been given an excerpt of SWJAL. It is currently making the rounds as they come to grips with the fact that their church has been stolen. It is a textbook example of what happens when you try to play nice with evil rather then curb stomp it. Although it is really to late for them the lesson can be shown to those that will listen, perhaps on how to prevent this from occurring elsewhere.

Although I’ve attended North Heights a few times in the long-distant past and my parents were friends with the pastor, I didn’t have any idea what happened there. This story is spun in the SJWs’ favor, but if you read between the lines it’s not hard to figure out what took place. SJWs invade, take over the decision-making high ground, chase off half the congregation with their anti-Christian social justice theology, then start shutting down churches to sell the land.

One of the state’s original mega-churches is in trouble.

North Heights Lutheran Church in Arden Hills laid off half its staff in June and closed a satellite church in Roseville. That closure led half of the parishioners to split away and worship in a nearby motel — and church loyalists are feeling betrayed.

The church faces a crossroads.

“We are either going to be reborn,” said interim pastor Mindy Bak, in a silent church hallway, “or we are going to go through a slow death.”

The combination of financial problems, downsizing and, some say, a female pastor has led to a schism in the church, threatening its future as recriminations fly back and forth.

The breakaway group is posting its complaints on a website called “Church torn apart.

“They accuse church leaders of being deceptive, even “satanic.”

But most of their objections, said Bak, are related to her gender — they don’t want a woman to lead their church.

“If you carry that prejudice,” Bak said, “how can you serve the community?”

Meanwhile, Sunday attendance has dropped two-thirds from its peak. 

Notice that “the community” is the SJW’s concern. Not serving Jesus Christ. This is exactly what social justice convergence in the Christian Church looks like today; a deep concern for “the community” and “the world” and absolutely no concern for Jesus Christ, Christianity, or the Church.

Never permit female leadership in the Church. It will absolutely kill any church that is foolish enough to do so after seeing what has happened in every single church that has done so already. The sort of women who want to be church leaders are almost invariably SJWs; when appointing a female pastor you might as well put up a sign announcing that the church has changed denominations from Baptist or Methodist or whatever to Social Justice.

Notice how the invaders always end up with the buildings and the land. They don’t give a damn about God or the congregation. “We are either going to be reborn or we are going to go through a slow death.” What does that tell you? The one thing that isn’t an option is for a successful Christian congregation to carry on as before, simply God in the name of Jesus Christ.

This phenomenon of the “stolen church” is not new. This is the third case of which I have heard and the second time it has happened to a church I personally attended at one point or another. Paul warned about this; most church leaderships have been absolutely derelict in their duty to police their congregations, and in particular, their elders.

UPDATE: it gets worse:

Just heard from my mother that the “vision” of the female pastor is to integrate Muslims and Christians in a new progressive church. They call it Chrislam.