The Food Stamp [Recipients] Are Officially Out Of Control

The title of Matt Walsh's linked video is "The Food Stamp Influencers On TikTok Are Officially Out Of Control", but I like my version of it better.

At the start of my 10th grade year, so more than 50 years ago, my father was laid up for months due to a broken hip(*). Then, less than a year and a half later (**), he was laid up again with the *other* hip broken.  

SO, for a while, my family relied on Food Stamps -- and it was damned embarrassing, it was shame-inducing.  Once I was old enough to have a part-time job, when I had the money to do so, I'd buy the family groceries with my own money and return the food stamps unspent to my mother, just to avoid the embarrassment of pulling the damned things out in public.  I also planted a garden in the back yard to grow some of our food.

But, as I said, that was 50+ years ago; and my, how times have changed.  These days, people *boast* about being government dependents (***), living as wards of Big Momma Government, rather than as functioning adults; people *boast* about using their vote to install politicians and bureaucrats who loot you and me to subsidize themselves (meaning, both the voters and the voted-for).

(*) As he was crossing the street -- legally, in the cross-walk, with the crossing-light -- a young woman stopped at the intersection, distracted by arguing with her boyfriend, must have slipped her foot off the brake.  Anyway, she rolled forward, struck my father, and his hip broke.

(**) He was heading downtown on foot one winter day, As he passed the spot where a building had been demolished the previous summer, he stepped on a piece of ice-covered busted-up sidewalk that hadn't been fixed after the demolition, and down he went.

(***) I recently saw a video clip of a couple of fat lesbians (one of whom pretends to be a man), boasting about free-loading off you and me.  The one literally called herself "professionally disabled" -- that is, she's on welfare because she "can't" work to support herself -- and added that "he" (i.e. the other lesbian) is "paid to take care of me" -- that is, she is enrolled in another type of government-run welfare-scam to fleece you and me for the benefit primarily of the bureaucrats and secondarily of their clientele. 

I recently saw another clip of a woman bitching because she could no longer use the EBT card to pay to have her nails done. Horror of horrors, she had to use "her own money" to pay for the utterly useless and pointless nails.  Or, as she lamented, "Now, how am I going to pay the rent?"

=====
In America, "poor people" aren't "poor" primarily because they have no money, but because of their own choices: either to not work and earn money in the first place, or to frivolously waste what money they do acquire. In America, being "poor" is a choice.  In America, most "poor people" are "poor" because they are damned lazy.

Matt Walsh: The Food Stamp Influencers On TikTok Are Officially Out Of Control

"They" Don't Need to Keep You Down; You're Doing Fine By Your Own Efforts

Open letter to the American people --

Times are tough, everyone agrees: a person just can't get ahead. Rent, food, gass: everything is just so expensive.

That's why --

You are still smoking (of either/or sort) and drinking. Frequently.

You sit in your car -- sometimes for hours -- with the engine running, so that the A/C can be on ... as you doom-scroll on your phone.

You have the latest cell phone for every member of the family, including the children, with associated *monthly* costs. Oddly, you almost never use those phones to actually *talk* to anyone.

Every year, you spend hundreds of dollars you don't have "doing" Christmas. After all, you "deserve" it.

You also spend a small fortune to have a personal fireworks show, possibly for several nights running.

You insist on taking an expensive vacation every year.

You simply must have your "weave" and claws and spider-lashes, and the nails of your fingers and toes must be artistically painted. To say nothing of the expensive "product" with which you slather your face.

How  many hundreds or dollars, if not thousands, have you thrown away defacing your body with tattoos and piercings?

You eat "fast food", daily ... and pay someone an outrageous amount of money to deliver it to you. Someone could make a fortune offering to shovel it into your gullet for a price.

If you *do* happen to have a "home-cooked" meal, it was made of pre-packaged ultra-processed "convenience foods", rather than of basic ingredients that you could have purchased for a fraction of the cost.

I could go on and on; but the wise have already got the message, and those who haven't never will.

My point is this -- whether or not "THEY" are conspiring to "keep you down", they really don't need to: you do a fine job of that all on your own.

When Is Charity Not?

Notice the high-lighted claim this "whistleblower" makes -- the "migrant shelter" he was running was charging the tax-payers of Massachusetts $180 per room per night, even if the room was empty. *Someone* is making bank from this "charity".

Most institutional charity involves some sort of scam, and often fraud; it the very least, it is based on false premises. If there is "government money" involved, you can be sure that there is fraud involved ... and *you*, Dear Taxpayer, are on the hook for funding the scam.

I live in the middle of a city of 50K. This is an older part of the city, so the lots are on the small side, but they still average at least 50x150; that is, they are large enough that the residents could have a nice garden, did they wish to do the work to put in and maintain one.

Several years ago, the city -- at tax-payer expense -- put in a "community garden" on a vacant lot a few blocks from my house. During the summer, the city sends a water-truck around to water the "gardens". Shortly after creating the "gardens", the city -- again at tax-payer expense -- had to put a fence around the lot, to protect the "gardens" from vandalism (*). This wasn't a cheap fence; it's wrought-iron. And, it's gate is kept locked, except at posted times. So, that means that the city pays a public employee to come around to unlock the gate. I presume, but don't know, that that employee stays on the premises, at tax-payer expense, during open hours.

A few years ago, at a lot perhaps 1/2 mile from my house, a "charitable group", I presume a church, started serving a free meal once a day (at noon), regardless of weather. Because weather exists, they built a roof over the serving area. Then, due to the behavior of their clientele, they had to install ground-to-ceiling fencing around the roofed area. And, no surprise, the picnic tables are chained to weights.

I sometimes see some of the regulars "served" by this "charity". They tend to smoke, at the very least cigarettes; I've seen some of them "paper-bagging" alcohol. My point is that by indiscriminately giving people "free" food, what the "charity" is *really* doing is subsidizing their tobacco, and pot, and alcohol, and smart-phones.

(*) It's possible that what the city saw as vandalism was actually damage from deer. You see, while I live in the middle of a city of 50K, there is a family of deer who make my property their home-base. And that "community garden" is certainly close enough to be visited by them.

Every year, the matriarch doe has two fawns. Just the other day, I startled this year's twins. She seems to allow the previous year's fawns to stay with her, and I sometimes see all five together. A couple of years ago, I stepped out the front door and encountered a buck. It's not uncommon, as I'm working in my (fenced) garden, to notice one or two young deer watching me.

Believe you me, you don't want deer living in your yard: they eat nearly everything you try to grow.

Ex-Migrant Shelter Director Blows Whistle on Fraud

When Is a "Disabled" Person Not A "Disabled" Person?

Q: When Is a "Disabled" Person Not A "Disabled" Person?
A: Most of the time; and especially if there is a blue "Handicapped-On-Board" danglie on the rear-view mirror.

Diagnoses of 'Disability' -- whether in the military or in civilian life -- are in large part a scam of well-off people against the rest of us.

Consider the seemingly less contentious issue of "handicapped parking" -- When have you *ever* seen someone who is clearly "handicapped" using a "handicapped parking" spot?

No, what you almost always see played out is something I witnessed a few days ago at a home supply store. I had parked, and as I was opening the truck's door, another fellow parked near me ... and *then* affixed one of those blue "Handicapped-On-Board" danglies to his rear-view mirror Apparently, he didn't want other drivers to think he was a gimp. So, I sat in the truck to watch. He was not handicapped; I later encountered him in the store a couple of times. He was not handicapped.

Look, my mother was "handicapped" ... and I *detest* the "handicapped" mentality, and indeed the very term. To use *honest* straight-forward language, my mother was crippled. She was crippled from birth ... and her condition was made worse when she was a small child by *American* doctors and government bureaucrats using her as a human guinea-pig, much as was being done at the same time in Weimar Germany.

I can assure you, from many years experience of taking a crippled person shopping, that "handicapped parking" spots, no matter how close they are to the store entrance, are not really much of a help (*) to people who actually are "handicapped". But, they are indeed very useful to a certain type of upper-middle-class person (of either race) who wants the extra benefit of "reserved parking".

(*) It is much more helpful to your "handicapped" person to pull up to the entrance, help him or her exit the vehicle, go park it, and then meet the person. Why in the Hell would I have made my mother do all that extra walking (on crutches) just so that I had a "reserved" spot nearer the entrance?

Chicks on the Right: This Is Not What Disability Is Meant For!

Mossad ... and Equal Measures

You will see people asserting, with great pretense of knowledge, that Jeffery Epstein was a Mossad "asset", and that his criminal and immoral activities were done in furtherance of the interests of the State of Israel and in contradistinction to the interests of America.

Maybe this is so, I don't know either way. But, I *do* know, as a matter of reason, that Epstein could not have done what he did, nor for as long as he did, without the active protection of *American* "intelligence services".

So, here is my point -- when you see people blaming *Israel* for Epstein, and before any real evidence is in, but excusing America on the grounds that the CIA has "gone rogue", you can be assured that you are dealing with a Jew-hater, not a seeker of truth. And certainly not a Christian, for God requires us to judge with the same measure.

EDIT (2025/03/04):

Douglas Wilson: So Jeffrey Epstein Was a Jew . . .

Problem ... Solution

Problem ... Letters to Hannah: The wages of sin

I think I now (finally) understand why Mr Egerer has rejected Christianity; and it turns out to be the most common of reasons.

Solution ... Blog and Mablog: Complicity and the Christ

A Perfect Example

This post -- A Dishonest Church Disguised as a Nation -- is a perfect example of the America-hating "neo-reactionary" fools who populate "The Orthoshpere". And, because they hate America and its foundational principles, some of them even imagine they can ally with "the old left".

They won't allow me to post criticisms on their site of the foolish things they say --

Chesterton said that America was “a nation with the soul of a church” because it was not a natural, historical nation, formed over time by blood and custom, but was a theoretical nation formed around a creed.

This assertion is as false-to-reality as Vox Day's opposite assertion that America is *nothing but* a "natural, historical nation, formed over time by blood and custom".

In truth, America is *both* simultaneously.

The creed of this “nation with the soul of a church” is not the Nicene Creed, which means that this “nation with the soul of a church” is a rival church.

The State is not The Nation, however much a state ultimately reflects the society it rules: the American State has long (longer than any of us have been alive) been co-opted by anti-Christian secularists and leftists (*). But, even now, after more than a century, that is a different matter to what America *is*.

(*) And one of the main reasons they are able to do this is because most Americans just aren't that interested in running the lives of other people ... and so, those aberrant individuals who do have that interest face less competition in the public/political sphere than one could wish.

And it is not in any honest sense of the word a nation, since confessing the same creed is not at all the same thing as descending from the same forefathers. The phrase “creedal nation” is a blatant oxymoron, because to say that a nation is a church is as asinine as to say that a baby is a Bible.

So, is that very Bible to which J.M.Smith refers also blatantly oxymoronic in referring to the totality of Christians, confessing the same creed, as a "nation" and a "holy nation" on the basis of that common confession of allegiance to one Lord?

Compare and Contrast

William Vallicella (2017/08/03): Reliably Inconclusive

Such is philosophical argumentation. Philosophers arrive at conclusions, but the conclusions they arrive at are inconclusive.

If the "conclusions" at which "philosophers" arrive are (always-or-generally) inconclusive, then philosophy is worthless.

On the other hand, if what he really means -- and he does (in part) -- is that no matter how "conclusively" one establishes a conclusion, it is always possible for a free being to ignore-and-deny the logical necessity-given-the-premises of the conclusion; that is a free being may assert the premise(s) and yet deny the logical entailment(s) of the very premise(s) he has asserted; or, to use other words: to lie to himself.

As I've said before, Vallicella's problem is that (in almost all cases where it matters) he care more for the chin-wagging side of "philosophy" than he does of logical/rational task of determining/discovering what is true-and-may-be-known-to-be-true. This flaw is most obvious as regards "the God question" -- he's a "theist" who *hates* (and thus denies) the fact that we can know, without recourse to the Biblical Revelation (or any other alleged divine-revelation), using only the application of reason to experience, that there is a Creator-God (that is, that atheism is a false understanding of reality and the nature thereof).


William Vallicella (2017/08/04): A Neurosurgeon on the Immateriality of Thought

Michael Egnor, A Map of the Soul. Not philosophically sophisticated, but worth a look.

Given Vallicella's witticism of just one day prior, who gives a damn that he holds Mr Egnor's piece to be not "philosophically sophisticated"?

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."

Contemptible Coward

This post is to mock the contemptible cowardice of John C. Wright, published science fiction author (*) ... ... and pussified poseur

Check this out --


Explanation follows --




(*) Science fiction author: form your own opinion

His title pretty much sums it up

Dalrock: Do as you please with their wives, so long as you respect her in the morning.

It has been telling that Republican outrage over the audio of Trump describing his attempt to cuckold other men is almost entirely focused on the fact that Trump spoke crudely in describing the way women threw themselves at him. Cuckoldry they don’t mind, but describing slutty women with disrespectful language is unacceptable!

Trump had claimed he pushed a married woman to have sex with him and said he could grab women “by the p****” because he was a celebrity. A recording of his conversation with then-”Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush was published by NBC News and The Washington Post on Friday.

“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” Priebus said in a statement released that night.

As the saying goes: "You know who rules you when you know who you cannot criticize [or speak the truth about]"


edit --
Or, to channel Ann Coulter, the number of women Donald Trump has left unconscious to drown in a submerged car is *still* zero.

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).

'I thought Soros was a Republican'

In the commbox of a recent post by the crudé-minded individual:

the crudé-minded individual: I'm pointing out who leftists are in bed with. Social justice on display, loud and clear: it's another tool of a billionaire atheist who collaborated with the nazis.

What do you think of Soros, Bob?

Bob Prokop: Ha! Prior to your comment, I thought Soros was a Republican. So I guess whatever I think of him is wrong!

I can't ever seem to convince you - I don't think about politics much at all. Whole days go by without my worrying about them at all.

Well, I for one, am willing to believe that B.Prokop doesn't think too deeply about political matters.

How could anyone paying even a scintilla of attention to current events ever imagine that Soros is a Republican and/or a conservative? As best I can see, the "reasoning" goes something like this --

Apparently, what B.Prokop knew about Soros is this:
1) he is *very* wealthy

possibly, he also knew this:
2) he is a *very* wicked man.

So, of course -- even without 2) -- Soros must be a Republican.

One of the amusing things about this is that Soros pulls the strings (via funding) not only of the current Social Just-Us Wankerism which has B.Prokop reconsidering his commitment to leftism, but also of the (slightly) older (and slightly more rational) leftism of which B.Prokop approves and which he promotes ... when he's not pretending to be above politics.

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.

'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.

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!)))

Irony!

The irony, it burns! "Modern conservatism is one long attempt to gain the approval of people who despise you at the expense of people most likely to befriend you."

That's gotta sting "It took me a while to realize that sometimes the proper response to an ally saying something outrageous, or offensive, or event racist is not "DENOUNCE, OSTRACIZE, SACRIFICE" but, 'Yeah, I think they're wrong on this. So fucking what?'"

Finding 'Lydia McGrew'

From time to time, I notice that one of the search terms that brings visitors to this dusty little corner of the internet is "Lydia McGrew", which fact is slightly interesting to me (if not to Gentle Reader).

Those who end up here due to a search on "Lydia McGrew" may, if you wish, add this little fact to your on-going opinion of her -- back in October of 2015, I strongly criticized a particular act of bitchiness (*) on her part toward a regular poster at What's Wrong With The World. As I knew she would, she deleted (**) the posts I'd made at WWWtW ... and at some time after that, added my user-name to their list of banned commenters (**).


(*) and let me be clear that I used the word 'bitchy' to describe her behavior, used in deliberately, and stand by it.

(**) women *hate* to have their behavior, no matter what it is or how outrageous, criticized by a mere man; there is *nothing* that enrages the average woman more than for a mere man to dispassionately criticize what she has done.

Identifying the 'mark'

Canadian Cincinnatus: Why I don’t support Donald Trump -- "And then I realized, like I was shot with a diamond bullet, that there is no there there. Trump has no ideas, he has no philosophy, he has no governing principles. He is little more than a salesman selling himself. He is a hollow man, a stuffed man, headpiece filled with straw.

Not only doesn’t he know, he doesn’t care to find out - which is much worse."

Exactly.

"... There is an old adage that if you look around the card table and don’t see who the mark is, you’re the mark."

EDIT 2016/04/11 --

Edgestrow asks: "What does a voter like me do? I loathe Hillary, but fear Trump. Whichever way I jump, it's going to be against someone, not for anything."

There are multiple threads to untangle here; I certainly won't insist that I see them all, but let's see that we can untangle.

== Regardless of what precisely Edgestrow is thinking, there is this shallow and tendentious idea being pushed in the culture -- pushed: because when people let it rule their lives, they tend to surrender to things they ought to oppose -- that it is in some way wrong simply to oppose things, that you must always be for something rather than against the other thing.

Like so much else that is driving the current implosion of our civilization and of our polity, this idea goes back to the Progressive Era of a century ago (that is, to the intellectual-and-political ancestors of today's "Social Justice Warriors" and leftists in general).

This idea is promoted because it is a means to control people en masse: it is belovéd of marketing people -- which is to say, by people in whose interest it is to separate you from your money -- and by leftists -- which is to say, by people in whose interest it is to separate you from your liberty, and incidentally, from your money.

[As a side note: The "Pro-Life Movement" calls itself that, rather than the "Anti-Abortion Movement" or the "Anti-(Legalized) Murder Movement", because its leaders have succumbed to marketing. Imagine the absurdity of the old Abolitionist Movement -- the Anti-Slavery Movement -- calling itself the "Pro-Freedom Movement" or the "Pro-Economic Growth Movement".

For what it's worth, I am not "pro-life"; I am anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia ... because I am anti-murder]

== Sometimes, "the lesser of two evils" is still *just* evil -- I'm not myself convinced that Trump falls into that category, but if you believe that he does, then it seems that you should vote for no one for that office in the general election. Or, you could "throw away your vote" (as people like to put it) by voting for, say, the Constitution Party candidate in the general election.


== No one else has the right or the authority to demand that you draw the above line where they choose for you to draw it -- it is your right to refuse to participate or cooperate if you believe the even the "lesser evil" is still just morally evil.

Certainly, others have the right to attempt to persuade you to their position; just as you do toward them. Others have the right to (attempt to) show *others* that your position is untenable or false or irrational or even hypocritical; just as you do toward them. Others even have the freedom to heap scorn on you due to your thinking, or lack thereof, on whatever the matter is; just as you do toward them.

But, in the end, what you do is between you and God: we will all answer to God, and none of the little self-deceptions that people so love to hide behind will be able to withstand his presence. We will all be naked before God; so, the task we all have is to live so that we need not be ashamed of our nakedness.

== Trump as "dangerous" -- While it seems pretty clear that at least some of the Trumpkins hope that Trump will be the Second Coming of Obama, I don't see that as even a possibility. Obama is able to get away with behaving as though he were Ceasar because a powerful block of the people in Congress want the results he decrees, and large block of the people in Congress are indisposed to oppose his rule-by-decree.

But, I just don't see Trump as having that sort of institutional/establishment backing.

Conceivably, a Trump administration might even be a good thing in the long-run, for it might (let me stress the "might") result in the Congress re-asserting its primacy, and putting an end to the "imperial presidency".