Search This Blog


Thursday, November 12, 2015


Malcolm-the-not-cynical-enough asks:
What are we lacking right now? Are women who get abortions lacking support systems and help, from pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike?

Or do we lack people who are willing to yell “Repent, for you have sinned!”
One of the main reasons we lack people willing to say, "Repent!" is precisely because of people like Malcolm, who can always be counted upon either to initiate the attack upon the lone voice calling for repentance, or to join in the attack once it is made by another, or, at "best", to shrug their shoulders and say, "Meh! You brought this on yourself" ... and then, they are mystified when they are subjected to the same dynamic.

People don't *like* to be told that they are wrong, that they are in the wrong, and they tend to throw fits when told so (and the moreso the more in the wrong they are). People like Malcolm, while agreeing in principle that generic "people" may be in the wrong, generally can't bring themselves to acknowledge that this specific person is in the wrong when it doesn't directly impinge upon them. And they never quite figure out the reason that (nearly) everyone else reacts in the same way when it does impinge upon them.

Malcolm goes on to say:
If your answer is the same as mine you understand why I’m much more concerned with calling spades murderers rather than victims.
But, that isn't true; he emphatically is not interested in calling spades spades.

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

What a crudé thing to say

A certain crudé (*) minded indivdual recently wrote:
This [deciding what to think about the current Moslem invasion of Europe, following this successful model (**), and abetted by the rulers of Europe] would all be easier if the people who were pro-massive-immigration could all be sectioned off into particular areas of the country and forced to live among the migrants, while everyone else could have their enclaves to themselves.
What an absolutely shitty thing to say!

What? Gentle Reader doesn't yet understand my point, especially considering that that's just the sort of thing I might say? Ah, well, let's back up a bit.

Back in October 2014, at Victor Reppert's blog, I dissected some assertions by someone using the handle 'Karl Grant', and concluding with:
... You know, Churl, it's too bad we can't make a deal with the Moslems (as if they honor their word, ha!) to chop you first.
Now, the important thing to understand about 'Karl Grant' is that he's not just a leftist, but an apologist for all things Islamic, and especially of the current resurgence of the 1400-year-long Jihad against Christendom. He likes to lie about what is going on in the world today, and he likes to lie about those who seek to call others' attention to what is really happening.

It would be nice if the evil consequences of the advocacy of foolishly wicked policies could be reserved to the advocates. But that's not how the world works, and that's not how sin works -- sin always seeks to push the consequences off onto the innocent.

'Karl' didn't like any of my post, of course. And, being a good leftist ... and practitioner of taqiyyah ... he took no time at all to paint himself the victim of my final comment
So I say something you don''t like and you wish me bodily harm and death? I think your talk about "bloodthirsty, genocidal leftists" is simply projection of your own violent tendencies and fantasies.

Then, later in the thread, after some back and forth with a certain crudé minded indivdual, 'Karl' played the 'to quoque' card
And if we are going to talk about things we would rather point to in this conversation, I would rather point at the sentence where you condemned or criticized Ilion, who is also a self-proclaimed conservative, where he said he would love to hire people to chop me up because I voiced sympathy for a viewpoint he don't like as opposed to pointing at you getting worked up because you felt that I might have unfairly tarred some conservatives with my rhetorical brush. The problem is I am having trouble finding it.

To which the crudé minded individual replied:

Yeah, I think saying 'it's too bad we can't make a deal with the moslems to chop you first' was a shitty move on Ilion's part. I think he'd call it a joke when pressed, but it was a bad joke. Not a serious threat, but the conversation doesn't need that all the same. I criticize it thus.

Why would I call my comment a joke? I *mean* it! It is too bad that the evil consequences of open borders, and especially of open borders toward Moslems, can't be limited to the advocates of destroying the nation. But that's not how the world works.

Anyway, back to the first quoted post -- once again, by his own words, the crudé minded individual condemns himself.

(*) that's a pun, son, from the basic meaning of 'crud' as being 'shit'

(**) which model, by the by, is the one the Mexican government, with the collusion of the Democrats, has been using against the US for many decades

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

More dishonesty about Free Trade

Vox Day, advocating statism and merchantilism (and, quite frankly, socialism of the fascist variety)

There are four things you need to keep in mind if you are an ardent free trader:
1.The arguments justifying free trade have always been entirely theoretical, not empirical. In this way, they are no different than the incorrect pre-scientific logical conclusions that were subsequently proven to be false by modern science. At the time they were formulated, inexpensive shipping, the free movement of capital, and the mass movement of labor were unknown.
2.The USA historically enjoyed its fastest periods of economic growth under protectionist, restricted-immigration periods.
3.The post-WWII growth was not the result of any trade or economic policies, but a positive application of Broken Window theory. Every other industrial nation had its industrial capacity smashed, so the US benefited from an intrinsic infrastructural advantage for around 25 years.
4.Free trade levels all prices throughout the market. That's why a cashier in Miami gets paid about the same amount as a cashier in Portland. Even if free trade increases the overall amount of global economic growth, in doing so, it necessarily reduces wages and standards of living in the wealthier nations to bring them more in line with the wages and standards of living in the poorest nations.

Continue reading ...

Saturday, November 7, 2015

A Theology of Slut Walks

Douglas Wilson: A Theology of Slut Walks
... Every absurd conclusion is, at some level, a valid derivation from absurd premises, but enough about any given screen shot of the Drudge Report.

Slut walks provide a great example of this. Once we trace the absurdity back upstream, we might learn something about the premises ...

The point of slut walks is ostensibly a simple one. It is that dressing in any particular way in no way justifies rape. Put in a less sympathetic way, it is that dressing provocatively must never be considered a provocation. ...
Slutwalks are also -- like *everything* to do with feminism (*) -- about power. Specifically, they are about demonstrating the power of certain females (to wit: feminists) (*) to compel men, all men, to acquiesce to blatant falsehoods.

(*) for feminism is a sub-set of leftism; and leftism has only the one nail, so to leftists, everything looks like a hammer.

(**) ironically, or not, whatever power feminists seem to have is *only* because certain powerful men find it convenient to give it to them.

Continue reading ...

Friday, November 6, 2015

Making History

Smitty at The Other McCain: PowerLine Laid Out On Fainting Couch Over Ben Carson USMA Story And Small Arachnid, But Mostly Ben Carson -- quoting 'American Elephant': "So, Ben Carson is now the first black presidential candidate in history to have his college records investigated by [the] media."

Wintery Knight (drawing on Ben Shapiro): Leftist POLITICO lies in order to smear black conservative Ben Carson

By the way, this episode provided Vox Day an excellent opportunity to display his intellectual dishonesty: Your "Get-Out-of-Racism-Free" has now expired -- He quotes Politico, knowing it's Politico, treating it as honest reporting rather than as a lying smear-job, and concludes: "I'm looking forward to hearing that Carson isn't a surgeon at all, but is actually a janitor at Mercy Medical in Baltimore."

Edit: and here is Vox Day doubling-down in a pretense of blamelessness ... you know, just like "social justice warriors" always do.

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Is there anything more annoying ...

... than a guy who walks around the office whistling?

Well, maybe the gal who is always ordering everyone to Smile!

Continue reading ...

Arguing with Lewis

A very good essay from Douglas Wilson: Principalities, Powers, and Pecksniffs --
... It turns out that overweening conceit in rulers requires a strong theocratic restraint.

If there is a court of appeal past our human government, then in principle I have admitted theocracy. If there is no court of appeal past them, then I have just made them god. Having made them god, I discover that I am still in a theocracy, but instead of a loving Father, the theos of this system is corrupt and grasping, mendacious and low, and full of flatulent hubris. Requiring government to remain modest and within the bounds of sanity is therefore one of the most profound ethical requirements that has ever been promulgated among men.

Why are we so afraid of theocracy? What might happen? Might we go on a rampage and kill 50 million babies? Yeah, that would be bad. Better not risk it. Might we set up a surveillance state, with camera clusters pointed in every direction at all the intersections? Right — theocracies are terrible like that.

The real reason why our current rulers want us to react violently whenever we hear the word theocracy is that petty gods are always jealous of their position, and dread any talk of a Lord who rose from the dead.
There is *always* a "god of the system"; and if that god is not the Living God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, then perforce it will be something that is opposed to God ... and to human liberty.

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Lydia McGrew being Lydia McGrew

... or, in other words, acting the bitch because she can get away with it.

I'm reposting this here, because I don't expect it to survive there --
^ Having seen Lydia McGrew in action, more than once, I don't believe a word of what she is asserting about what she has deleted from Mike T's posts.

For instance, consider this post which she didn't "edit" ... and her response and characterization of it --

Mike T: "The activists are mainly SJWs from what I read. Don't offer them any words of wisdom. They need to get mugged by reality. That is just as true of the women as it is the men."

Lydia McGrew: "Bag it. No gloating over evil acts on my threads, even if they happen to clueless people and _you_ think they "had it coming." Not gonna allow that kind of stuff around here."

But, of course, her characterization of what he wrote is not just incorrect, not just false, but a lie. Either that or she's too stupid to read, and we all can see for ourselves that she's not stupid. Those are the only two options in this particular circumstance -- either she's stupid, or she's intellectually dishonest. The third (and last) potential option, ignorance, does not apply in this case, as everything he said is right there.

Now, back up just one post above Mike T's post I've quoted here --

Lydia McGrew: "Actually, before those predictions [that after European nationalists have dealt with the Moslem invasion, they may well turn on Christians, because many so-called Christians are *aiding* the invasion] come true, Mike T. (if they do), I anticipate that the foolishly kind Christians may get a nasty surprise when they are harmed by the very people they are trying to help. I strongly suggest that anyone going to "migrant camps" to help the poor refugees leave the women behind, that's for sure. And go armed if possible."

She should denounce herself. But she won't; she's a hypocrite.
And I was right: she deleted that criticism-and-demonstration of her high-handedness.

Look at her hypocritical whining later in the thread --
Lydia McGrew: "I gotta love how Bedarz restates my careful references to Middle Eastern Christians' possible support for Hezbollah as "not holding to the Zionist line." ..."

To those persons (number unknown, somewhere between 1-8) who bounced over to this blog post from WWWW before Lydia McGrew deleted the two comments I'd made to her post criticizing her high-handed behavior, might I suggest refraining from commenting on her new threads for a while? Of course, for her to learn any lesson from such an action, nearly everyone who comments on her threads would need to refrain from commenting, and that's not likely to happen.

Continue reading ...

Saturday, October 24, 2015

In Defense of Christendom

Bret Stephens at WSJ: In Defense of Christendom

h/t: Edgestow

Continue reading ...

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Curling Up Under the Blanket

Douglas Wilson: Curling Up Under the Blanket
We live in a generation that is totalitarian in principle, having accepted all the basic totalitarian premises. Denying the Lordship of Jesus Christ drives you to those premises — for if Jesus is not Lord, then there is a vacancy that men will always want to fill. ...

We started by believing, as we ought to have done, that every man had a right to his own cabbages. We have ended by believing that every man has a right to his own truths. That ends with goons coming from the Department of Agriculture to seize the cabbages, and not one minister of the gospel in ten can explain how all such events are connected.

Continue reading ...