Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, August 19, 2016

A feminized culture breeds feminized 'men'

What is the difference between a dude who insists that he is a woman and may (or may not, as see 'Jenner, Bruce') have the amputated dick to "prove" it, on the one hand, and a dude proudly flaunting his copious tats and piercings, on the other hand?

Degree.

The thing about "body modification" is that it displays that one has a feminine (in the "toxic" sense) mindset. Those pathetic guys running around with their "sleeves" and "gauges" are not showing the rest of us what tough and manly guys they are ... they're showing us what pussies they are.

Think about this. How do men generally compete for the attention of others (and for social status)? How do women generally compete for the attention of others (and for social status)? Men generally do it on the basis of their acts, of what they accomplish; women generally do it on the basis of their bodies, of what they look look like, of how thay have decorated their bodies. This is why women spend a lot of time and effort drawing attention to their bodies (*); this is why everyone looks askance at a man who has obviously spent a lot of time and effort to draw attention to his body (**).

Now, one of the things about trying to draw attention to your body is that this works best if your body is beautiful. Women generally have it oven men in that regard; very few of us men look like David Beckham. So -- this being the age of post-modernist revolt against beauty -- if you can't be pretty, then be ugly (***): thus, the ever-escalating cult of "body modification".

So, pity -- and scorn -- the tatted-up dude, for he hates that God made him a man (and he refuses to be one).


(*) and get so very angry when:
1) the "wrong guy" notices the very body they have deliberately put on display;
2) the "right guy" fails to notice (or fails to approve either the body or that it is on display) the body they have so painstakingly put on display for him.

(**) and because everyone *does* look askance at a man who has obviously spent a lot of time and effort to draw attention to his body, those tatted-up dudes have to pretend that they are doing it for another reason, such as "to express my individuality" ... you know, similar to how in times past women *had* to have clothes totally unique to any other woman's. The point here is that even in the publicly expressed rationale for their self-mutilation, they display their feminized non-masculine mind-sets.

(***) and, in fact, *because* this is the age of post-modernist revolt against beauty, even if you are pretty, you'd better make yourself ugly; thus, David Beckham (and his wife).

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Who enstupidated whom?

Somehow -- given his commitment to "human bio-diversity" and genetic determinism -- I don't see Vox Day enthusiastically linking to this particular piece by Fred Reed: The Maya: Who Woulda Thunk It?

Continue reading ...

Friday, August 12, 2016

Don't they say, 'A fish rots from the head'?

From a recent Vox Day blogpost, 'fisking' the attempt of some SJW to "control the narrative", Mailvox: an SJW Narrative sale
A recent comment from HGL is an almost flawless example of this. Here is his attempt to reshape reality by doing what SJWs always do:
Meh, Wright had some talent befor castalua. I think what's telling is that although vox makes himself out to be the next big thing (constantly), his scifi posts get fewer and fewer hits and everyone ignored the hell out of him on Brad's blog recently. No one who matters is buying it.
Let's count the false assertions. I get five.
...
5.There are tens of thousands of people who are buying Castalia books. All of them matter. Regardless, the key thing to note here is the appeal to those "who matter", which is typical SJW-speak, because it permits them to disqualify everyone whose behavior falsifies their false narrative.
Sounds good (rational and honest), right?

So how do Vox Day's "Ilk" behave?

Here is 'Snidely Whiplish', trying to "control the narrative":
And yet you post a link to your idiot drivel there. Why? We're all fascists two steps from rounding up the Jews, why would you want even to speak to us?

Here is 'Dave Narby', trying to "control the narrative":
Here's a novel thought: Post your idea in the affirmative, first person.

You know, as if you were trying to make a cogent point and engage in actual dialog - as opposed to snarkily and self-righteously trying to virtue signal.

Say your sorry for being a douchenozzle first. I bet Vox will post it!

Here is 'Snidely Whiplish' again, both trying to "control the narrative" and using the Disqualify! tactic:
Post ing a link to your inane drivel, where you call us all idiots and German fascists one step from killing Jews, because we don't think "Free Trade" as it is practiced has benefited us.
You're a fool and tool of the corporate fascists, and you're damn proud of it.

Here is 'Snidely Whiplish' again, both trying to "control the narrative" and using the Disqualify! tactic: Here is :
I never called you a Leftie. Inane Libertarian, definitely. Cuckservative, probably.
What you said is inane drivel because you are inane and you drivel.

You're also a gutless gamma that can't stand the idea that Vox slapped your stupid bitch ass down when you tried to derail the conversation by mocking him. The passive-aggressive reposting it on your blog and posting a link here is the gamma tell.

And finally your "point" (that trade restrictions mean slavery and the enrichment of the elite) has been conclusively destroyed by actual experience. What has 40 years of Free Trade dogma done for the people of the US? Made them more free than they were?

Of course, being a little, useless, libertarian gamma bitch, you prefer your theory and "thought experiments" to actual experience and history.

Here is 'BGKB', using the Disqualify! tactic:
If you follow the link Ilion is asking to be banned for cucking.

For the humor of it, Here is 'lowercaseb', playing the "You're so Dreamy!" card:
wow...I took a peek at his blog and I thought for sure that was Catalytic Converter or whatever the name was of the last guy who kept writing giant missives on whatever blog he could find about how Vox was so unfair and how much he didn't care.

I'm still kinda new here, but they really are starting to sound all alike.

Here is Vox Day, just breaking my heart:
Banned and spammed, Ilion. You're done here.
What? I can no longer *see* -- and hold up for ridicule -- the foolish things he writes on the internet?

As of today, 2016/08/12, there have been 160 pageviews of the 'What a hypocritical asshole' post. Now, of course that is small potatoes compared to someone who is always boasting of his massive readership. To give the reader some idea of how unimportant my blog is, that 160 pageviews is 140-150 more than I would normally expect to see.

But here is the thing: however many actual persons those 160 pagewiews represent, at least some of them are going to be open to the idea that they ought to read Vox Day with a very large grain of salt. At least some of them are going to be open to the idea that if they pay attention, they can see for themselves that he constantly employs so many of the same intellectually dishonest tactics and techniques that he (rightly) condemns others for using. And, at least some of them are going to be open to the idea that if they *really* pay attention, they can see for themselves that his prescription for turning back the growing leftist tyranny over America is ... more leftist tyranny in America.

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

'Ilion, you are out of bounds here'

This is me laughing at that assertion.

Recently, Victor Reppert put up a post called "Joe Hinman turns Derrida on his head ". To that title, I responded with: "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?"

And Joe Hinman, being who and what he is, responded with:
Eric Sotnack who teaches Philosophy at Akron helped me structure the argument, So a professional philosopher who is an atheist thinks it's valid.

show me a grammatical error I'e committed. do you even know the grammar, spelling, and punctuation>?

Ignoring the first paragraph, which naturally had nothing to do with what I said, I responded with: "^ I leave it to Gentle Reader to supply his own guffaws."

This was too much for that professional "nice" guy, Victor Reppert (*), who decided to jump in with:
Ilion, you are out of bounds here. However you may disagree with him, especially on politics, we all know he is dyslexic and needs help with some mechanical issues in writing. My doctoral dissertation advisor, Hugh Chandler, was the same way.

I responded with:
I am never "out of bounds"; I say the truth that you do not wish said. Said or unsaid, reality remain what it is -- "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?".

It seems that you have as little respect for this particular prancing fool as I do, albeit differently grounded (**).

If he is dyslexic, then that is *his* problem, and it is up to him to take the care that what he posts isn't so scrambled that no one else has the faintest clue as to what he means.

And, in any event, his underlying problem isn't dyslexia, it's illogic ... and vicious leftism.

By the way, my immediate supervisor is dyslexic ... and he doesn't need anyone to run interference for him when we can't make heads nor tails of what he means to communicate to us.

Now, the thing is, I mostly ignore Joe Hinman, precisely because he is an irrational fool; but given Reppert's title, it was just too much temptation to resist my initial quip. I mean, Derrida (***)!

And the other thing is, Joe Hinman not only seems to be unable to ignore me, but he also seems to have a hard time resisting attacking me. This is what Reppert is alluding to with "However you may disagree with him, especially on politics"; you know, that old "even-handedness" for which "even-handed" people are so noted -- if Hinman says the most outrageous lies about me, that's just a difference of opinion, but if I laugh about Hinman's grammar-on-its-head disputation of my statement that he regularly turns grammar on its head, well, that's "out of bounds".

AND, actually, it's not true that "we all know he is dyslexic and needs help with some mechanical issues in writing". "All" includes me, doesn't it? I didn't know this claim about him.

And knowing it, I don't care.



(*) Who will *never* pipe up with the smallest of trillings when Joe Hinman (or any other leftist, or 'atheist') makes the most outrageous, and easily seen to be false, assertions about me or about any other anti-leftist.

(**) I think he's an adult and a moral agent who chooses to be a fool; Reppert apparently thinks he's a child below "the age of accountability" who must be shielded from the consequences of his own choices.

(***) Turning logic and language on their heads was Derrida's specialty and his claim to fame.

Continue reading ...

About that 'Reset' Button

Neo, commenting at Q&O:
Apparently, Hillary Clinton’s own “2nd Amendment people” have been busy shooting down this poor man, a former DNC staffer, Seth Rich, on the streets of DC as WikiLeaks now claims that Rich was the source of the leaked DNC emails.

The bumbling “experts” the Hillary campaign used to claim it was the Russians were completely wrong, as the former Secretary of State’s campaign risked inflaming relations with the Russians for domestic political purposes.
Hillary’s famous “Reset Button” with the Russians just keeps on paying dividends, doesn’t it?

Gateway Pundit: Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source!

One wonders how poor Hillary finds the fortitude to soldier on when people around her keep turning up dead.

The Washington Post: WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer’s killer

Edit--

On the other hand (and don't be all shocked if this comment is deleted)
If Rich really was the Wikileaks mole inside the DNC, then why not just say so? Rich is dead, so it's not like Assange really needs to continue protecting his source. Assange should fish or cut bait.

Continue reading ...

Friday, August 5, 2016

What a hypocritical asshole

Vox Day "If you're still foolish enough to swallow the false assertion that free trade is beneficial to America, perhaps you should consider if you believe any of the other lies you are being told by the same people."

Me (no link, as he deleted the post, as I was sure he would): "If you're still foolish enough to swallow the false assertion that [using government violence to compel the many who are not politically connected to subsidize the choices of the few who are politically connected] is beneficial to America, perhaps you should consider if you believe any of the other lies you are being told by the same people.

Fixed it for you.
"


Vox Day "I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Ilion, and merely delete your comment. Never, ever "fix" my words or attempt to speak for me again.

You can speak for yourself. You do not speak for me even in jest. You are not my editor, you are not my employer, you are a guest here and you are expected to comport yourself accordingly.
"

Look at this pathetic (*) God-damned (**) -- and I mean that quite literally -- liar. He knows full well that I wasn't even pretending to "speak for" him.

And *I* know full well that (in this instance) "comport yourself accordingly" is Voxspeak for "don't you ever *explain*, in any venue where I can suppress it, what the protectionism I espouse cashes out to in practice".

Look everyone, in the end, Vox Day -- that self-proclaimed opponent of The State As God -- will be advocating full-on fascism (***) (not that he is that far from it even now), which is to say, The State As God (**).


(*) Have you seen and heard the man? In his "philosophy", he's sub-"beta". In his "philosophy", the mere sight of his mesomorphic mug, or fluting of his 12-year old girl voice, causes pussies around the world to fill up with sand.

(**) He is *not* a Christian, but he does seek to use semi-Christians to further a political agenda; he is *not* for the individual's liberty from government busybody interference; he is *not* for the individual's ownership of, and enjoyment of the fruit of, his own labor

(***) Shoot! He has already half way boarded the German version of that particular train. One may notice not just many of his "Ilk" (most of whom are functionally idiots), but also he himself employing the (((echo))) "meme". Because, after all, every problem in the world is traceable to (((Teh Jooos!)))

Continue reading ...

'Let's All Get Banned From Facebook' #1

Me (on Facebook): "I'm thinking I'll try to get myself banned from Facebook -- wouldn't it be great if everyone who claims to care about [and] oppose the on-going destruction of our civilization would do likewise?

Attempt #1 -- His name is BRUCE and he is not a woman.
"

By the way, leftists can state the truth about ol' Bruce, when they want to (see this comedian's routine 2:35 YouTube video -- "You most certainly are not a traditional girl")

Continue reading ...

But what sort of martyr?

Maureen Mullarkey at TheFederalist: Was Jacques Hamel A Martyr To The Faith Or To His Illusions About Islam?
Set aside, if you can, all horror at Hamel’s murder. Look past, please, all warranted sympathy for this good man and his terrible end. There remains a question: Was the priest a martyr for the faith or to his own illusions about Islam?

By all accounts a kindly man, Hamel served in a parish committed to the very illusion of ecumenical agreement with Islam that de Mattei abhors. The Belfast Telegraph reports the nuns gave reading lessons to Muslim kids in the tower blocks. Church authorities soared above such neighborliness. Courting dhimmitude, they donated the land beside Hamel’s church to local Muslims to build the mosque his two young killers attended. During Ramadan, the parish hall “and other facilities” were given over to Muslims. (In terms of Islamic jurisprudence, the mosque and the ground under it belong forever to the eternal ummah. The archdiocese has ceded a portion of Normandy to the caliphate. Allah be praised.)

In his last pastoral letter, Hamel called for communities to live together and “accept each other as they are.” But accepting Islam means recognizing its totalizing nature. Authentic acceptance is unsentimental. It is a prod to staying watchful. To befriend Muslims as individuals does not cancel the necessity to know Islam’s history, its millenarian ambitions, and its enduring theological imperative toward violence.

Christian charity does not entail any obligation to accommodate Islam’s muscular expansion in the West. One way to love the enemy is to defeat him. Yet Hamel’s parish was actively lending itself to Islam’s ascendancy. Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray is a lesson in the price Christianity pays for the fanaticism of profligate mercy.

Continue reading ...

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Burn in Hell, commie pinko!

The Federalist (March 10, 2015 By Sean Davis): Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections

This one, too -- TownHall.com: McCaskill: Trump May Have Violated the Logan Act With Russian Remarks

Isn't the bottled outrage of leftists just so precious?

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

All Lies Matter, II

David Warren: Confronting evil with joss sticks -- "...
The French president said it
[the brutal murder by Moslems of a Catholic priest at the altar of a Catholic church where he had been officiating the Mass] was an attack on all French citizens, which presumably includes the citizen Islamists; our pope called the violence “absurd.” I find these lies in extremely poor taste. It was not an attack on all Frenchmen, but symbolically on a Catholic priest. And it was not absurd, but purposefully directed to that end. Father Jacques Hamel was martyred during the morning Mass. His throat slit, then by some accounts, beheaded; two nuns and two others at prayer also seized and tormented; and another throat slit; while a rant was delivered from the altar, in Arabic.

I am truly disgusted by remarks from Rome that we hope the elderly priest is at peace, and that we condemn “every form of hatred.” This reduces the teaching of Our Lord to the asinine. Reference to Islam was carefully avoided.

One wonders what atrocity the Islamists must commit, to make their point more explicit.

I really don’t care if they hate us. That is their opinion, and none of my concern. I do care that they are trying to kill us, on the basis of verses plausibly cited from the Koran. Would it hurt their feelings if we called them on this?
"

A previous pope popularized (and, so far as I know, coined) the phrase "culture of death" to describe the suicidal direction that the post-Christian Western cultures have deliberately taken since turning their backs on the heritage, and religion, of their fathers; the current pope appears to have to have made his peace with the "culture of death" and to have dived headlong into it.

I'm so glad that as a Protestant and a Christian (*), I don't feel any need at all to contort myself defending that fool (nor the French one, for that matter).



(*) Yes, I went there. And, as Warren says of Moslems hating us, "I really don’t care" that (some) Catholics will get their panties into a twist -- hypocritically, in every case -- because I distinguish between Catholicism -- a bureaucracy which claims to own Christianity -- and Christianity itself.

While not claiming any "word from God" nor gift of prophesy, it certainly appears to me that the time is upon us when Catholics will have to choose: do you stand with Christ, or do you stand with the self-anointed "vicar of Christ"?

Continue reading ...