The "alt-right" is "alternative" to conservatism because it's just more leftism

K T Cat: Ta-Nehisi's Inverse -- "In a substantive way, the Left screaming about racism is just the Left screaming at itself."

K T Cat links to a tweet by one Sissy Willis, saying --

"Vox Day says the alt-right is conservative. It’s actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." … "

My comment -

Actually, VD emphatically denies that "alt-right" is conservative -- he *despises* conservatism [and conservatives] -- so, that's one of the few times he's honest.

And, yes indeed, "alt-right" *is* "actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." Or, to put it another way, it's just another variant of collectivism ... which is left, not right.

The "alt-right" is just as inimical to individual liberty as any other variant of leftism is.


K T Cat: Jordan Peterson Destroys The Myth Of The Alt-Right

To paraphrase Kathy Shaidle, "It you see "alt-right" and "antifa" battling in the street, the correct response is not to pick sides, but to pray for a meteor strike."

ps: Peterson is also not a conservative, much less a Christian.

============
Donald Sensing: Mass shootings - a few relevant links

Posterity!

The breathtakingly intellectually dishonest 'Vox Day' -- who, by his own (ahem) reasoning, is not actually an American; and who thus, again by his own (ahem) reasoning, has no right to express any opinions about what American is or is not; ... and who, moreover, has abandoned America many years ago -- has recently been on a kick trying to assert that the "Posterity" to whom the Preamble (*) of the US Constitution refers can *only* be persons who are the direct, genetic, biological descendants of those persons who were US citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution. (See here for a recent example.)

Oddly enough, that very document -- which, seemingly, no one ever reads -- makes explicit provision for foreigners to be incorporated into the body of "We the People of the United States". Apparently, the Framers of the Constitution, and the citizens who ratified it, were too ignorant, or too stupid, to understand that "our Posterity" cannot ever include anyone who is not a direct, genetic, biological descendant of themselves.


Being myself a direct, genetic, biological descendant of persons who were US citizens in 1787, and moreover whose white ancestors have been on this continent almost from the beginning of English settlement, I would like to propose that 'Vox Day' dry up and blow away.

(*) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

'Comparative Advantage' Explained

David Friedman explains Comparative Advantage

Gentle Reader may recall that the notoriously dishonest 'Vox Day' likes to assert that 'comparative advantage' is a false theory (*), and that ergo 'free trade' is disadvantageous to one partner in the trade, namely the wealthier one (i.e. *us*), and that ergo, 'free trade' makes us less wealthy as a nation and as individuals, and that ergo protectionism -- that is, using the threat of government force and violence to compel most of us to subsidize a few of us (**) -- will make us wealthier as a nation and as individuals.

One of the things I wish Gentle Reader to notice about the above "logic" is the conflation, in tried-and-true leftist fashion, between the individual and the collective. This deliberate conflation is why I say that 'Vox Day' is a leftist, for all his claiming that his so-called "alt-right" is the *real* right. Given the direction of appeal to your passions, he is more a fascist than a communist; but fascism is just as much socialism and just as much "of the left" as communism is.

As I have explained before --

* If I buy a bottle of wine from my neighbor across the street, the conducted trade is between two actual individual human beings; surely even those who have never given such matters any thought can see that;

* If, however, I buy a bottle of wine from a producer in California, does the true situation change? Is the trade still between two actual individual human beings (albeit with some number of middle-men in between us for marketing and transport and so forth)? Or, has the trade somehow been elevated to some collective level, such that the trade is now actually between the State of Ohio and the State of California? Surely even those who have never given such matters any thought can see that nothing fundamental has changed about the trade itself, it is *still* one individual trading his money for another individual's goods; the difference is that now two (or more) government entities have become aware of the trade between the two individuals and consequently desire to tax it;

* But, suppose I decide instead to buy a bottle of wine from a producer in France. Has the true situation changed? Is the trade still between two actual individual human beings (albeit with some number of middle-men in between us for marketing and transport and so forth)? Or, has the trade somehow been elevated to some collective level, such that the trade is now actually between the United States of America and the Republic of France? Surely even those who have never given such matters any thought can see that nothing fundamental has changed about the trade itself, it is *still* one individual trading his money for another individual's goods; the difference is that now two (or more) government entities have become aware of the trade between the two individuals and consequently desire to tax it;

* ERGO: 'free trade' between nation-states is no more disadvantageous to anyone with a legitimate interest in the matter than 'free trade' between you and the guy across the street is. Whom 'free trade' is disadvantageous to are those individuals who are unwilling to offer to you some good or service you desire to buy at a price that you would freely choose to pay had you less expensive alternatives available. Thus, *those* individuals tend to demand 'protectionism'; that is, they demand that the state use the thread of force and violence-unto-death to prevent you from freely trading with the fellow who *is* unwilling to offer to you the good or service you desire to buy at a price that you would freely choose to pay given the available alternatives.

'Protectionism' is not about protecting *you*, and it will never "Make America Great Again". 'Protectionism' is about protecting the income-stream of the organized and politically connected few at the expense of the unorganized many. And *you* are in "the many", always.



(*) He asserts that 'comparative advantage' has been logically and empirically shown to be contrary-to-reality ... apparently, some guy somewhere waved his arms, and Presto! So, Gentle Reader, if you are unsure of what the concept 'comparative advantage' signifies, please do read Mr Friedman's discussion and illustrations of it.

(**) How did that very same reasoning work out for "green energy" and "ObamaCare"?

=========
On a related side note --

Given (as shown above) that governments do not engage in trade, but rather that individuals do, the "trade deficit" is a boogeyman.

If Americans collectively buy more goods and services from Frenchmen than Frenchmen buy from Americans, that fact itself does not harm the United States of America. If this state of affairs persists for a hundred years, it still does not harm the United States of America. If, after the one hundred years, certain Americans are so indebted to certain Frenchmen that they can no longer find lenders willing to lend them even more money to continue in the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed, that still does not harm the United States of America.

What *will* harm the United States of America is if the living-beyond-their-means of some individual Americans -- no matter if those persons *never* buy foreign goods -- is subsidized by the government of the United States of America taking on debt so as to give them the money to continue to live beyond their means.

And that is the situation in which we find ourselves.

=========
On a second and very related side note --

Another conflation that the notoriously dishonest 'Vox Day' likes to assert in his quest to convince you to agree to economically hobble yourself ... and to do it to me via threat of government violence-unto death ... is between an actual human being and the labor of that human being. This is what he is doing when he joins (some) libertarians and "liberals" (i.e. the "progressive" dupes of the leftists) in asserting that the logic of 'free trade' entails a commitment to 'open borders' ... and thus to the destruction of one's very nation via demographic and cultural replacement.

Let us consider this:

If I buy a bottle of wine, I am not buying *only* fermented grape juice. Hell! I could ferment some grape juice, but it would not be wine (*), and I would not risk my health to consume it. No, if I buy a bottle of wine, I am also (and I would say *primarily*) buying the knowledge and labor of the producer.

So, whether I buy that bottle of wine from a Californian or from a Frenchman, I am also buying the knowledge and labor of that person; but I am not buying the person himself.

What the notoriously dishonest 'Vox Day' is asserting with his dishonest conflation of the labor for the laborer is that IF you allow me to import the labor of a Frenchman, THEN you must also allow me to import the Frenchman himself.

That, as the saying goes, does not follow. ERGO, the conflation if 'free trade' with 'open borders' is a lie.


(*) My parents used to buy and can produce, including grapes. Now and again, a jar didn't seal properly, and we'd end up with a jar of fermented grapes.

Genetic 'explanations' for human behavior

As I've mentioned in passing, I'm 59 years old. As with most older people, I can no longer focus properly on close work, such as when reading a book; no doubt most of this is due to age, but I expect that part of it is because I have spent most of my life staring at computer screens. Also, I understand that for most people, this inability to focus properly generally becomes a problem at about age 40. In my case, I began noticing it at around age 52 or 53 ... and, to this day, cheap (i.e. $1.50) reading glasses, at the lowest level (1.25) take care of the problem for me.

On the other hand, my mother needed glasses before age 30 and my father not long after. My twin sisters needed glasses from childhood. Our brother is somewhere in between (but closer to my condition that to the girls').

So, two human beings, both of whom had faulty vision from a relatively young age, produced four children (with three genetic profiles), two of whom (having a single genetic profile) had worse vision that either of the parents (*), and two of whom had better vision that either of them, and at least one of those has vision that is at least one or two standard deviations better than average.

So, given how useless looking at peoples' genes would be in telling one physical facts about their children, such as what the children's vision would be like, how does it even begin to make sense to "explain" human behavior in terms of genes, especially when one ignores culture to do so?



(*) My sisters had three children each, and only one of the six needed glasses as a child.

Of course you didn't ...

... because you're a collectivist racist bigot conspiracy-theorist blinded by your Jew-envy.

Vox Day: "I was just surprised; I know Israelis think very differently than US Jews, but I didn't realize their view on US politics were almost polar opposites."

The Street Called "Hate" Runs Both Ways

Kathy Shaidle: An open letter to those Jewish ladies on Facebook who REALLY hate Christians -- "... Anyhow, don’t worry: If you really cared about this, you would just go visit this pastor and his congregation and I’m pretty sure that after about 5 minutes, they wouldn’t like Jews as much any more!"

Yeppers. Some Jews are as irrational and as hate-filled toward Christianity and Christians -- and as irrational in their hatreds -- as the people who "((()))"


EDIT: Of course, the *other* thing about Miss Shaidle's open letter is the tribalism of Catholics in America (in this context, Canada counts as being part of America), including (or especially?) the ones, such as Miss Shaidle, who are only culturally Catholic. In a very real way, "non-observant" Catholics mirror "non-observant" Jews when it comes to waving the tribal banner.

Son of Bel

My email inbox delivered to me a new comment posted by 'Ray' to a recent thread on Dalrock's blog, most of which I duplicate here:

I am not a Protestant. Stop building boxes for others, there, Boxer. I will decide what I am, and what I am not. And writing the truth is not an insult, except to those who don’t like the truth. You pretend that’s a waste of time. Apparently you were invested enough to comment, though, hm?

Speaking of the truth, and of friends, my friends are those who follow the One Lord and love his Scripture. You’re against feminism but you’re not in that category? Then you aren’t my friend or ‘family’. Red Pill don’t mean shit.

Dalrock’s OP is a link to writings by somebody calling themselves ‘Supreme Dark Lord’. No real Christian would ever support or advance such a person . . . except that folks desperately want to be liked and accepted, don’t they? They want to be on the Cool Team with the popular edgy Dark Lord and his Grouplings. So they ally themselves with their sad “Supreme Dark Lord” and pretend it’s all a joke. But billing yourself as Lord in this world is no joke.

Your beloved Dark Lord is surnamed Beale, which means “Son of Bel.” I don’t think you’re a Christian, so wouldn’t expect you to understand, but any Christian or lover of Scripture knows who Bel is. It is not Jesus Christ. Therefore I’m unsurprised when Supreme Dark Lord Vox, Son of Bel, places the names of Jews in parentheses, to intimidate. He pretends his motivation is nationalism and the health of ‘Western Civilization’, which he will fix — but your Supreme Dark Lord sneaks around the Continent with some very anti-Christian elements. His tactics are overtly anti-Semitic, his political friends are zealously anti-Semitic, and yet ‘Christians’ ignore this, because they don’t have the courage to stand against the Group. They want to be Big Players like their hero, Son of Bel, and get lots of attention. Be Movers and Shakers. And I see that today, their supposed ‘opponent’ is busy giving them exactly what they desire, more publicity for ego-aggrandizement, and for the advancement of their cause, which is not the Christian cause of building the Kingdom of Christ on Earth.

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Bel? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6)

You are either with Bel, or with Christ. There is no in-between, and you cannot promote the works of Bel, and of Bel’s servants, and still pretend obedience to the Lord. I mean the real Lord, not some arrogant, cowardly punk with Little Man Syndrome.

Other than 'Ray's' faulty etymology of Vox Day's surname, I agree with what he wrote (and the reasoning) -- Vox Day (that is, Theodore Beale) *is* an anti-Semite, and he is not a Christian, and he is, in fact, in direct opposition to Christianity: that is, he is indeed a "son of Bel".

Vox Day may call his politics-and-economics "alt-right", but it's just the same old leftism that has been quashing human liberty, and human lives, for the past century -- "alt-right" is just the new name for fascism (unlike the leftists, who use that term to mean "people I don't like", I am using it correctly).

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?

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.

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!)))

I'm smarter than Vox Day!

A recent Vox Day post is one of his interminable screeds concerning his social interactions with "gamma males", toward the end of which he writes: "Once more, Camestros provides us with sufficient evidence to safely conclude that if IQ is a reasonable measure of innate intelligence, his is considerably lower than mine. It's funny that despite being such a questionable metric, a similar percentile just seems to keep showing up no matter how it's measured.

[Bell-curve graphic result from the linked on-line quiz (*), according to which his English vocabulary is 30150, which is said to be in the top 0.01%]

Of course, my actual vocabulary is probably more than twice that, but then, we're not counting Italian, German, French, or Japanese vocabularies."

[Edit: Can you see me rolling my eyes? Having a massive Italian vocabulary has next to nothing to do with one's English vocabulary]

Normally, I avoid on-line quizzes, especially ones purporting to measure or reflect IQ. But I took this one (*). The quiz result claims that my English vocabulary is 30325 (also in the top 0.01%, obviously).

So, according to Vox Day himself, I likely have a higher IQ than he does.


(*) It's 50 multiple-choice synonym/antonym matches. [EDIT: If you dare, take the quiz and post the result in the commbox]

Here is a comment posted to the quiz, which seems to me to be the best explanation for a high score -- "... Also, I'm seeing in comments that people are trying to correlate their score with their educational levels (or brag that they got a high score with relatively low education). I would posit that one's score has less to do with formal education and more to do with how much one reads."

Myself, I understand -- and use in writing -- a much greater vocabulary than I use in speaking.

Reasoning with Vox Day

You can't, not when he is committed to being in the wrong (*), and not when he controls the venue.


Consider this exchange-which-will-not-be --

In response to a couple of the all-too-common anti-semites (**) there, I posted this

never again @7 "Have you noticed that most Jews are against Trump?"

tz @10 "70% of US Jews voted for Obama in 2012."

Which is to say, a bunch of leftists who hate their grandparents' religion as much as they hate mine voted for Obama.

Why are you people such morons? Why do you people "reason" just like leftists do, and the[n] try to pretend that there is some substantive difference between leftists and yourselves?

And within minutes, Ol' VD himself responded thusly:

Which is to say, a bunch of leftists who hate their grandparents' religion as much as they hate mine voted for Obama.

Who said anything about religion? Who cares why they acted as they did, the point is that they did it.

Why are you people such morons? Why do you people "reason" just like leftists do, and the[n] try to pretend that there is some substantive difference between leftists and yourselves?

How is citing incontrovertible and easily confirmed facts reasoning "just like leftists do"? Do you really think leftists are known for correctly citing the facts?

Who are you trying to fool, and why?

Everything about this response is intellectually dishonest. But then, what else can one expect of a hypocrite such as 'Vox Day'?

Look, you God-damned (***) leftist hypocrite, go back to Mexico! (****)


(*) But then, that's true of everyone; it's just extra annoying coming from him because:
- it's clear that he *can* reason
- he likes to boast about his vast intellect and his commitment to rigorous reasoning.

(**) And believe me, I don't use that term lightly. In my opinion, the only thing worse than an anti-semite is someone who "refutes" any criticism of a Jew, or of Jewish persons, or as is more commonly the case, of a leftist/atheist whose grandparents were Jews, by shrieking about "anti-semitism".

(***) I also don't make that evaluation lightly.

(****) Yes, I know that he has already left/repudiated the USA. That was rhetoric; I expect he gets the point, even if he'll never acknowledge it, and sees the humor: how he must chuckle to himself as an "Aztec" and a "descendant of a Mexican revolutionary" to be the intellectual (such as it is) leader of a gaggle of low-rent whites who see "da Jooos" behind every tree.

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.

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.

Every path leads to the same destination

Vox Day: The Devil's own --

It is not uncommon for people to ask me why I treat atheists, particularly those of the militant or evangelical variety, with such open contempt. The reason is very simple. The only way they can be reached, the only way they can even begin thinking rationally about Christianity instead of thoughtlessly reacting to it, is for their pride to be broken first. Since their pride tends to revolve around their intelligence, it usually requires a higher intelligence to break it and I happen to be reasonably well-equipped in that regard.

It's not knowledge that keeps men like Phil from submitting to the Most High, to the Creator God of the Universe, it is pride in the independent consciousness that they possess as a gift from the very tyrant they refuse to serve. As an arrogant man myself, I recognize that fierce and independent pride when I see it. I even admire it, to a certain extent. But I also know its futility, and worse, its sheer pointlessness.

Does the jar demand the potter admire its beauty? Is the jar foolish enough to be proud of its existence separate from the very mind that conceived it, the very hands that shaped it and brought it into being? Does the jar so lack perception that it fails to grasp it can be unmade as easily as it was made by its maker?

In what, O jar, is your petty pride?

How strange it is that those who refuse to grovel [bow] before God so readily bow [grovel] before other men and genuflect before some of the most foolish ideas of Man ever conceived. And how pointless, when we know that one day every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord. Serve freely or defy as you see fit, because every path leads to the same destination, submission before the Almighty.

Other than his choice of wording in the sentence I "fixed", this analysis of the pious (and cynically self-serving) myths about their commitment to Reason! that 'atheists' use as rationales for their God-hatred is pretty spot-on.

An example of intellectual dishonesty

Gentle Reader may recall that while I sometimes link to him, I nonetheless have serious misgivings about Vox Day, due to his intellectual dishonesty when it suits him to be intellectually dishonest.

Here are two of his recent posts illustrating his intellectual dishonesty on politics --

Vox Day:They're not the good guys
Vox Day:Why the US embraced torture

Now, he *knows* that this joke of a "report" released by Senator Feinstein is just poison leftist "gotcha" politics. He *knows* that what she's calling 'torture' is nothing of the sort. He *knows* that the entire point of it is to "poison the well" for the incoming Republican Senate majority.

But, this "report" serves his purpose to:
1) demonize George Bush;
2) demonize those perfidious Jews neo-Cons who had such clout in the Bush II administration;
therefore, he will pretend it isn't a transparent leftist smear.


Here is Democratic Senator Bob Kerry -- no conservative, he! -- criticizing the "report" as a partisan disservice to America Sen. Bob Kerrey: Partisan torture report fails America

Here is Bruce McQuain (at QandO blog) discussing what's going on -- and of which Vox Day *knows* -- with this "report" Politics at its worst (update) -- Do note Mr McQuain's update at the bottom of the post.

The banality of US evil

Vox Day, quoting 'ESR': The banality of US evil --

"... Eric Garner died in a New York minute because “soft despotism” turned hard enough to kill him in cold blood. There was no anger there, no hate; the police simply failed to grasp the moral disproportion between the “crimes” he wasn’t even committing at the time and their use of force. And an investigating grand jury did no better.

Violent racists, as evil as they are, generally understand on some level that they’re doing wrong. That understanding is written all over the excuses they make. These cops didn’t need an excuse. They were doing their job. They were enforcing the law. The casual, dispassionate, machinelike brutality with which Garner was strangled reveals a moral vacuum more frightening than mere racism could ever be."

Douglas Wilson (at Blog and Mablog) has a number of very good essays about the case, but the comment Vox Day quotes really gets to the heart of the matter: "We were simply doing our jobs -- following orders -- for your own good."

Something I've often said applies here: if there is ever a coup (*) in America, it won't be the military supplying the bully-boy muscle to enforce it, it will be the civilian police doing that.

Something else to keep in mind: most of the people "protesting" the grand jury decision, and thereby disruping or even endangering others' lives, don't give a damn about the real issues (and outrages) involved -- they care only that there was a white cop involved.


(*) assuming we aren't already living with the after-effects of a "soft coup" engineered by the self-selected elites.

Making the National Socialist approach to mass murder look moderate

More socialized medicine in action -- Vox Day: Dutch slaughter

Perversion in SF/F

Vox Day has recently been on a tear concerning pederasts, and winking at pederasty, within the Science Fiction and Fantasy Establishment. Here is his most recent post on the matter

Now, I love sf and f, and have since I was a kid (I used to walk downtown to the public library and sit there for hours as I read books; I think I read most of them over the years). I figured out when I was still a kid that there was something not right about, say, MZB and Samuel Delany. What I mean is, I didn't even need to know that MZB had molested her own daughter (and other children, according to the daughter) to know that she was perverted. I didn't even need to know that Delany was a proponent of NAMBLA to know that he was perverted.

DarwinDefender of the day

In responding to someone on his LiveJournal blog, Jordan said, and I responded:

Jordan: I sense a huge double standard here.

Vox Day argues dubious science (creationism) on religious grounds, and he argues dubious sociology (Blacks and Hispanics less able to form and participate in civil society than Whites) based on outdated theories of eugenics. He does not, please note, argue for theocracy or for Nazi-like racial wars. ...

Ilíon: "Vox Day argues dubious science (creationism) on religious grounds, ..."

Actually, that part isn't true. The truth is this: "Vox Day argues *against* dubious science (evolutionism) on rational-and-scientific grounds, ..."


Jordan: I get that you're a crank where biology is concerned. I've made an extensive study of paleontology and am very aware of the interconnecting webwork of evidence that supports the age of the Earth and the reality of evolution. Stop trying to muddy the issue -- you're only making your own side look crazier.


Ilíon: And I get it that there are things that you just *will not* think about.

Do you really imagine that it bothers me that someone like that calls me a "crank"?

And come to think of it, the second part of Jordan's statement ("... and he argues dubious sociology (Blacks and Hispanics less able to form and participate in civil society than Whites) based on outdated theories of eugenics") isn't *quite* true, either.

What is it about DarwinDefenders that they *will not* admit that there are valid rational and scientific criticisms to be leveled against what Jordan calls "evolution"? What is it about DarwinDefenders that when they encounter a criticism of Darwinism something causes their DarLogic Module to short out such that all they can then bleat is "Religion! Danger! Religion! Danger!"