Tag: SJW

A review of SJWADD

A detailed review of SJWs Always Double Down by an author who prefers to remain anonymous.

One of the most staggering pieces of hypocrisy in the colonial era was known as ‘The White Man’s Burden.’

On the face of it, the basic concept looked sound.  The colonists would civilise the natives, giving them modern technology, learning and attitudes that would allow them to leave their roots and join the enlightened colonists as equals.  There was nothing wrong with it, as far as anyone living in that era believed.  The hypocrisy, however, was not hard to find.  The majority colonists – consciously or not – never intended to allow their subjects to rise to the highest levels.  They would never be treated as equals, never considered fully civilised.

On one hand, this provided a justification – an excuse – for exploiting the natives.  It’s all for their own good (anything can be justified for a good cause).  But, far worse, it also provided an excuse for the civilisers to keep finding newer and better reasons to keep moving the goalposts.  The natives will never be declared equal – they will never be free of the colonists – because that would put the civilisers out of work!  This creates what I call a perverse incentive – an incentive to do something that is morally wrong, but works in your favour.

This is why the billions expended on international charity have produced very limited results.  On one hand, the cause is good; on the other, charities are too concerned with idealism rather than practicalities, the people the charities are trying to help are not allowed much of a say in decision-making, thus depriving the planners of people with local knowledge, and the charity bosses have too great an incentive to keep the money flowing.  The outcome shouldn’t really be surprising.

The thing you have to bear in mind about modern-day Social Justice Warriors is that they have their own version of ‘The White Man’s Burden.’  And the unintended consequences are pretty much the same.

One thing I have always considered to be a point in Vox Day’s favour is that he makes you think, even though you – and I – may disagree with him on many points.  Indeed, I have come to prefer his non-fiction to his fiction, if only because it is strikingly thought-provoking and often provocative.  In writing SJWs Always Double Down – the title comes from the three laws of SJWs – Vox has expanded upon his earlier work, SJWs Always Lie and carried us forward into 2017.

The essential difference between a person who is genuinely concerned and a full-fledged SJW is that the former has essentially limited goals, while the latter’s objectives are nebulous, wide-ranging … and permanent.  The former will identify a problem – and it is often a very real problem – and propose practical solutions, then retire gracefully when victory has been achieved.  The latter will not retire, even when he gets what he says he wants.  He’ll just come up with newer demands, which will be harder to resist because one has already conceded the earlier set of demands.  It is, in short, about power and appearances rather than practicalities.  Somewhere along the way, the idea that one is trying to solve a single very specific problem is lost.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a public building – a library, perhaps – which is only accessible through a short flight of stairs.  Hardly a problem for an able-bodied person, but an impassable barrier to someone trapped in a wheelchair.  This is obviously a problem that needs to be fixed, right?  It’s a public building.  The disabled have a right to use it too.  Who could possibly say otherwise?

The genuinely concerned will suggest replacing the stairs with a ramp.  A simple, very practical solution.  And one that, in most cases, will not be too difficult.  The SJW, on the other hand, will insist on writing a set of very vague laws to cover ‘disability discrimination’ and then expand them as much as possible, all under the cover of doing good.  They will never declare victory for the simple reason that declaring victory means giving up their power.  And while it may look good, on the surface, a cynic might note that the side-effects – able-bodied people growing to resent disabled people – will bring forth a poisonous fruit in time.

A further, more fundamental, difference between the genuinely concerned and the SJW is that the latter believes so deeply in his cause that he finds it impossible to comprehend that someone might have a reasonable reason to disagree.  No, anyone who disagrees must be evil.  This has a great deal in common with a number of religious groups, which assume that anyone who doesn’t think like them is either ignorant or wilfully evil. Instead of questioning his own assumptions, as Vox Day demonstrates, the SJW always doubles down and attacks anyone who dares to question him.  Thus, for example, anyone who points out Hillary Clinton’s massive failings as a candidate for President is a sexist, as far as the SJWs are concerned.  This allows them to comfortably dismiss anything that runs contrary to their narrative.

In essence, Vox Day argues that a counterattack is now underway.  GamerGate, BREXIT, President Trump, the NFA boycott … they’re all spurred on by opposition to SJWs, however defined.  There is a great deal of truth in this – Trump managed to define himself by his opposition to ‘political correctness’ (a key part of maintaining the SJW narrative) – although I don’t think it goes as far as Vox suggests.  The people who were the losers in the new world order were the ones who voted against it.  That said, the Left can reasonably be said to have overplayed its hand.  The gulf between the real world and the reality presented by the media, for example, cannot be overstated.  This has the ironic effect that any genuine problems with President Trump will not be taken seriously, as the media has cried ‘racist’ one too many times.

Such a problem is understandable.  A person has only a limited amount of credibility – and, when they babble about something they don’t understand (guns, for example) they only lose that credibility faster.  The NFA protests have little credibility because the worst that can happen is the players getting fired … which, given that most of them are multimillionaires, is unlikely to worry them.  Colin Kaepernick is supposed to be worth around $25 million dollars, more money than the average American (white, black, whatever) is likely to see in a dozen lifetimes. Indeed, they really do nothing more than distract Americans – and everyone else – from more important matters.

The SJWs do not help their case by demanding complete submission from friends and enemies alike.  They do not leave any room for reasonable disagreement.  This makes it impossible to debate them, let alone question their positions without unleashing a tidal wave of accusations … even if the questioner is a former friend.  The effects of this have been devastating, in everything from comic books to corporate life.  It does not matter, in the end, if the SJWs had a point or not.  Once credibility is lost, it will never be regained.  The tactics they use poison the well.  This is why, in far too many places, we now live in a low-trust society.  Why should anyone trust the media?  Or celebrities?  Or corporations like Facebook and Twitter?  Or random strangers on the internet?

This is not an academic question.  The last couple of years have seen all sorts of questions raised about the power wielded by Google, Facebook and Twitter – even Wikipedia.  It doesn’t matter, really, what you think of Vox Day.  Anyone, regardless of their political beliefs, should be concerned about how that power can be misused, particularly if there’s a ‘good’ reason for it.  Once you set a precedent – legal harassment of pro-life groups, for example – someone else can use that precedent to justify their own actions.  As a number of wags have observed, the Left spent eight years turning the US federal government into a weapon – and that weapon fell into the hands of Donald Trump!

Vox Day goes on to describe the effects of ‘SJW Convergence’ in governments, churches and corporations.  In some ways, this is not entirely a new problem.  The larger the organisation, the harder it is to keep focused on what actually matters.  On one hand, the guys at the top lose touch with the ground floor; on the other, it’s hard to believe that the organisation can actually collapse.  I don’t know if Marvel Comics – to use one example – is really on the verge of collapse, but sales have slumped alarmingly over the last few years.  And while the push for ‘diverse’ characters may not be the sole cause of the problem, it has – I think – played a role in the corporation’s decline.

It’s hard to say how seriously one should take these assertions.  On one hand, the problems are rarely as cut and dried.  Marvel’s constant revamping of the status quo probably paid a role too.  On the other hand, traditional publishing is in decline because the old-fashioned gatekeepers have been unable to adapt to the changes over the last ten years.  There comes a point where an organisation – Borders, for example – simply cannot survive.  But what cannot be denied is that power can easily be abused and perhaps it would be better to prevent any abuse.

Vox then discusses the ‘typical’ SJW, with extensive reference to his expanded social-sexual hierarchy.  This is, in many ways, the weakest part of the book; on one hand, his portrait of many intensive SJWs is quite accurate, but it doesn’t account for people who are swept into the process because they believe the cause is good or people who want to take advantage of SJW activism for their own ends.  I have, frankly, never placed much credence in the social-sexual hierarchy – people can and do move up and down, either through self-development or a sudden shattering change in their circumstances.

One point that bears mentioning is the assertion that SJWs simply cannot accept that they might be wrong.  There’s some truth in that.  But, on the other hand, I’ve noticed that being wrong, or admitting to being wrong, comes with a penalty these days.  There is no such thing as a limited surrender.  A person who loses one argument will often find himself accused of being wrong again and again.  This is a serious problem, for obvious reasons.  Why should anyone concede a point when they will be expected to concede everything?  Being able to accept being wrong requires being able to survive being wrong.

Next, the book assesses the current state of anti-SJW pushback, from the evolution of GamerGate to the decline and fall of the Hugo Awards.  This section is something of a mixed bag.  On one hand, internet sleuths have done a great deal of good by making it impossible to stick to a single narrative and/or for criminals and rioters to hide from justice.  On the other hand, the section on the Hugo Awards is difficult to follow.  While the whole affair does outline just how far the Hugo Awards have fallen – the concentration on pointless diversity as opposed to good writing, the willingness to rewrite or break the rules to drive out the Sad/Rabid Puppies – it also highlights some other absurdities.  Picking a book called – I kid you not – Space Raptor Butt Invasion – looks silly.  It is very easy to argue that Peter F. Hamilton deserves a Hugo, but not Chuck Tingle.  This was something of an own goal.  But, at the same time, the whole affair did illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of the awards.  And, more importantly, just how small the voting population, all sides put together, is, compared to the entirety of fandom.

At the end, the book discusses ways to build SJW-free organisations.  This is not an easy task, as one must be prepared for a barrage of negative publicity – or worse – whenever you do something or are seen to do something to upset the SJWs.  In some ways, this is the most important part of the book – and not just for the declared reason.  Competition helps keep organisations honest, rather than allowing themselves to forget their core goal.  The NFL can reasonably be said to have forgotten that its purpose is to entertain people, rather than play politics.  Some of the advice is good, some is bad … although it strikes me that insisting that directors have actual experience before they become directors might be the most practical step anyone could take.  There are certainly ways to allow dissent without letting it turn into emotional blackmail and suchlike.

One question the book does not answer, not directly, is simple.  What’s wrong with social justice?  Why should well-meaning SJWs be opposed at all costs?

There are essentially three answers to that question.  First, SJWs have no concept of individuality.  A person is defined by their identity (female politician, for example, instead of a politician who happens to be female).  This is made all the more confusing by intersectionality, which suggests that a person who has two separate identities may be oppressed by the interplay of both identities.  Confused, yet?  What this does, in practical terms, is draw lines between people, thus triggering off the ‘Us v. Them’ mentality and, worse, separate people from each other.  By this reasoning, Condoleezza Rice, Will Smith, Barack Obama and Trayvon Martin would all be classed as ‘black,’ rather than as individuals with their own identities.

What makes this worse is that the people who are taken to represent each identity are often the worst of the bunch.

Second, SJWs have made us less empathic – not more.

The concept of social justice is powered by emotional blackmail – sometimes called ‘weaponised empathy.’  You feel sorry for someone and thus give them an inch, which they use to take a mile. No good deed goes unpunished, as the saying goes. However, people resent having their emotions manipulated, even if it is for the greater good.  The natural response to emotional blackmail is to tune it out and, eventually, learn to ignore it.  As Dave Freer put it:

“The idea that the cup of sympathy is a finite one, even smaller in hard economic times, is simply beyond [SJW’s] grasp, despite the fact that we see this in practice all the time. Joe calls in to work to say his kid is sick, and he has to take the child to the ER, gets sympathy. People pick up his slack, and the boss cuts him some extra. But even if the kid IS really very sickly, and it’s not just Joe’s excuse for a hangover, it gets used up after a few repetitions. People think Joe is taking unfair advantage, even if he isn’t. They also just get tired of giving. If you’re on the receiving end and all you give back is more demands, more ‘guilting’ your audience into more giving, the faster that’ll happen.”

People can become tired of constantly being told that they’re the bad guys, that they have to do everything from watch their speech, thus limiting rational debate, to take someone’s side automatically because they’re a designated victim.  However, there is a more serious point.

The two reasons I mentioned above intersect in several different ways.  One of the most important is that people can lose sympathy for groups, because they’ve been taught to think of people as belonging to their group first and foremost.  The rising tide of anti-immigration sentiment in both America and Europe owes its existence to a combination of bad behaviour and identity politics.  Ironically, the rise of ‘white nationalism’ in the US is a direct result of identity politics.  If every hyphenated-American can have an identity, why can’t white Americans?

This poisons the well in quite a few ways.  By pushing for diversity quotas and hires in businesses, SJWs both fuel resentment against the people who benefit from measures like Affirmative Action and directly harms them, because everyone who doesn’t benefit believes that the people who do have an unfair advantage.  This does not do wonders for social harmony.  Indeed, it does the exact opposite.

We, as a society, have started to slip into ‘Nag Rage.’  We are sick of being lectured by people who consider themselves our betters.  We are sick of being told what to do by people who don’t really know what they’re talking about.  And we are sick of being told that we have to be nice to people who want to hurt us.  This is fuelling a pushback that – perhaps worst of all – will hurt the people the SJWs claim to be trying to help.  Social Justice has a bad reputation because, above all, it simply doesn’t know when to stop.  And people are sick of falsifying their preferences and pretending to like it.

I could go on about this for quite some time.  But I’m not going to bother.

There are people who will dismiss this book because it is written by Vox Day.  That is unwise.  A person may be widely disliked – and very few people seem to be neutral about Vox Day – but that doesn’t stop them from having a point.  And while you may disagree with his, this book is still worth a read.

And, if you’re interested in how society has started to come to the boil, you could do worse than read this book.

Kirkus, converged

Kirkus is supposed to be a serious professional book review site. But, as has been written, SJW convergence always prevents an organization from being able to fulfill its primary purpose:

Around the time when diversity became the cause célèbre for young adult fiction’s most passionate activists, trade reviewer Kirkus implemented some unique rules to establish its bona fides at the forefront of the movement: characters were to be explicitly identified by race, religion, and sexual orientation in every YA book review moving forward; furthermore, the writers of those reviews would be selected according to their race, religion, and sexual orientation as well, critiquing texts for sensitivity in addition to entertainment value. A statement on the Kirkus website reads:

“[Because] there is no substitute for lived experience, as much as possible books with diverse subject matter and protagonists are assigned to ‘own voices’ reviewers, to identify both those books that resonate most with cultural insiders and those books that fall short.”

The implementation of these policies hasn’t been without hiccups, but overall, Kirkus had more or less successfully positioned itself as a reviewer striving to be sensitive to pressing contemporary concerns about diversity and representation in YA — right down to the use of the word problematic to describe books that aren’t adequately woke.

It was with these policies in place that Kirkus published its review last week for American Heart, a YA novel by author Laura Moriarty. American Heart takes place in a dystopian future where the U.S. has rounded up and relocated its Muslim population to internment camps in Nevada. Its protagonist, Sarah Mary, is a 15-year-old from Missouri who doesn’t question the validity of the ban until she meets a Muslim woman on the run, an Iranian immigrant and professor named Sadaf. In a story loosely modeled on Huckleberry Finn, Sarah Mary ends up traveling north with Sadaf in the hopes of helping her escape to Canada.

For some members of the YA community, the premise was objectionable from the get-go (the first Goodreads review, left on September 7, begins with “fuck your white savior narratives”). But after a research and review process including multiple sensitivity reads, Moriarty was prepared to stand by her work, and the notoriously prickly Kirkus gave the book a starred review. Published on October 10, it described American Heart as “terrifying, suspenseful, thought-provoking, and touching” and “a moving portrait of an American girl discovering her society in crisis.”

Only a few days later, the review was pulled amid continued criticism of the book from community members. The review was replaced by a statement from Kirkus’s editor-in-chief Claiborne Smith explaining that the editorial board and the reviewer — described as “an observant Muslim [woman] of color” and “expert in children’s & YA literature [who is] well-versed in the dangers of white savior narratives” — were “evaluating” the review. Shortly thereafter, Kirkus published an amended review that retracted the book’s star and condemned Moriarty’s choice to write the story from the first-person perspective of a white teenage girl.

“Sarah Mary’s ignorance is an effective worldbuilding device,” read the new review, “but it is problematic that Sadaf is seen only through the white protagonist’s filter.”

Add “book review sites that don’t review books” to the long list of SJW-converged organizations unable to perform their primary function. And speaking of SJW convergence and YA novels, look at what sort of creature Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Tor Books is now attempting to push on young readers.

Hugo and Nebula Award-winning author and io9 co-founder Charlie Jane Anders mashed up technology and witchcraft in her debut novel All the Birds in the Sky. Now, in her latest project, she’ll be journeying into space and delving into the teenage psyche, in a new young adult science fiction trilogy recently acquired by Tor Teen.

“Now it can be told: I’m a YA author at last!” Anders tweeted. “I’ve always loved YA and I have been toiling in secret on this for ages.”

I expect everyone in science fiction will be tremendously surprised when it gets arrested for something to do with YA readers within 18 months of publication. We may need to lower the time estimated for when Castalia’s sales pass Tor’s.

It’s NOT the protests!

Protests the NFL, unconvincingly:

Several NFL stadiums are nearly empty post kick-off as the National Anthem controversy rolls into week 7.

  • Plenty of empty seats visible at the Hard Rock Stadium in Florida as the New York Jets play the Miami Dolphins.
  • The Cleveland Browns are playing at home against the Tennessee Titans. Plenty of empty seats to go around.
  • More empty seats in Chicago as the Bears play the Carolina Panthers.
  • Lucas Oil Stadium has “tons,” of empty seats during the Indiana Colts vs Jacksonville Jaguars.

It’s really rather remarkable how SJWs just keep doubling down and keep lying, literally unable to admit the obvious even when it is right in front of their eyes. Keep this in mind whenever you are dealing with an SJW yourself and thinking “he can’t POSSIBLY be lying about something that stupidly obvious, can he?”

Yes, yes, he really can.

And if you doubt that Roger Goodell is willing to crash the league over this, read about his role model and then think again.

TIME’s profile also details Goodell’s road to the commissioner’s office. His father, Charles Goodell, was a congressman from New York, appointed to the Senate after RFK was assassinated.  As a Republican who opposed the Vietnam war, Charles Goodell fell out of favor with the party, and lost his seat in the 1970 election. This principled stand guides all of Roger Goodell’s decisions, especially the ones that fans, players, or even owners don’t embrace. “He loved being a United States Senator,” Goodell says of his father. “My personal view is, he never got over that. And that’s sad to me on a lot of levels. But he did what was right. He knew the consequences. He knew it was going to end his career. You can’t buy a lesson like that.”

He knows the consequences. He knows it could end the league. But he doesn’t care, because he believes allowing the players to protest America is the right thing to do.

So much for civic Christianity

Evangelicals are discovering that racial identity trumps religious identity:

It is critical to note that the issues for which they left the immigrant churches weren’t doctrinal or theological, but cultural.

Today, it seems like a “Reverse Exodus” is taking place for very similar reasons. Like Lecrae, people of color are finding that white evangelical churches and institutions fail to truly embrace them. After doing their best to carve out a space for themselves within white evangelicalism, give it a fair shot (or multiple shots), and even endure through the challenges for decades, there is a growing number of people of color who are seeking places where they can finally feel at home, while still yearning for the greater eternal home….

Well, the solutions are actually quite simple. This does not mean the solutions aren’t costly or difficult, but they are simple: at every layer of evangelical leadership, allow for a solid concentration of evangelicals of color to occupy culture-shaping positions of authority. Again, the problem wasn’t theology, but culture.

We need to be aware of how we bring unconscious biases to our own litmus tests of whether people of color are theologically correct enough based on their emphasis on justice issues. Often times, people of color are viewed with greater scrutiny simply because of their skin tone. We need to be concerned with the ways our political commitments co-opt our faith commitments. The fact that people equate Christians with a particular political party is problematic, especially if we consider how both parties are deeply flawed. We need to redefine our understanding of organizational fit. This means we need to reconsider what it means to be equipped. For example, is someone equipped for the pastorate if they have racist tendencies or beliefs? And who gets to decide if they do, white people or the people they disparage?

Isn’t it remarkable that the solution is always More Magic People of Color no matter whether the problem concerns football coaches, technology companies, or Christianity? I wonder what the common factor might possibly be?

SJWs Always Double Down addresses what is happening here. This is exhortation by an infiltrator, appealing to an extremely amenable authority.

Superconvergence

How converged does a commenting service have to be to refuse service to modestly controversial site anyway?

On Monday evening, I received an email from tos@disqus.com stating that they are suspending all Disqus services to Return Of Kings starting on October 20, 2017. Here is the full email:

Hi there,

We wanted to reach out to inform you that your site has been found to be in conflict with the terms of use of Disqus. Because of this, Disqus is unable to offer your site continued discussion services past the end of this week.

I replied asking what specific terms were violated but have not yet received a response. I’m guessing we were terminated because of their vague “hate speech” clause, which really means “speech our liberal employees disagree with.”

The amazing thing here is that without some disagreement, people have literally nothing to discuss. Disqus isn’t just elevating social justice above its primary purpose, it is actually eliminating its primary purpose for existing in the first place.

Another bite of the apple

SJWs are attempting to further converge the evangelical church in the name of “racial unity”:

The willingness of evangelicals of color to remain will likely change when they begin to realize that they too are the token/mascot/poster child for white evangelical churches or institutions. Unless white evangelicalism wakes up to the realities that it’s unwillingness to sufficiently change keeps it behind the culture, instead of leading prophetically with a clear vision of the Kingdom of God, the exodus will ensue.

My hope is we can work towards an equitable unity where all people mutually submit to and honor each other.

But how do we do this?

Well, the solutions are actually quite simple. This does not mean the solutions aren’t costly or difficult, but they are simple: at every layer of evangelical leadership, allow for a solid concentration of evangelicals of color to occupy culture-shaping positions of authority. Again, the problem wasn’t theology, but culture.

We need to be aware of how we bring unconscious biases to our own litmus tests of whether people of color are theologically correct enough based on their emphasis on justice issues. Often times, people of color are viewed with greater scrutiny simply because of their skin tone. We need to be concerned with the ways our political commitments co-opt our faith commitments. The fact that people equate Christians with a particular political party is problematic, especially if we consider how both parties are deeply flawed. We need to redefine our understanding of organizational fit. This means we need to reconsider what it means to be equipped. For example, is someone equipped for the pastorate if they have racist tendencies or beliefs? And who gets to decide if they do, white people or the people they disparage?

We also need to be mindful of how networks and credibility is established. Consider who is promoted within evangelicalism through publishing deals. If a Christian publisher looks through their catalogues and white people overwhelmingly occupy the authorial space, it is likely because the people they have come across were developed through their white evangelical network. Consider who speaks at conferences like The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel and you’ll see how people who had local or regional platforms, now have national or international ones. Whether you are aware of it or not, we normalize whiteness in evangelicalism by having an overwhelming majority of white speakers and only one or two plenary speakers of color. Consider the ways in which people get mentored. There are tremendous barriers to mentorship felt by Christians of color who would say they hold the same faith commitments and convictions as evangelicals do, but don’t either know or have an entry point into these networks (I fortunately, had people who helped me navigate in, but I am a part of the exception, not the rule). Consider who is appointed the most senior level leadership roles and how they are found and determined upon. It cannot be true that only white people are “called” to these positions of authority and influence and people of color are not.

If white evangelicalism is serious about representing the unity Christ calls us to in this world, this means you cannot find successors who preach like you do, see the world like you do, and share the same skin tone as you. This means Thabiti Anyabwile or Bryan Lorritts (or any of the small handful of others) cannot be the only black preachers in your conferences (despite their wonderful gifts). This means that conferences need to provide substantial opportunities for Asians and Latinos and Native Americans to speak as well. This means that senior leadership at churches cannot be satisfied with a disproportionate percentage of white pastors/elders to non-white pastors/elders.

Further, we need to look deeply into the reasons why leaders of color who occupy the top spots in Christian (evangelical) organizations and churches do not last. This means we need to have the humility to listen, but not just listen, and act upon the problems we see. This also means evangelicalism needs to allow people of color to speak for themselves and on their own terms. We also need to create pipelines for evangelicals of color to grow in leadership opportunities (see what Intervarsity did with the Daniel Project) because we know that leadership matters and that leadership shapes organizations.

Is there any problem that more Magic People of Color can’t solve? It’s rather remarkable how the solution to every “problem” identified by SJWs is the same, no matter whether the institution is a technology company, a position on the football team, or the evangelical church.

How do Christians not see the evil in this? How do they not smell the sulferous stink of Babylon?

Cucktriotika

I suspect that more than a few of those who backed the Patriotika kickstarter are going to regret having done so. Apparently the gentleman responsible for it is considerably more of a cuck than he is a patriot.

However, it is very illuminating to observe that the comics industry is so converged that not only are the SJWs at Marvel and DC intent on banishing all badthink from the industry, but so are those professing to offer an alternative to them. A false alternative, as it turns out.

It should be readily apparent that Patriotika is not “A SJW’s Worst Nightmare” or “what SJW Marvel loathes”, as had been previously claimed. Is there any doubt that the part-time goddess, part-time college student would be majoring in Women’s Studies and dating a black football player by issue #3?

I wonder how these delicate cucks would have reacted to The Dukes of Hazzard? In any event, we will be more than happy to utilize more of Tim’s work, and were in fact discussing that with him even before he was informed that his work on the Alt★Hero project rendered his previous work for Mount Olympus Comics unusable.

UPDATE: It would appear that I was correct. Patriotika backers are, to put it mildly, displeased by Ron Z’s decision to sit in for Marvel in playing thought police for the comics industry. The caption accompanying the picture below: “Blacklisting is not cool. Never another dime.”

Boom!


SJWs Always Double Down is now available in audiobook. Narrated by Bob Allen, it is 6 hours and 34 minutes. Truly an astonishing performance from the Castalia House audio department; I’ve never seen an audio book completed and approved this quickly.

Convergence in a nutshell

The NFL is discovering that social justice convergence comes at a price:

“If we are disrespecting the flag, then we won’t play. Period.”

Those words from Jerry Jones on Oct. 8 were widely taken as a salvo delivered from an owner to all the players using the national anthem as a platform for protest.

But as I see it, that was no declaration of war on guys kneeling. I don’t think the Cowboys boss was even talking to players. My feeling: he was talking through the players, and hoping his message would land in living rooms from El Paso to Wichita Falls.

And to explain why, I’ll give you the three words that should serve as your guidepost in explaining almost everything NFL: Follow the money.

The Cowboys need those people in West Texas and on the Oklahoma border to watch. The NFL needs those people tune in too. And the proof came in the ratings not that you read about this week, but rather the ones that were privately presented to the owners over the league’s two-day meetings in lower Manhattan.

The focus Tuesday and Wednesday was on the players’ desire to have a stage to address social causes, and the associated protests during the anthem that resulted. But in the background loomed the reality that the discord of the past few weeks wasn’t good for anyone’s bottom line, and the ratings might just be the first proof.

“There’s no question this had an impact on the business,” said Giants owner John Mara. “But this is an important social issue. And sometimes you have to put the interests of the business behind the interest of issues that are more important than that.”

That sounds very noble. But there is ALWAYS an important social issue for which the interests of the business must be sacrificed. These owners would benefit greatly from someone in their inner circle reading SJWs Always Double Down, because they clearly do not realize that the SJWs will never be content no matter what concessions are made to them.

Mailvox: convergence in the churches

SC wonders where it starts:

In your chapter in SJWADD on the SJW convergence sequence, you talk mostly about corporations and how they can be slowly infiltrated. You do mention churches in places, particularly the saga of North Heights. I have one question about the infiltration/reinforcement stage as it applies to churches. You point to HR as the primary locus of SJW infiltration in companies. What do you think it is in a church? I would say the two best places would be children’s ministry and a deaconess ministry (if a church already has one); basically, stuff that allows someone to have behind-the-scenes or administrative influence.

The first place it starts is the Sunday Schools, because it is always hard to find the teachers and women are much more inclined to take on the role of educating children. The second place is the administrative functions, because those are not traditionally considered to be subject to the various strictures relevant to the Biblical standards. After all, the Bible may limit pastoral duties and the Elders to men, but says nothing about accountants and secretaries.

The third place is the singles ministry. Because no one, least of all good Christians, wants to blame single mothers for their poor choices, and because too many of the men who attend the singles’ groups tend to be low in socio-sexual status, there is a natural tendency to gravitate toward secular standards and feminism that provides an entry point for convergence. Be particularly wary of any pastor who moves into leadership from either the singles or women’s ministry.

It would probably be very useful to research how the women who end up in the pulpit at converged churches began their careers in the church. That would provide a sound basis for what is merely casual observation and conjecture at this point. Where, for example, did Mindy Bak first begin her career at North Heights?

For more about this, read SJWS Always Double Down.

Mailvox: another reader notes that a female family member, my sister is a “minister” in a thoroughly converged church, got her start in the women’s ministry in college.