Tag: SJW

Exposing the true face of SJW

Rosarior beats back and exposes an SJW entryist attempting to impose a Code of Conduct on the Awesome-Django project:

great project!! I have one observation and a suggestion. I noticed you have rejected some pull requests to add some good django libraries and that the people submitting those pull requests are POCs (People of Colour). As a suggestion I recommend adopting the Contributor Code of Conduct (http://contributor-covenant.org) to ensure everybody’s contributions are accepted regarless of their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, religion, height, place of origin, etc, etc, etc. As a white straight male and lead of this trending repository, your adoption of this Code of Conduct will send a loud and clear message that inclusion is a primary objective of the Django community and of the software development community in general. D.

A few things about this. First, the name is generic. Second, this comment is literally the SJW’s first “contribution to the project. Third, while the SJW uses the correct terminology, he offers no evidence whatsoever for his claims. Fourth, his claim that the people whose pull requests were rejected are People of Colour are likely false considering that he doesn’t know that the individual he is addressing is Hispanic, not white.

Fortunately, rosarior recognizes the nature of the stealth attack. While he politely addresses the nominal suggestions, he makes it clear that this project is not a soft target and shuts down the SJW’s line of entry

The pull request was rejected not the person. Of the people who did not had their patches accepted at least one submitted another pull request and was accepted or are contributors in my other repositories, disproving your basic premise.

There is no need for a code of conduct, there hasn’t been a conduct related incident with the repository and nothing about a contributor comes into play when rejecting or accepting a patch (as proved above). An explanation is provided when a patch is rejected, and some have been left open to re-asses in a future time.

I’m not white and please don’t make any other assumptions about me, they hold no relevance to the matter at hand.

I already work on several projects that hold inclusion as one of their primary goals.

I’m closing this issue based on the explanations given.

The wording allows just a little more wiggle room than is ideal, but it is a strong and effective response, particularly the implicit statement that “inclusion” is not a primary goal of this particular project. Perhaps due to the wiggle room, the SJW tries again.

You seem to have taken personal issue with well the issue 🙂 I opened
this issue not to attack you or your decisions,but to help improve a
part of the project in which it seemed lacking. Most projects on Github
have adopted the Contributor Covenant or a variant of it. It is a
very straight forward document that protects all parties,I don’t
understand your negative attitude towards that philosophy. You may not
be “white” [ in your profile picture you sure seem white 🙂 ] but you
are not a woman or a trans-gendered person so you can’t possibly
understand what they go through (harassment,exclusion,threats) and why a
code of conduct is necessary. Even the Django Software Foundation has
adopted one to protect it’s future,for me it’s very obvious Django
related projects would naturally follow suite and adopt the same if not
similar Code of Conducts. I urge you to reconsider for the good and
future of this project 🙂 Thank you

Now the rhetorical gloves come off. The SJW tries to play on rosarior’s insecurities and emotions, then throws out an appeal to the herd animal instinct before issuing an implicit threat. The code of conduct is now declared “necessary” in order to protect the future of the project, which is twice mentioned in a threatening manner. Notice that the SJW doesn’t even address the fact that his original claimed concerns were addressed, thereby negating any need for the requested code, he simply moves the goalposts and moves on to more high-pressure rhetorical tactics. This is why dialectical arguments are totally useless; the SJWs simply ignore the effective ones.

1- You opened an issue to raise concern about the relationship of a contributor’s race and the rejection of their patches.
2- Only I can accept or reject patches in this repository.
You made it clear who this was about.
Apart from this issue, we’ve had no conduct problems, so no need for a code of conduct.
I’m very certain of my race: I’m Latino, Puertorican, a Mestizo from a
Castiza mother and a Mulato father. There are many more races than just
black and white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation).
Yes, I’m not a woman or a transgendered individual and I don’t intend
to even try to understand what they have to put up with, never said
that. But you assume women and transgendered individual are the only
targets of harassment, exclusion and threats.

English is not my first language and I hope I’m mistaken but your last line “I urge you to reconsider for the good and future of this project 🙂 ” sounded like a threat, please clarify.

This response could be described as overly long and dialectical; rhetoric has ZERO informational content so responding to the feigned issues serves no purpose unless one is doing it to expose pseudo-dialectic on behalf of any onlookers. However, expecting a programmer to not respond in a systematic manner to the issues raised is rather like expecting sight hounds not to chase running rabbits, so it’s harmless. What is particularly important, however, is the way rosarior calls out the SJW for his implicit threats and requests clarification; in doing so he causes the SJW to unmask completely and show his fangs.

I really have no idea why you are responding the way you are! Really!! Code of Conducts are not JUST about conduct,they cover all the spectrum of behaviours expected from civilized human beings that are more and more absend in the software industry. You are evading the topic at hand and I can only wonder why,why deny equal opportunity for all to join and contribute to your project Roberto?

That you have not “seen” harassment doesn’t mean it is not happening all around us. And turning a blind eye makes it worst. I was not threaning you,but your reaction is a projection of your feelings and now I feel threated by you. Reading the links you posted I only have one thing to say to you:reevaluate your actions,you are becoming a toxic individual who is harming the Python and Django communities and haven’t even realized it yet. You are a member of the Django Software Foundation and are supposed to be setting the example. I will be forwarding the content of this issue to the Chair to evaluate your continued presence in the DSF. best regards.

It’s all there. Threats, point-and-shriek, playing the victim, false accusations, and the inevitable appeal to the amenable authority. In the interest of Social Justice Convergence, the SJW demonstrates that he will try to destroy the project rather than permit it to continue if it cannot be captured and forcibly submitted to the SJW Narrative. Rosarior’s response was the best one I have seen in technology yet, as he not only defeated the assault, but exposed the SJW for what he is in the process.

This is not a joke. These people are genuinely dangerous and will destroy everything they touch. Resist them. Expose them. Seek them out in your own organizations, hunt them down and root them out. SJW delenda est.

It’s time to go on the offensive. If your group or organization has a Code of Conduct, start the campaign to get rid of it now. There is a reason the SJWs are so intent on imposing them everywhere; that is how they intend to institute their thought policing.

And since you know the SJWs are going to be coming after him, show the man he’s got support behind him. If you’re on Twitter, follow the man.


“Those who can code do, those who can’t write code of conducts.”
– Roberto Rosario

Free delivery worldwide

“The most dangerous book in America”, SJWs Always Lie, is now available at BookDepository.

In case you’re still on the fence about reading it, it is also reviewed at Kairos:

The book was originally conceived as a polemic, but the end result is
more like a field guide to navigating the SJW-riddled minefields of
Western academia, business, and media. Vox shares accounts of people who
lost their employment and reputations to social justice witch hunts,
walks the reader through a step by step analysis of the SJW attack
sequence, and offers actionable advice for what to do when you come
under fire for alleged violations of ever-shifting social justice
doctrine.

In reading SJWAL, it fascinated me how much SJWs’ elitist, polarizing, and unaccountable attitudes resemble those of a cult.
This observation is consistent with the fact that all malignant
ideologies now threatening Western civilization are Christian heresies
to some degree.

Heresy isn’t simply untruth. It’s a truth unhinged from other balancing
truths and exaggerated out of proportion. Pelagianism was the
overemphasis on human will to the exclusion of grace. Arianism focused
on Christ’s divine Sonship to the point of denying His divinity.
Similarly, the SJW cult absolutizes social justice while rejecting the
immutable nature from which human rights are derived.

The mental state required to embrace such a self-contradictory worldview
is responsible for Vox’s First Law of SJWs and the title of his book.
Because they believe that adopting an irrational ideology makes them
morally superior to everyone else, SJWs have no qualms about lying to
advance their goals. This includes smearing, libeling, and falsely accusing others.

SJWAL‘s most valuable public service has been sounding a wake-up
call to ordinary people whose well-meant misconception that SJWs could
be reasoned or compromised with allowed their witch hunts to gain so
much traction.

Meanwhile, having been roundly trounced on the rhetorical front, SJWs are trying to think of what they can call us. Presumably besides “racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, bigot hater”.

This is not a theoretical matter

MD emails to tell of SJWs getting a friend coming under media assault for a Halloween costume:

SJWAL hit close to home today as a family friend was FIRED from his teaching position after posting a picture at a party in a harmless Kanye get-up. His wife being a ‘Kim with a bootay’ tag-a-long.

All hell broke loose when the pic was posted and he quickly lost his job and issued sort of an apology. From your material I believe this was still a wrong move.

Now, the media leads with the title of “Teacher apologizes for wearing blackface” instead of “Teacher fired for dressing as Kanye”

You’ve taught me to see through the rhetoric and never give them a tiny opportunity to redirect the narrative. He was apparently an amazing teacher and benefactor to all his students, who were mostly inner city. It’s blown to huge proportion now and experts are stating that he shouldn’t have been fired but “re-educated” on the issue of blackface.

What would be your tactics in handling this situation now that he’s dug himself into a little larger hole? Amazing to see your book come to life.

I don’t know if it is true that the teacher lost his job – that seems unlikely given the teachers unions have made it all but impossible to actually fire a teacher for anything short of serial killing students – but the apology was absolutely the wrong move.

As I explained in SJWAL, the apology has been taken for a confession and is now being used to prosecute and further humiliate him. The correct thing to do would have been to inform the school that Halloween costumes often involve dressing up like celebrities and it would be racist to refuse to dress up like a black man. Then he should have arranged to have a picture taken in the classroom, dressed up like Kanye West and surrounded by his smiling black students.

Remember, always fight rhetoric with rhetoric. An apology is a form of dialectic, and we all know that the only thing replying to rhetoric with dialectic produces is more rhetoric.

Remember: never apologize.

And don’t even think about resorting to the stupid “I have never seen color in my life” bullshit that features in the guy’s craven, futile, “please don’t hit me” apology. If you’re not completely retarded, you see “color”. Even the literally color-blind see color in this regard. All that sort of statement amounts to is publicly declaring that you are not only a brainwashed coward, but there are five lights too.

As far as what he should do now, all I can say is: stop digging. Stop apologizing. Stop cringing and cowering. He chose his course out of fear and it has already metastasized in the media. Now he has to let the chosen scenario play out. If nothing else, he will serve as yet another cautionary tale demonstrating the foolishness of apologizing to SJWs.

The disorder of the counterfeit virtues

Edward Feser explains how substituting social justice ideals for the cardinal virtues necessarily disorders both SJW minds and society:

Let’s consider the fate of the cardinal virtues in a modern democratic society.  The words “wisdom,” “courage,” “moderation,” and “justice” are certainly not absent in such societies.  To some extent the content of the traditional virtues is even respected — democratic citizens will approve of the courage they read about in military history or see portrayed in movies like Saving Private Ryan, will commend moderation where overindulgence might affect bodily health, and so forth.

But much more prominent than the cardinal virtues — and to a large extent coloring the conception democratic man has of the content of the cardinal virtues — are certain other character traits, such as open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness.  The list will be familiar, since the language of these “virtues” permeates contemporary pop culture and politics, and it can be said to constitute a kind of counterpoint to the traditional cardinal virtues.  And in each case the counter-virtue entails a turn of just the sort one might expect given Plato’s analysis of democracy — from the objective to the subjective, from a focus on the way things actually are to a focus on the way one believes or desires them to be.

Hence wisdom, as a Plato or Aquinas conceives of it, is outward-oriented, involving a grasp of objective truth in the speculative and practical spheres.  Open-mindedness, by contrast, is oriented inwardly, toward the subjective, concerned not with objective reality itself so much as with a willingness to consider alternative views about objective reality.

Courage has to do with the will to do what one ought to do in the face of danger or difficulty.  The courageous man will do his duty even though he is afraid or feels uncomfortable or put upon, and we praise him precisely for ignoring these subjective feelings.  Empathy, by contrast, involves precisely a focus on such feelings — indeed, even to the point of sympathizing with the one who has failed to be courageous.  Courage says: “Yes, it was difficult; but you should have done it anyway.”  Empathy says: “I understand why you didn’t do it; it was so difficult!”

Similarly, moderation tells us that we sometimes need to refrain from indulging our appetites, in some cases even when we have an extremely powerful desire to indulge them.  Tolerance, by contrast, refuses to condemn such indulgence.  Toleration works in tandem with empathy, as moderation works together with courage.  Just as courage is reason’s ally in keeping the appetites at bay — it reminds us that it is weak and shameful to indulge when reason says we shouldn’t — so too is empathy the ally of the appetitive part of the soul in its war with reason, giving it permission to indulge and to ignore what unkind, unfeeling reason is saying.  Courage and moderation command: “You’re a human being!  Don’t act like animal!”  Empathy and toleration respond: “We understand, go ahead, you’re just an animal anyway!” 

Finally, whereas justice requires us to conform our desires to the order of things, fairness commands the order of things to conform itself to our desires.  Justice says: “John is richer than you are and Paul has more authority.  But that is as it should be, since John worked harder and Paul is wiser.”  Fairness says: “John is richer than you are and Paul has more authority.  That’s not fair!”  Justice treats equals equally and unequals unequally.  Fairness treats everyone equally; or rather, it treats everyone the way the one shouting “Unfairness!” thinks they should be treated.

Now, all of that makes the counter-virtues in question sound pretty bad — or it should make them sound bad, anyway — but I hasten to add that none of this entails that there is nothing of value in open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness.  Far from it.  The objective truth at which wisdom aims is not all built into us and it is not all obvious; it needs to be acquired through hard work.  Open-mindedness facilitates that.  Realistically inculcating the virtues, including courage, requires an understanding of actual human circumstances, including human weaknesses.  That requires empathy.  The road to virtue is, given human weakness, inevitably paved with repeated failures to live up to it.  Tolerance of these failures (albeit not approval of them) is, accordingly, no less necessary to the realistic inculcation of virtue than empathy is.  And some inequalities really are rightly decried as unfair insofar as they arise from injustice.  (John might be richer than you because he is more hard-working.  But it might instead be because he is a thief or a fraudster or someone who knows how to game the system.)

So, there can be real value in open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness, and a wise man will acknowledge this.  But it is crucial to see that their value is instrumental.  They are of secondary value, of significance precisely insofar as they facilitate the acquisition of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.  A soul which strives primarily to acquire those traditional cardinal virtues, even while acknowledging the value within limits of open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness in the process of acquiring them, is rightly ordered.  But a soul which primarily values open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness, and either rejects the traditional cardinal virtues or relegates them to second place, is disordered.

Dr. Feser is more measured than I am. I believe we can confidently declare Equality, Diversity, and Tolerance to be evil, because we can judge them by their fruits. And their fruits are nightmarish and societally destructive.

Sexually twisted freaks

It’s not your imagination. There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with SJWs:

When she arrived at the house on Memorial Day in 2011, Anna didn’t know what D.J. planned to do. His brother, Wesley, was working in the garden, so she went straight inside to speak with D.J. and his mother, P. They chatted for a while at the dining table about D.J.’s plans for school and for getting his own apartment. Then there was a lull in the conversation after Wesley came back in, and Anna took hold of D.J.’s hand. ‘‘We have something to tell you,’’ they announced at last. ‘‘We’re in love.’’

‘‘What do you mean, in love?’’ P. asked, the color draining from her face.

To Wesley, she looked pale and weak, like ‘‘Caesar when he found out that Brutus betrayed him.’’ He felt sick to his stomach. What made them so uncomfortable was not that Anna was 41 and D.J. was 30, or that Anna is white and D.J. is black, or even that Anna was married with two children while D.J. had never dated anyone. What made them so upset — what led to all the arguing that followed, and the criminal trial and million-­dollar civil suit — was the fact that Anna can speak and D.J. can’t; that she was a tenured professor of ethics at Rutgers University in Newark and D.J. has been declared by the state to have the mental capacity of a toddler.

My favorite part is when she makes up how she “valiantly resisted” the speechless retard’s persistent seduction attempts. So brave. Thank you for this.

This was her mitzvah and her tikkun olam. She was helping to repair the world.

Any time you hear someone tell you they are occupied with “healing the world”, you know you’re dealing with a psychopath with a twisted mind.

Turnabout is fair play

German daily documents anti-migrant hate speech on Facebook

Germany’s top-selling Bild daily Tuesday documented racist vitriol against migrants posted by Facebook users in a double-page newspaper spread, as pressure grows on the social network to eliminate hate speech.

A day after thousands of anti-Muslim PEGIDA protesters and anti-fascist counter-demonstrators rallied in the eastern city of Dresden, Bild published dozens of anti-migrant rants under the headline “The Pillory of Shame”.

Facebook “agitators” posted xenophobic and threatening comments, which Bild urged the prosecutor general to investigate.

Tensions have grown as Germany has opened its doors to an unprecedented wave of people fleeing war and misery, with arrivals expected to reach one million this year, an influx that has seen Chancellor Angela Merkel’s poll ratings slip.

As Germany has seen increasingly angry street protests, attacks on asylum shelters and a knife attack against a pro-refugee politician last Saturday, lawmakers have warned that inflammatory speech can spur violence.

Turnabout being fair play and all, it seems to me that the German nationalists should keep track of all the anti-nationalist’s identities and document all their statements and actions against the German people too.

Just in case they might happen to come in handy one day, you know?

So go ahead, SJWs and anti-nationalists, by all means, post that “I hate my nation, invaders welcome” rant. No doubt it will prove useful to someone one day.

SJWs define “good community”

The dubiously named “Geekess” explains the process of social justice convergence in open source projects:

There’s been a lot of discussion in my comment sections (and on LWN) about what makes a good community, along with suggestions of welcoming open source communities to check out. Your hearts are in the right place, but I’ve never found an open source community that doesn’t need improvement. I’m quite happy to give the Xorg community a chance, mostly because I believe they’re starting from the right place for cultural change.

The thing is, reaching the goal of a diverse community is a step-by-step process. There are no shortcuts. Each step has to be complete before the next level of cultural change is effective. It’s also worth noting that each step along the way benefits all community members, not just diverse contributors.

Level 0: basic human decency
In order to attract diverse candidates, you need to be known as a welcoming community, with a clear set of agreed-upon social norms. It’s not good enough to have a code of conduct. Your leaders need to be actively behind it, and it needs to be enforced.

Level 1: on-boarding

The next phase in improving diversity is figuring out how to on-board newcomers. If diverse candidates are only 1-10% of newcomers, but you have a 90% fail rate for people who try to make their first contribution, well, you can’t expect many diverse newcomers to stick around, can you? It’s also essential to explain your unwritten tribal knowledge, so that diverse candidates (who are more likely to be afraid of upsetting the status quo) know what they’re getting into.

Level 2: meaningful contributions

The next step is figuring out what to do with these eager new diverse candidates. If they’ve made it this far through the gauntlet of toxic tech culture, they’re likely to be persistent, smart, and seeking a challenge. If you don’t have meaningful bigger projects for them to contribute to, they’ll move onto the next shiny thing.

And it just gets worse, until the whole thing is run by non-white women, food served at conferences is vegetarian, drinking is banned, and the code of conduct explicitly acknowledges the spectrum of privilege. And while she left out literal self-flagellation, there is no doubt that the metaphorical form will be expected of any white male contributors that remain.

I am beginning to wonder if Microsoft and the other software vendors are behind this open source code-of-conduct campaign, because nothing short of special ops assault teams could destroy their OSS competitors more effectively.

SJWs in the Church of Scotland

Here we not only see the consequences of entryism, but further evidence in support of the truism: SJWs always lie. In which David Robertson learns that he should have read the book before debating a Scottish wolf in sheep’s clothing:

At one level I was excited. Because the church was packed with over 250 people on a midweek evening to discuss theology; because I liked Scott when I had met him previously and believed that he genuinely wanted to have an open discussion about these vital issues; because it was a great opportunity to speak the good news in a different context. But I was also aware there was something else going on. I won’t go into details but I was under considerable pressure to back off and indeed even to give up and walk away. Even as I walked into the church I sensed not only the sense of anticipation but also the hostility from some, and also a strange sense that something was wrong.

This was made worse when I went into the vestry and met with Scott and Rev John Chalmers, the former Moderator who was there to replace the current Moderator, Rev Angus Morrison, who had called off because of a sore throat. John informed me at 7:25pm that the event would not be recorded. I was somewhat surprised at this because in setting up the event we had offered to film it and we were assured that there was no need to do so because the Church would do so and put it online.   This was an important aspect of the evening as this was a public discussion about subjects of vital importance to the whole church, and rather than rely on out of context quotes and sound bites reported on social media, it was important that people could hear and see the whole debate for themselves.(the interest and demand from people from people has been phenomenal). So I insisted that it be recorded and they agreed.

We went out, had the debate which went much as I had expected. Scott denied the Bible, called the atoning work of Christ on the cross barbaric (and Calvinist!) and at the end suggested that the future of the Church in Scotland rested on leadership styles like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury as well as ‘mindfulness’.  I did my best to answer him in as biblical and gracious a way as possible. (I accept that I got some things wrong, said some things in a wrong way, wish I had said others,  and sometimes let my tongue run away with things-  God have mercy on me, a sinner).  My concern was for Scott and also for those who hear him preach, that he would turn away from his heresy and man-made gospel which is no gospel at all.   At this point I would normally suggest that you go to the video and judge for yourselves. Except even as I write, the video has been destroyed…. I was informed on the Thursday that the video would not be put online because I had hurt Scott’s feelings by suggesting that I would excommunicate him if he were a member of my church.   He also thought that it would not be a good witness, and he did not want that statement put online (ironically of course it was put on line immediately and tweeted all over the place by some of his supporters).  He informed me today, after further correspondence that he had instructed that the tapes be destroyed.

Why destroy the tapes? What was so incriminating on them?  It was not to
preserve Scott’s hurt feelings. Nor was it because they are concerned
about Christian witness.

This quote from the following letter I received from a life long Church of Scotland couple helps explain why: “We
too were horrified to learn in March of Mr. McKenna’s denial of the
atonement. We protested to Edinburgh Presbytery expecting disciplinary
action. None was forthcoming and we felt made to feel wrong for
mentioning this fundamental aspect of the faith. We fear that Mr.
McKenna is not only risking God’s judgement on himself but also on his
congregation and the rest of us for doing nothing.”

The
unpalatable truth for evangelicals and traditional Presbyterians is that
Scott McKenna is not on the eccentric fringes of the Church of
Scotland. He is one of its mainstream leaders who I suspect is being
lined up for higher office. To have such a man openly and publicly
teach such heresy (which itself is against the standards and teachings
of the C of S) would be the last straw for many such people. So in order
to do damage limitation, and prevent more people joining the growing
exodus from the C of S, they decided to try and bury the evidence.

This is why you ALWAYS record interviews and debates YOURSELF. ALWAYS. No exceptions. It won’t prevent the media from cherry-picking any mistakes or controversies and making the most of them, but it will prevent them from lying about what you have said and hiding the mistakes and infelicities of their own side.

David Robertson made the mistake that most people make when dealing with SJWs. He fucked up; he trusted them. But SJWs always lie! You cannot trust them, you cannot trust one single thing they say.

The problem is that until recently, no one who has dealt with an SJW and been played for a fool has seen the pattern, much less explained it to anyone else. That’s why it is important to understand the pattern and spread the word about it; SJWs are a civilization-wide menace as Western civilization is under massive assault by the servitors of social justice.

So that is a prime directive. ALWAYS RECORD ALL INTERACTIONS WITH SJWs. Because First Law of SJW. If the law requires their permission and they won’t grant it, then don’t talk to them. I’ve put this into practice myself, as whenever I get a request for an interview these days, I inform them that I will be recording it myself.

UPDATE: Fortunately, someone recorded the audio and provided a transcript. And it is no wonder that the SJWs in the Church of Scotland tried to erase Scott McKenna’s words. They clearly demonstrate that he isn’t a Christian and he should be excommunicated from the Church without any need for further discussion.

I was talking about penal substitutionary atonement which is the notion that, in order to satisfy the wrath, the anger of God who had been offended by the wrath of God, that Jesus had to die as a blood sacrifice to pay for this sin, in order to satisfy the wrath of God. Now I would be saying that I think this leaves us with a fairly despotic… despot of a god; a barbaric god who is vindictive and immoral. Now this is not unique to me. This is not radical theology. You will find this theology in numerous places including a number of evangelicals.

That may not be radical theology, but it also isn’t Christian theology. And while some “evangelicals” do subscribe to it, they are not evangelical Christians, they are atheist evangelicals in the mode of Richard Dawkins.

Mailvox: resistance really works

It turns out that active resistance is a considerably more effective approach than silent submission and surrender. This tweet appeared in my notifications this morning:

a friend is under real life SJW attack, pointed him to this, he followed your advice & it’s working. Many thanks!! *hat tip*

It may be hard to break the habits into which we are brainwashed from kindergarten, but it is necessary. It is vital! Those whispers that tell you to give up, to give in, to abandon hope are the voices of the deceivers who programmed defeatism into you at an early age through school, church, and media.

Don’t listen to those voices. God loves the fighters. God loves the warriors. The Father loved Gideon and David. The Son loved Peter. Unless you are being murdered for your Christian faith, you are not a martyr, you’re just a coward who lacked the courage to stand up for himself and for the truth.

If you’ve got a friend who is under attack, please note that SJWs Always Lie is now available as a free read for both KU and Prime subscribers. And last night we received the notification that it will be available in paperback within a week or so.

An apology is a confession

Lest you needed another reminder of why you NEVER APOLOGIZE for anything after being attacked by SJWs.

A new dispute has erupted over the fate of Sir Tim Hunt, the Nobel prizewinner accused of making sexist remarks at an international conference earlier this year. Sir Colin Blakemore, one of Britain’s leading scientists, has resigned as honorary president of the country’s science writers association over its support for the journalist whose reports led to Hunt’s dismissal.

Blakemore said he had been frustrated by the decision of the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW) to continue to give unconditional support to Connie St Louis, who first claimed Hunt had made sexist remarks.

Subsequent evidence has since suggested that St Louis’s account was “unbalanced, exaggerated, and selective”, Blakemore told the Observer.

“Yet the ABSW refuses to investigate the issue, despite the fact that its standing orders explicitly state that ‘wilful or frequent misrepresentation or inaccuracy’ shall be considered a breach of its standards,” he said.

“Given the very serious consequences of St Louis’s reports, and the ABSW’s refusal to act, I have decided to resign. I have been honorary president of the association for 11 years but feel that I have no alternative.”

However, Martin Ince, the president of the ABSW, rejected the idea that the association had a role to play in assuring journalistic standards. “Our statement simply supports her right to report a story without fear of personal attack. We note that Sir Tim Hunt has acknowledged the accuracy of St Louis’s reporting and has apologised for his remarks,” he said.

Notice how Hunt’s apology wasn’t only used against him, it is being used as a defense against Connie St. Louis’s misbehavior which long predates the actions for which he apologized. And it’s also being used against those who are willing to take public stands and make personal sacrifices in support of Hunt.

When you apologize to an SJW, you are not only handing them ammunition that will be used against you, it will be used against your friends, family, and allies in support of your most vicious enemies.

Never apologize in response to SJWs. Is that not clear? NEVER PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE, period.