The great irony is that immigrationists point to the great waves of past immigration to whom the adulteration and ideological misdirecting of the nation can be directly traced, the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Scandinavians, and the Jews, and using them to justify the beneficial nature of the current wave of Central American, Asian, Arab, and African immigration.
[Discussing a video of Eric Hovind answering questions from a sixth grader:]
For the record, Elijah dealt quiet well with some children that decided to start some stuff with a Servant of the Most High. Didn't have to lift a finger.....
I agree with both Vox and another commenter. First I would demand that the adult feeding that child questions stand up and take his place, if the coward refuses I would give that child a verbal beating like never before. Of course, not if Elizabeth Hasselbeck was around.
The historical fact of the matter is that evolution by natural selection is a failed science. It has a long and inglorious record of failed predictions that puts even Keynesian economics to shame. Evolutionists know this, which is why they prefer polemic to predictions and why the foremost evolutionary propagandist has adopted rhetorical tactics that are utilized by the devotees of another pseudoscience, anthropogenic climate change/global warming.
[Discussing a video of Eric Hovind answering questions from a sixth grader:]
Most modern Christian apologists are incompetent because they approach the discourse as a chance to explicate theology rather than understanding that it is a form of intellectual combat where the goal is to discredit the interlocutor. So, like Hovind, they explicate a little theology that looks like an irrelevant evasion while simultaneously managing to get intellectually discredited by young boys. Frankly, I'd be surprised and a little disappointed if I didn't have the kid in tears and questioning his faith in science within minutes after asking such a pair of stupid questions.
First things first. Destroy the interlocutor. Answer every question directly, on his terms, and then go after the vulnerabilities they reveal with a flamethrower. Only then, when you are standing upon whatever quivering ashes remain, can you explicate further if you wish.
In the aftermath of the Dallas police shooting, it is understandable that many Americans are shocked, scared, and upset. The post-Civil Rights Act America has not turned out to be the society they thought it was, indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious that those terrible racist Southern segregationists were correct all along.
Teach them the (scientific) principle that we can judge the usefulness and accuracy of a theory by the predictions it makes, and how reality either behaves in accordance with those predictions or not. IOW, by experimentation we discover whether the theory should be retained or not.
Then start collecting examples of failed predictions (Darwin's ideas about the fossil "record", and infinite series of tiny changes between generations joining one species to another, just isn't there, for example) and successful predictions (God said Babylon would never again be inhabited, for example) ...
The math is quite simple and unavoidable on this basis.
If a woman wishes to preserve her right to sexually reject a man at will, she has a perfectly viable means of doing so. Don't get married. It's really not that hard. But, once married, neither husband nor wife has the right to reject the other's marital claims. This does not mean that it is wise for anyone to abuse one's marital rights, as doing so on a regular basis will tend to lead to the legally correct abrogation of those rights. One is always free to respect the other's wishes and refrain from exercising one's rights in the same way that most Americans fail to exercise their right to bear arms most of the time. But failing to exercise one's rights is not the same as failing to possess them.
Men contemplating marriage would be wise to sound out their prospective brides on this issue. If a woman believes in the concept of marital rape, absolutely do not marry her! It would make no sense whatsoever to marry a woman who believes that being married to her grants her husband no more sexual privilege than the next unemployed musician who happens to catch her eye. And if a woman who believes in the existence of marital rape pushes you for marriage, just assure her that while you respect the institution, you believe it is much more important to defend her unqualified right to say no.
That the "marital rape" concept is not only legally oxymoronic, but deeply undesirable for both sexes, is exemplified by its implications for sex that by definition precludes consent. Let's face it, any man or woman who believes in the criminalization of wake-me-up sex is not an individual with whom any decently hedonistic being would want to be saddled for a lifetime.
Robert E. Lee is supposed to have said, “It is well that war is so terrible, or we would grow too fond of it.” But when I look around at the wreckage of what now passes for Western culture, when I see the ongoing degradation and decline of Western civilization, I cannot help but think that perhaps peace is more terrible still.
Seventy years of relative peace and prosperity has made our young men hedonists and homosexuals, cravens and cowards who are more inclined to literally emasculate themselves than demonstrate even a modicum of courage. Seventy years of relative tranquility and safety has made our young women into shameless sluts and whores, barren harridans and harpies devoid of self-respect and self-control.
What has peace done for our morals, for our arts, for our sciences? What has peace done for our universities, for our churches, for our moribund civic and social institutions? What has peace done for our nations, invaded by pagans and barbarians and prostrated before them, too helpless to even complain, let alone resist? What has peace done for our minds, our souls, even our bodies, fat, bloated, soft, and weak?
Is it possible that too many generations of peace and pleasure have proven to be little more than an enervating cancer on our culture? Is it possible that peace is more terrible than war?
If these are the fruits of peace, then peace is a dreadful thing. If this is truly the best that peace has to offer, then for the sake of Man and Western civilization, let there be war.
[Adding some of the author's comments below to avoid unnecessary resubmissions]
"You are all forgetting the horror of actual war."
No, we're not. We're noting that DESPITE all the admittedly terrible horrors of war, they did not produce the degeneration and monstrosities that we are witnessing today. Bombs blew up paintings, to be sure, but they did not destroy the ability to paint beautiful paintings. Peace and prosperity did that.
War destroyed the body, but it did not destroy the spirit and the soul in the way peace and prosperity have. Did not the warlike Greeks warn of the danger of lotus-eating?
...
"I kind of understand what you mean but speaking from a Rwandese vantage point (Far from Western Civilization of course) who still fight tears back at each genocide commemoration, i wouldn't encourage a trading of peace for war."
First, don't bother with the emotional appeals. So you shed a few tears over some dead Africans, so fucking what? Go make a record with some pop stars or something.
Second, Rwanda remains Rwanda. Do you think you'll be able to say the same of London should it enjoy another 70 years of peace?
...
"For one thing, you can't remember or forget the horrors of actual war, since you have only read about them and not experienced them first hand. It's not a game of ASL."
And yet, war never led men to cut off their penises or gain 300 pounds. You petty pedants are completely missing the point in your rush to quibble over irrelevancies. Nearly every human society regularly survived periodic wars for thousands of years. 70 years of merely relative quasi-peace and ours is on the verge of collapse.
There has long been an expectation in fundamentalist Christian circles that the various nations of Europe would unify due to the prophecy in Revelation. This was much pooh-poohed even as the Common Market took shape, since the various national politicians all publicly avowed that there was no intention of any political union.
Lo and behold, the European Union was formed.
There are other examples, of course. But Biblical prophecy has an observably better track record as a predictive model than either climate science or evolution by natural selection.
There are very solid rational, Constitutional, and historical reasons for denying female suffrage. John Adams summarized them best in his famous written exchange with his wife:
"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.
"Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.
"Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."
- Abigail Adams, 31 March 1776
"Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects.
"We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight."
- John Adams, 14 April 1776
Events have proven John Adams correct. Free men are accustomed to voluntarily limiting the use of their power and not pushing it to the full extent of its capabilities. Women, to say the least, are not. Just as an angry woman does not pull her punches, women in politics do not restrain their instincts to attempt to control the uncontrollable. Abigail Adams is projecting: she wrongly assumes all men would be tyrants if they could because she knows that is true of herself and other women. And women do not hold themselves bound by laws in any case, regardless of whether they have had voice or representation or not. They are bound by fear.
This is why a nation that wishes to remain wealthy and free does not permit female involvement in its governance, and why totalitarians from the Italian Fascists to the Soviet Bolsheviks have historically made a priority of female involvement in the political process.
The First Amendment isn't merely dead
It is outdated, irrelevant, and at this point, civilizationally destructive.
[...]
The challenge is how to protect some semblance of free speech while strictly limiting, if not banning outright, the exercise of all non-Christian religions in Christendom. This is theoretically possible, as history demonstrates. But as events are rapidly demonstrating, in the current circumstances the latter is going to take precedence over the former.
The age of fairplay and goodsportsmanship is over. You don't have to like it; I certainly don't. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to accept it. And if you can't bring yourself to do so now, don't worry, you will soon enough.
The main problem with Ehrman is that he purposefully ignores the giant elephant in the room, which is that there are more and earlier copies of the various books of the New Testament than there are of any historical document from the ancient world. The Bible is extremely reliable by every secular standard for historical documents; it is arguably the most reliable ancient text in human history by those standards. If you're going to reject the historical veracity of the Bible - which has repeatedly proven to be more accurate than the contrary assertions of archeologists and historians - then you must likewise reject the entire written history of Man.
Perhaps not all women are fascists at heart, but without their votes, few fascists would ever be elected.
There is a certain irony in that the more traditionally oriented male - the sort who thinks date rape is a myth - is far more likely to save a woman from another man than the sort who enjoys posturing about how terrible rape is and how he would never rape a woman.
If the definition of rape is stretched so far to include women who have not given consent, then I am absolutely a serial rapist. So, too, is every man I know. And if that makes me a rapist, I shall endeavor to somehow survive with that upon my conscience.
The recent hashtag fireworks between the pro-immigration and anti-immigration right appears to be the second step of a long-awaited political battle that I have expected for more than a decade now. For years, conservatives afraid of being called racist have stupidly attempted to finesse the immigration issue, claiming that "it's not the immigration, it's the illegality" while loudly declaring their support for LEGAL immigration to balance their opposition to ILLEGAL immigration. But the distinction was always meaningless; the behavior of the individual immigrant and the cumulative effects of mass immigration have historically had nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the act of immigration. The intra-Right conflict we're seeing now is in part the result of the Obama Administration punching right through that ridiculous position by simply legalizing larger-scale immigration than before. This is the second step of the battle; the first step was the publication of Ann Coulter's Adios America, which marked the first time a major American conservative media figure besides Pat Buchanan had the courage to finally come out and admit that the real problem with immigration is a) the quality of the immigrants, and b) the quantity of the immigrants.
I am an immigrant myself; my children are second-generation immigrants. Keep in mind that to the extent you consider us to be more-or-less normal Americans, that is precisely how all of the first- and second-generation Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians living in America are still more-or-less normal Mexicans, Chinese, Somalis, and Nigerians. The only difference is that we've been here longer, we're more integrated, and we speak the language. Potete domandare Giuseppe cosi. Geographical translocation is not magic. Move enough Mexicans into California, you don't make them Californians, you turn California into Mexico. I've seen the same thing over here on a smaller scale in British expat colonies where people who have lived in Italy for 15 years don't speak more than 10 words of Italian, still drink tea instead of espresso and can't cook worth a damn. Being there doesn't feel like Italy, it feels like being in England, and more properly English than Londonistan is these days.
I should probably mention that if you're going to try to disqualify me as an anti-Mexican racist simply because I observe the indisputable truth, my response is simple: va fanculo, my great-grandfather rode with Villa, fought with Villa, and barely escaped Villa's assassins. The truth is the truth regardless of the genetic heritage of the individual observing it.
The Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has a brilliant essay on the martial implications of immigration that will be published in Volume 2 of Riding the Red Horse, which I am now beginning to assemble. And the remarkable thing is that he reaches a disturbingly similar conclusion to Heartiste's well-known aphorism, Diversity + Proximity = War, only one that is even stronger. One reason the world is in the process of descending into war all over the globe is due to the unprecedented mass movement of peoples - as Umberto Eco pointed out more than a decade ago, to call it "immigration" is fundamentally a misnomer - and the sheer scale of these mass movements makes war inevitable.
Remember, the entry of the Nazis into Austria was arguably more legal than the actions of the Obama administration with regards to immigration. The Nazis even let the immigrated invaded Austrians vote on it in a national referendum, which is something neither the Democrats and the Republican #cuckservatives would permit the American people. But the end result of the Anschluss was no different than the Nazi's subsequent illegal immigration into invasion of Czechoslovakia, Nazi rule.
I think Mike Cernovich's definition of #cuckservative is probably the most useful one. If you are in any way an advocate for those who intend to rape and pillage you and yours, you are a #cuckservative. I also think that what we're seeing is a generational divide. People my age and older tend to view things from a perspective of a permanent white majority. So, they tend to view everything from a view of racial noblesse oblige. They believe America's success can be shared with the New Americans without that success being destroyed.
The younger generation of white Americans know better. They know they are just another racial group among many, larger, more divided, advantaged in some ways, disadvantaged in others, and with a target tattooed on their chests due to their historical "privilege". Those inclined to buy into the rainbow mythology become SJWs or submissive moderates, those who are not don't buy into any of it, including the various aspects of "melting pot" theology in which their conservative elders still foolishly believe. They know that what their elders still think to be theoretically achievable is impossible, because unlike their elders, they didn't grow up with diversity being a theoretical objective to be celebrated, but a terrible reality to be suffered.
The most ridiculous thing about #cuckservatism is that it's an inherently losing strategy. If your primary political objective is to avoid being called racist, you will lose. And then you will be called racist anyhow.
Americans have long considered themselves a nation blessed by God, a New Rome, a city on a hill, but as is increasingly evident, it is now a nation upon which God has turned His back and is permitting to stew in the full fruits of its own evil. And the disgusting revelation that Planned Parenthood is not only murdering America's children on an industrial scale, but harvesting them in much the same way the Nazis harvested their victims, is sufficient to prove that America is not the New Rome it once fancied itself, but rather, the New Carthage[.]
...
It's a little strange that the news Planned Parenthood is making an additional profit from the corpses of its victims should be so upsetting to Americans when so many of them are fine with the corporation profiting from the simple act of murder, but I suppose that shows the conscience of the nation is merely numbed, not entirely dead.
Matt Walsh put it well: "I want to thank everyone who defended Planned Parenthood today. I now know to never take any of your opinions seriously ever again."
In any event, understand that America, like many an evil and decadent empire before it, is long overdue for a cleansing. Like it or not, the social conservatives were right, and the slippery slope they predicted, at which so many scoffed, appears to have been considerably understated.
There can be only one... at most.
It is impossible to simultaneously understand the theory of evolution and to believe in blank-slate cognitive equality among human groups of different continental origins.
Both propositions—evolution and equality—cannot simultaneously be true. You have to pick one. Choose wisely, because you can’t have both.
Either evolution is a real and ongoing process that has rendered different groups with different mean aptitudes, or we’re all equal—and thus all measurable group disparities in things such as income and intelligence are due to unfairness, hatred, injustice, and flat-out stinking evil.
Yet against all logic and evidence and propelled purely by the smarmiest sort of saccharine emotionality that has ever been shit-sprayed out of human hearts, modern progressives insist that these two fundamentally contradictory belief systems are simultaneously true.
“What sort of person who claims to believe in evolution would deny its fundamental role in shaping human history?”
They insist that evolution is real and that only a dumb hillbilly would not believe in it. But they also insist that evolution had nothing to do with quantifiable disparities between groups in brain size and intelligence, and even if those dumb apelike hillbillies consistently score higher on intelligence tests than your average nonwhite hood rat, well, then, you’re dumb—and evil—for even noticing.
Now, I happen to be skeptical of one and outright reject both the existence and the possibility of the other. But that is an intellectually consistent position. Subscribing to both evolution and equality is intrinsically nonsensical.
If there is one lesson, just one, from all of Martin van Creveld's books, it is that technology does not guarantee military victory. Here is a vivid comparison that shows why things are looking rather grim for the US military if it is ordered to intervene in the Middle East for a third time in three decades in order to take on the Islamic State there:
1. Let Transgender Troops Serve Openly by THE EDITORIAL BOARD. The Pentagon’s ban on transgender troops is based on obsolete policies and must be rescinded. The Williams Institute at the U.C.L.A. School of Law, which researches gender issues, estimates there are about 15,500 transgender troops serving in uniform.
2. Using Violence and Persuasion, ISIS Makes Political Gains. Amid punishing American-backed airstrikes, the Islamic State militants have advanced in Iraq and Syria using a dual strategy of purporting to represent Sunni interests and attacking any group that vies to play the same role.
Military history clearly demonstrates that the side that executes homosexuals, whether throwing them off buildings or having their fellow soldiers beat them to death, reliably defeats the side that allows its soldiers to dress up and pretend they are women.
Yes, wealth and technology are on the side of the crossdressing military. But attrition, geography, and history are on the side that does not tolerate effeminacy.
It's true that the US military roundly defeated the Soviet-trained, Soviet-equipped Iraqi army twice, the second time largely without a fight. But then, the Islamic State has defeated the US-trained, US-equipped Iraqi army.
I have a simple seven-point plan that will absolutely reverse the trend and revive the Church of England:
Publicly repent accommodation with the world.
Announce the Counter-Accommodation, a house-cleaning movement that throws out every reform and innovation since 1950 and openly rejects the false idea that tolerance and inclusion are Christian virtues or that unrepentant sinners are welcome as members of the Church body.
Excommunicate every bishop and former bishop who voted for the ordination of women.
Excommunicate every bishop and former bishop who voted for the ordination of homosexuals or officiated over a same-sex ceremony.
Defrock every female and homosexual bishop or priest.
Suspend every bishop or priest who publicly endorses social justice, tolerance, inclusivity, or ecumenicism.
Preach the Word of God precisely as it is communicated through the King James Bible.
If the Church of England will not do this, it has no reason to exist and fully merits its extinction. Observe that the long term results have been exactly what the conservatives who opposed these reforms have been predicting all along. When a Christian church rejects the Word of God and hares after worldly approval, it is not long for this world.
And the UK's atheists probably won't be too pleased with the Church of England's demise. I tend to doubt they will find their new Muslim neighbors quite as easy to push around as lukewarm Anglicans.
When I was 19 I had to take care of two cats owned by my father and step mother while I was house sitting for them. One cat, Isis, was great. Very friendly, always pleasant, and never a bother. The other, Ellie, would stop and make that damn low growling sound that cats make then hiss whenever she saw me.
I began an experiment after day 3. During previous days, I would come in and set out the food while I did my homework on the kitchen table. Isis would come over eat, meow, rub up against my leg as a thank you, then headed for the couch to sleep. Ellie refused to enter the kitchen at all until I left - she spent her time peering out of the darkness of the living room hissing and growling until I left then she would eat. I decided to change things up a bit.
The next night I put out the food as always and watched as Isis happily ate. When she was done, I immediately put the food dish into the refrigerator and left the kitchen. Ellie came bounding in, and looked confused as there was no food. Experiment Day 1. I repeated the experiment on the 2nd and 3rd days and something funny happened on the night of the 3rd day. While I was sitting on the couch I heard this distinct little mew. Ellie came right up to me, meowing pitifully, and acting *exactly like Isis*. Being nice, letting me pet her, etc. I immediately got up and put food out for her and she ate like crazy. I never had any trouble with her for the rest of the time my parents were away.
I think its high time we tried something similar with blacks. Riots mean no EBT for a month and a full city lockdown. Nothing will be fixed during the month. Any black who attempts to leave is shot on sight. Blacks will not act civilized unless they are forced too - this our ancestors knew. Africa is horrible place not because of lack of rivers (sorry Mr. Sowell) and not because of racism, it is a horrible place because of the inhabitants who naturally choose to live as animals. Forcing them to live in our world requires either constant often extremely violent discipline or tolerance for appalling levels of violence by blacks against everyone else. Denying all this doesn't mean it isn't real and until this matter is addressed people in the U.S. will just have to get used to regular chimpouts if they won't change their policies.
But they never talk about the Negroe Pathology. They don't know how to masculinize their boys or have any idea of Virtue. Rap Music and Hip Hop is gutter/jungle music of the worst kind. Music, the ghetto music, is very harmful.
Plato explicated the importance of music on how it forms the soul. Music carries Character. Socrates and Plato both pointed out that if you want beautiful people, you have to surround them in a beautiful environment. Beauty works on Beauty. What does Rap Music instill in Black people?
Rage. Hate. Discontent. Abnormality and Dysfunction. The Music is dysfunctional. So the people are dysfunctional who listen to it. What is the favorite music of Liberals? Jazz. Jazz is discompant music. It is ad lib music free from rules of music.
The Laws of Beauty is Proportion, Harmony and Symmetry. When music incorporates that, it implants its character upon the soul listening to it.
Rap, Hip Hop, Jazz (which has its origins in African music and in Negroe America) has very little of any of the above.
It is no wonder that the Negroe communities suffer from so much dysfunctionality. Top of with the Negroe's inablity to control his urges and we see a very dysfunctional race.
The South knew all of this and engaged in segregation and discrimination. It was the Jews that started the NAACP and encouraged and fed Negroe resistance, arrogancy and a bloated ideas of themselves. The Negroe is the shock troops for Jewish globalization, multiculturalism and European dissolution. They are pawns.
Look, the media is Jewish owned. It behooves them to work this up into a mess. They want this. They are increasing the hatred and blowing it up. They are feeding discontent and violence. They want it like that. Why the WASP is friends with the Jews I have no idea. The Jews have destroyed WASP America.
Political Correctness and Social Justice are all anti-civilizational. At their core. America is falling apart at the seams.
WHITE females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations and procreating with a God-fearing man! I humbly argue that social pressure has generally NOT produced the desired results; only legislation modeled after “Mother Russia” and "Muzzie Iran" will induce WHITE women to birth and raise children. Socialist medicine to cure those baby blues--direct cash payments to females for every child popped out like popcorn and accommodating work schedules to account for those udderly ridiculous late night feeding frenzies!
Even if young men and women are ill-prepared intellectually or financially to care for them (freedom be damned!), and despite the wolf of Cultural Marxism that breathes down the neck of innocent Robby or Libby, every single member of the Christian libertarian intelligentsia or Greek Orthodox Brigade is obligated to hit the lecture circuit and step onto the soapbox, with bullhorn in tow, to proudly advertise to the Roissy’s and feminazi’s of the world that their outright refusal to settle down and raise WHITE children is a recipe for demographic homicide.
One thing that is becoming evident is that regardless of culture, women cannot be trusted to use contraception in a socially responsible manner. If it is left up to them, they will kill their societies rather than give up the pleasures of alpha-chasing. This indicates that it will not be left up to them very much longer, as societies that permit women to control their birth rates will prove to be unfit, decline demographically, and eventually expire, while those that control women will prove their fitness, remain stable or continue to grow, and expand to replace the dying societies.
Iran's leaders understand that the future belongs to those who show up for it. It is a pity that so many political and opinion leaders in the West do not. That being said, historically attempts to legislate demographic growth have not been very successful, dating back to 9 AD and the Lex Papia Poppaea in Imperial Rome.
No, they don't. It's not their land. They don't have any right to be anywhere except Israel. Everywhere else, they reside at the pleasure of the inhabitants. And they are not every bit as European as Frenchmen, genetically or culturally. At the present rate, they'll be entirely absent from Europe by 2050. Of course, we all know that linear trends are bullshit, so that is not a prediction, just an acknowledgement of present trends.
More importantly, very few are going to defend them except the pro-multiculti governments that are presently on their last legs propping up the European Union. I would certainly defend the one Jewish gentleman I know here, but I am in the minority in this regard. You obviously don't live in Europe because you clearly don't know the first thing about the situation here.
CM asks if we can put together a rating system for Christian books. I think this is a good idea, although I think it bears some discussion on the best way to do that.
My thought is something similar to the SJW review of games system might be useful, with zero being the perfect score of containing nothing that would be objectionable to the Christian AND containing genuine and explicit Christian elements. There is a difference, after all, as Misty of Chincoteague is entirely unobjectionable, but it has no Christian content per se.
Let's consider some possible point factors, beginning with those that would likely be more or less acceptable to most Christian parents, but are potentially indicative of religious or ideological problems:
contains no genuine and explicit Christian element +1
exhibits unconventional Christian theology +1
characters demonstrate disrespect for peers or parents +1
an animal or major character dies +1
contains suggestions of physical violence +1
Then there are the elements that will be objectionable to the more conservative families:
contains squishy Disney-style "moral" messages +2
contains direct descriptions of physical violence +2
features indirect sexual themes +2
contains egregious or saintly minority characters +2
features aggressively "pro-science" themes +2
contains euphemistic swearing +2
Followed by those elements to which most parents will not want to expose their children:
contains openly atheist characters +3
contains detailed and gleeful portrayals of physical violence +3
features PG-13 sex scenes +3
advocates left-liberal political or ideological positions +3
contains light and occasional swearing +3
Features emotionally devastating scene +3
And then the completely unacceptable:
contains openly atheist or anti-theist messages +5
mocks Christianity +5
sadistic horror and physical violence +5
features pornographic sex scenes or romanticizes adultery +5
features homosexual and other sexually deviant characters +5
contains a considerable quantity of vulgarities and obscenities +5
Now, it is important to keep in mind that a novel can contain absolutely every element here and still be a Christian novel. What makes a novel Christian or not depends upon its intrinsic recognition that Jesus Christ (or some fictional facsimile therein), is the Lord and Savior of Mankind.
A Throne of Bones scores a lot of points, Book Two will score even more. But they are not books for children; I haven't let my own children read them. Every parent has to draw their own line, but it would certainly be useful to have a large database at Castalia House where books could be rated. For example, The Lord of the Rings would rate about a 5 of 65. A Throne of Bones would rate 30. A Game of Thrones would rate 55. I think anything over 15 should be considered unacceptable to most parents.
There is considerable room for improving the system, and I would welcome suggestions as well as the rating of various books.
Robert Conway at Reaxxion asks if Magic: The Gathering adding a transsexual character is a problem:
The answer is, ABSOLUTELY YES, it is a problem. It is a very serious and ultimately fatal problem that will eventually kill the game dead. It is a problem of such gargantuan and epic proportions that the only rational thing to do is to immediately stop playing Magic: The Gathering, and stop purchasing any of its related products, until the Alesha, Who Smiles At Death card is publicly withdrawn. The card is the gaming equivalent of a small but malignant melanoma.
One might as reasonably ask if the original decision to permit women to read Bible verses was a problem for the Anglican Church. Or if the original income tax, which was introduced with a maximum rate of 7 percent and affected less than 1 percent of the U.S. population was a problem for US taxpayers.
The point is not whether the addition of an overtly propagandistic SJW element immediately breaks the game. The first step never does. That's because the first step is always only symbolic, a testing of the waters to see if the invasion of the SJWs is going to be resisted or not. When it is resisted, of course, there will be endless protestations of how it is harmless little thing, how it is "just this one brick", and hand-on-heart vows of how there is, of course, absolutely NO intention of building a damn brick wall in the future.
The time to smack down the SJW entryists is when the camel first sticks its nose in the tent, not when it is already fully ensconced and defecating all over the carpets.
Perhaps entertainment corporations would be more inclined to show civility and respect to Christians again if some of us applied the lesson we've learned from the supposed North Korean example.
It is, of course, vastly amusing to see a Hollywood entity complaining about someone else seeking to destroy their spirit and morale. Isn't that exactly what Hollywood has been relentlessly doing to Western civilization since the 1960s?
"Also, there were probably those who considered that preventing women from getting college degrees was part of the "culture" back then, and that giving women the same oportunities as men would be an example of "cultural collapse"."
Not an example, a necessary causal factor. Women destroy every institution they enter, so it should come as no surprise that their involvement outside the family is a good metric for cultural collapse.
I was laughing at the GoodReads winners selections. You only had to look at the covers to see that women voted for them. And still people wonder why so much literature is shit and book sales are in decline.
Science fiction is dying because it has been invaded by a parasitical and hostile ideology that has metastasized and spread throughout the genre. This ideology is opposed to science because science is weakening the assumptions on which it is founded. It is opposed to heroism because heroism is intrinsically anti-egalitarian. It is opposed to masculinity because its adherents are women and feminized gamma males. It is opposed to Western civilization because Western civilization is Christian. It is opposed to free discourse because free discourse reveals its many incoherencies, contradictions, and complete flights of fantasy.
Roberts's summary of the difference between left and right is accurate, but incomplete: "Heinlein's imagined interstellar future is an environment designed to valorise the skill sets (self-reliance, engineering competence, willpower, bravery and manliness) that Heinlein prized. Left-leaning Iain M Banks's Culture novels posit a high-tech geek utopia in which the particular skill sets, ethics and wit-discourse of SF nerds turn out to be the gold standard of pan-galactic multi-species civilisation."
But it is more than that. Roberts omits to mention that feminism, equalitarianism, cultural relativism, massive central government, unrestrained sexual adventurism, and ideological strawmen are de rigueur for the science fiction of the left. And that is when it is more than simple romance novels in space or rewritten Regency romances with a modest sprinkling of magic.
The fact that Roberts considers the genre's greatest writers to be "Ursula K Le Guin, Octavia Butler, James Tiptree Jr, Margaret Atwood, Karen Joy Fowler, Pat Cadigan, Justina Robson" shows that he is speaking only of the genre's left and also suffices to show the inferiority of the works produced by that side of the genre. With the exception of Le Guin and Sheldon, no science fiction fan would trade a single Herbert or Heinlein novel for the complete collected works of all the others... well, perhaps some of the later Heinleins.
The fate that awaits the world of professional published science fiction is that which ultimately befell the art of Socialist Realism. Because it is imposed by a small, centralized group that happened to seize the relevant power, it will collapse and fade away once the group's power ceases to be relevant. As it so often does, economic and technological changes have eroded the power of the gatekeeper's, which is why we can watch the collapse of Nightshade Books and anticipate the coming closure of other publishers and imprints which are infested with the ideological cancer.
SF/F's left-wing gatekeepers made the same error that the ABCNNBCBS cabal made when instead of simply reporting the nation's news, it attempted to turn itself into the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party. But there will be no singular Fox News prison-raping its competitors in the case of SF/F, instead, there will be Glenn Reynold's army of a thousand Davids, with successful independent authors like Larry Correia and Marko Kloos demonstrating to every other writer deemed politically incorrect and/or unpublishable by the gatekeepers that the gates have been torn down. They no longer exist.
More on why the ongoing collapse of the gatekeepers is not reason for despair, but promises to be very good news for fans of traditional SF/F in part II.
But to return to the option to the only way, Shelles says "the obvious problem with this argument is that it depends on one's personal on view of exactly how the country ought to operate". But since the argument rests on the country's freedom, well-being, and future existence, her counter relies upon arguing that the country should be unfree, worse-off, and nonexistent. This is not a successful or convincing counter, even if it truly represents the personal view of the interlocutor rather than a hypothetical position of Shelle's imagination.
...
Events have proven John Adams correct. Free men are accustomed to voluntarily limiting the use of their power and not pushing it to the full extent of its capabilities. Women, to say the least, are not. Just as an angry woman does not pull her punches, women in politics do not restrain their instincts to attempt to control the uncontrollable. Abigail Adams is projecting: she wrongly assumes all men would be tyrants if they could because she knows that is true of herself and other women. And women do not hold themselves bound by laws in any case, regardless of whether they have had voice or representation or not. They are bound by fear.
This is why a nation that wishes to remain wealthy and free does not permit female involvement in its governance, and why totalitarians from the Italian Fascists to the Soviet Bolsheviks have historically made a priority of female involvement in the political process.
This should make it clear to everyone who is not a sexual deviant that the position of the English Common Law was correct, and that all of the various deviancies that have been legalized and normalized and declared no longer indicative of psychological sickness since the 1950s should promptly be returned to their former status.
There is no middle ground. What devotees of one particular immorality or another believe is a reasonable stopping point - here, and no further - is nothing more than a waystation on the road to total depravity of the worst imaginable sort.
We libertarians were wrong. Societal liberty simply cannot be maximized through sexual anarchy any more than it can be maximized though unrestricted immigration, unrestricted government, or unrestricted voting. In retrospect, this should always have been obvious: if everything goes, then literally everything will go. This is no longer a hypothetical objection on the part of traditional conservatives, it is an undeniable reality. It is human nature to push at the boundaries; there will always be those who cross the line. Therefore, the line needs to be set firmly along boundaries that are undeniably eucivic and proven by centuries of tradition to be sustainable in the long term.
There will be those who disingenuously insist that the clock cannot be turned back, that humanity is doomed to an endless future of sodomy, incest, rape, necrophilia, and bestiality. This is provably false; the current period of sexual anarchy in the West is hardly the first in human history and it is very short by historical standards. And this particular clock most certainly will be turned back, one way or another, because everything from birth rates to the transmission rates of sexually transmitted diseases indicate that the current state of near-sexual anarchy has already reached the point of unsustainability.
Technology can never trump Creator-imposed morality any more than science can surmount the physical laws of Nature. It may appear to do so, for a short time, but that is nothing more than an illusion based on incomplete understanding.
[Quoting Tom Kratman]
"Right now we're stuck in a self reinforcing cascade of civilizational decay. What is happening to the police and to civil-police relations is partly cause and partly symptom. It is unclear that there is anything we can do about that that we will do.
So as not to be seen as too negative, however, let me offer a somewhat holistic solution: Kill all the common law felons in custody. Round up and kill all the people ever convicted of a common law felony currently at large without clear and convincing evidence that they have amended their lives (job, wife, home, no further crimes of any kind). For us, that's probably in the range of 6 million people. And then we need to round up the progressives and kill them too. (Why do we call them "progressives," anyway? Their job isn't progess; it's decay.) And then use all the overmilitarized police and prison guards to round up and kill or deport illegals. Then put them on the border to our south, and on small patrol craft at sea. They'll be happier, and so will the rest of us.
That's all pretty harsh, right? Unjust? Horrid? Horrible? Unthinkable? Yeah, well, the collapse of civilization, which is where we're heading, is going to be a lot worse, and to much more innocent people. Think little kids turning on spits over low coals."
The most shocking thing about Tom's proposed solution is that he didn't mention crucifixion. Apparently he's going soft these days. It may be a ghastly neo-Roman solution, but unfortunately, any student of history knows the man is probably correct in both his diagnosis and his ultimate prescription. We've already seen open beheadings on the streets of London. What more needs to be witnessed before the barbarians are rooted out, root and branch? Children roasting on spits in the streets? Gang rapes in the city center shopping malls? Or is the fear of being accused of racism and insufficient political correctness genuinely worth the collapse of civilized society in the eyes of the great majority of the population?
I don't think so. I think most Americans are some combination of genuine ignorance, willful ignorance, frightened paralysis, and wishful thinking. Both the government agencies and the observant citizenry find themselves in the position of two opponents standing in a spreading pool of gasoline, both armed with flamethrowers, but neither wishing to set himself alight. No one is eager for the civilizational conflagration, except for the short-sighted and the foolhardy.
Nevertheless, I would go so far to suggest that if you are not an extremist with regards to a) Jesus Christ and b) Western civilization, you are objectively part of the problem. If you are prone to temporizing on various elements such as sex, race, culture, sexual orientation, criminality, immigration, and the mass issuance of credit, then you are contributing to the collapse by providing intellectual cover to those who are actively, if often inadvertently, working to demolish Western civilization.
Read your history. Pagan societies are not very pleasant places in which to live. Science is not a magic self-sustaining enterprise. Technology is not a given and it does not grow naturally on trees. Culture is the result of a complex interweaving of nature and nurture, and it cannot survive when both are significantly altered. We are facing a situation where the societal supports have been methodically withdrawn, one after the other, and with each failure to immediately collapse, it is widely agreed by the elite and the unwashed alike that the support removed is thereby proven to have been unnecessary. This is not valid logic. What took centuries to build is taking decades to dismantle; the fact that the structure does not instantly collapse does not indicate that it remains sound.
Because the progressives were permitted to experiment with withdrawing various civilizational supports, the West will soon find its options constrained to a few scenarios, all of them ugly, if it is to survive in a recognizable form. And if you are prone to temporizing your defense of civilization now due to your fear that someone will criticize you, why do you think you will dare to lift a finger in its defense when the price of doing so will be considerably higher?
Some of my dimmer critics have attempted to make a meal out of my factual statement: a man cannot rape his wife. But that is not only a fact, it is the explicit law in the greater part of the world, just as it is part of the English Common Law.
...
The fact that some of the lawless governments in the decadent, demographically dying West presently call some forms of sex between a husband and wife "rape" does not transform marital sex into rape any more than a law that declared all vaginal intercourse to be rape would make it so. Reality is not defined by politics; we cannot settle the question of evolution by natural selection by simply passing a law that declares God created the world and everything in it last Tuesday.
Anyone with a basic grasp of logic who thinks about the subject of "marital rape" for more than ten seconds will quickly realize that marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis. This has to be the case, otherwise every time one partner wakes the other up in an intimate manner or has sex with an inebriated spouse, rape has been committed. And for those who wish to argue that consent can be withdrawn, there is a word for withdrawing consent in a marriage. That word is "divorce".
The concept of marital rape is not merely an oxymoron, it is an attack on the institution of marriage, on the concept of objective law, and indeed, on the core foundation of human civilization itself.
Translation: the anti-White White-Yellow-Black-Brown alliance is breaking down because some of the anti-White policies are starting to negatively affect the Yellow population. And since the Yellow population is openly tribal, they're not about to follow the self-loathing White lead into disadvantaging their own children.
It's no great mystery. The USA has been importing tribal people since the Italians began arriving in large numbers. Now that the tribalists finally outnumber the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in sufficient quantities to overcome the political inertia, US politics has devolved into the same sort of tribal power politics that is practiced in every other multi-tribal state. Whites aren't the majority anymore, they are just another tribe. The sooner they accept that and start playing by the new rules, the better off they will be. Blacks are completely hosed in this new political reality because Asians and Hispanics don't accept the White Guilt card and they tend to dislike Blacks far more than Whites ever have.
It's totally pointless to blather on about outmoded ideals and 18th century principles. There never was any "melting pot"; this is the new tribal reality that will launch the new dawn of nationalism.
[On the Boko Haram kidnapping]
It is apparent that the cunning plan of Western liberals to destroy the Dar al-Islam by pushing secularized Western education on Islamic women has been comprehended by the strategists of the global Caliphate. The jihadists are responding in two ways, by infiltrating and taking over educational facilities in the West and by destroying Western educational facilities in the South and East. The very name of the Nigerian group illustrates that they grasp the Western tactic.
Now liberals like Kristof are aghast at the fact that the very young women they intentionally turned into cultural weapons on behalf of their secular ideals are being targeted for enslavement and destruction. But what else did they expect? It would appear they were misled by the widespread failure of the Christians of the West to respond to the successful capture of their daughters by the secular establishment into thinking that the Muslims of the South and East would be similarly complacent.
If Western secularists actually gave a damn about women, (and the tens of millions of aborted young girls around the world strongly suggests they don't), then they should have thought twice before weaponizing young women and turning them into legitimate targets in the violent clash of rival cultures.
Some of my dimmer critics have been foolish enough to claim that I support the actions of the Islamic militants in targeting young women. I do not. In fact, I am a far more staunch opponent of the militants' objectives than those secular would-be dimmis will ever be. Unlike them, I will never submit. Unlike them, I have a rational perspective on strategy. I understand that if you make something a weapon, your enemy will have to be cowardly, self-defeating, or a fool to refrain from destroying it.
And Islam was weakening its enemies by capturing its youth long before Western secularists had the bright idea of taking over the school systems. But at least the equalitarians should be pleased to know that it is not only boys who are now able to pursue a career as a janissary catamite.
Everyone with a warrior woman fetish should watch the video, repeatedly, until they get it through their heads that women simply cannot fight men. Too small, too weak, too slow. See the ragdoll-flopping and the way she goes limp? That's from a single punch from a college-age man she assaulted who didn't see her attack coming and clearly isn't a trained fighter. She was lucky she only got a concussion; if he'd aimed a little lower, he'd probably have broken her jaw.
Now that we understand that the Left has absolutely no regard for the freedom of thought or the freedom of expression, what reason can be given for why the West should not follow the lead of Africa and the Middle East in criminalizing both homosexuality and atheism? The Left has often lectured us on the moral superiority of those cultures, have they not?
Such actions can be fully justified on traditional grounds, historical grounds, moral grounds, and perhaps most importantly, pragmatic grounds. The reason past laws were relaxed was in the name of secular tolerance, but as has now been amply demonstrated, atheists and homosexuals are not at all willing to be tolerant of those who disagree with them. So why should anyone else be tolerant of them?
In the long term, it doesn't really matter. Either circumstances will force the West to put its house in order, or it will be overrun by those less progressive societies which refuse to tolerate its self-destructive elements.
If atheists truly want a power struggle for the right to be intolerant, Christians will eventually engage and win. Because we will die before we will give up our beliefs and you will not. We invented the Crusade and the Inquisition, two institutions so historically intimidating that atheists still shiver and tell each other scary stories about them centuries after the event.
We will revive them before we will abandon our faith. And while we would prefer to live with both Christian and traditional Constitutional values, if we are forced to choose between the two, we will choose the former without even thinking twice.
We hear a lot about Uganda's and Russia's new laws. We don't hear quite as much about the fact that Uganda is the 38th African nation to criminalize what the Bible describes as "abomination". While the actions of a single judge are supposed to be indicative of progress, the democratic actions of entire nations are being ignored.
In the end, it is pretty simple. Reversion to the historical mean is the logical bet. And the USA is far from the first empire in decline to give itself up to sexual chaos.
A San Francisco homosexual comments on the matter: "You'll forgive me if I dont' feel any heartbreak for your kind finally being run out of town."
You have two choices, Americans. Either criminalize their behavior and force them back into the closet or be run out of town yourself. There is no middle ground. Other nations have reached this conclusion; I expect it is only a matter of time before Americans do too. We tried toleration. Despite our honest efforts, it has failed, and failed abysmally.
Obsidian cries raciss
I'm only surprised it took him this long to get around to it. I've been waiting for him to take a public shot at me ever since I humiliated him when he was strutting around boasting about "chin-checking chumps" or however it was that the Jive talk went:
Following up on my question above, I note that you cite two very well known bloggers in the Manosphere, who would be considered to fit Kimmel’s characterization like the proverbial hand in glove: Chateau Heartiste, formerly known as Roissy, and Vox Day, of the blog Alpha Game. Both have been cited for their racist views of people of color, and neither seem particularly interested in being inclusive of Men of Color under their tents (in fact, I would go so far as to say that they are both actively hostile to such inclusiveness – I say this based on direct observation and experience of both). As noted above, their astute observations and the like, many of which I do agree with, are utterly undermined by their racism, and gives folks like Kimmel, et al a smoking gun with which to discredit the entirety of the MRM cause.
My response is at Alpha Game. But suffice it to say that my deep and abiding concerns for the African-American community are only exceeded by my dedication to the plight of the Heian Japanese. Of course, I am hostile to "inclusiveness". As an open and avowed elitist, it tends to come with the territory.
I actually find it vaguely surprising that people are still trying to play the race card in 2014. Hispanics quite openly hate Blacks and are actively driving them out of their most archetypical communities. Whites and Jews are "gentrifying" them out of their historic homes, which is the genteel way to say "financial ethnic cleansing". I mean, who is still pretending that desegregation is even remotely viable? Who is still dumb enough to pretend that the Civil Rights Movement wasn't a fundamentally wrong-headed failure?
It's even stranger that they still attempt to play it on me. First, I can trump it with my own Man of Color card. Second, I should think I have made it abundantly clear that I am not in the least bit afraid of being labeled anything from Toddler Slayer to RSHD.
"All men are created equal" cannot possibly apply in a material sense in any world where all men are not even equally homo sapiens sapiens.
[The NFL is reacting against Arizona's proposed anti-gay bill]
The idiots in the league office are making the same mistake that the gatekeepers in SF/F made about 20 years ago. They wrongly assume that they are in a position to dictate to the public, when in fact it is their position that relies upon the good will of the public.
Tolerance is an evil joke. It is nothing but a stalking horse to impose anti-Christian, anti-Islamic secular values on an unwilling public. It is now eminently clear that the First Amendment was a mistake, considering the way it is being used to attack religion rather than protect it, as was the original intention. Somehow, "Congress shall make no law" has metastasized into "no one anywhere shall be permitted to make a law."
Arizona should respond by telling the NFL that if it pulls the Super Bowl, it will be taxed 100 percent of its revenues in the state, including revenues derived from television income.
This open argument in favor of abanoning the Doctrine of Academic Freedom in favor of a Doctrine of Academic Justice is an excellent example of why women were not allowed into the universities in the first place. This is why they were not permitted to vote. We ignore the great minds of the past at our peril, and we have no right to complain about having to suffer the obvious consequences of entirely predictable actions:
...
Women are, and have always been, intrinsically fascist at heart. With a small minority of exceptions, they hate freedom and will always trade it for the promise of security, physical and emotional. The Fascists understood this. The medieval philosophers understood this. The Founding Fathers understood this. The West rejected the idea in favor of sexual equality and the myth of progress, and now the university has abandoned its centuries-old tradition of academic freedom.
Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, not all women are the same. Yes, there are brilliant and sensible women. But the salient point is that the price of female involvement is reliably too high across the board. How much more destruction can Western Civilization be expected to survive before women of sense are willing to admit that the price of female participation in matters of governance is too great? Do we really need to undergo the Great Collapse before the ancient truths can be accepted once more?
"The lesson, as always, is this: women ruin everything."
- Bill Simmons
It is readily observable that there is no such thing as a static sexual abnormality. Was Ian Watkins always a pedophile? Was the thrice-married Meredith Baxter Birney always a lesbian? The dynamic sin model explains observable human behavior rather better than most of the scientific alternatives, particularly the static ones. Regardless, whether it is a simple choice or a curable psychological disorder, the idea that homosexuality is always and necessarily a permanently fixed orientation is demonstrably false. Any homosexual who dares to question this, much less dispute it, must be asked why they deny science. And statistics.
UPDATE: This objection on Twitter made me laugh. Critics, it might help to keep in mind you're dealing with a superintelligence before you say something stupid, all right? I'm smarter than you are. Just assume that even if you don't believe it; it may save you some embarrassment. That doesn't mean I'm always right, it just means that you're probably wrong.
Buttercup Dew: "Your logic doesn't follow? I was "bisexual" as a teen, now unambiguously homosexual. You decided conclusion and worked backwards."
To which I responded: "No, my logic is correct. You prove the point. The fact of the delta is what matters, not the direction."
In Minnesota, the DFL is the party that loves, loves, loves the vibrants, especially the Somali immigrants, and is constantly advocating for more of them. It's simply fabulous that one of their leaders should become the beneficiary of the sort of treatment to which they have subjected so many of the people of Minnesota. And the fact that the DFLer was beaten up by female vibrants only makes the story that much more amusing.
I think every champion of open borders and every so-called civil rights advocate should be forced to walk alone through the vibrant quarters at night once per year. Perhaps the experience would scare some common sense into them. If they survived.
It appears the Mall of America isn't the only mall in America that is currently enjoying the manifold benefits of vibrancy. This, too, is an aspect of America's ongoing societal suicide. You wanted desegregation, you got it, baby. But isn't it ironic how so many of those who champion desegregation suddenly want to move in with the segregationists as soon as their neighborhood actually desegregates?
Enjoy the vibrancy.
[Research found different neural pathways in men's and women's brains]
It's amusing how they can't help but describe their findings in a futile attempt to appeal to women rather than to offend them. It's not the map-reading that is relevant; the real takeaway here is that women are less logical on average because their right hemisphere interferes with the ability of their left hemisphere to logically process information. It's never been any secret that women are less logical; among other things, that's why women weren't permitted to vote in the first place. But now, thanks to science, we are beginning to understand that limits such as these weren't set out of simple prejudice, but rather out of the straightforward desire for societal self-preservation.
And, as the consequences have demonstrated, the West violated those limits at its peril, a mistake for which we are all, men and women alike, paying the price.
It should be fascinating to see what happens when similar studies begin providing unavoidable scientific explanations for the differences between various human population groups that everyone observes, but affects to either deny or explain away.
The schism has been declared. Very well. And likewise, Christians who actually follow the Word of God need to do the same.
If you have members that insist women preach or hold positions of ecclesial authority, you need to expel them from that church.
If you run a ministry that does not affirm women in ecclesiastical leadership and you have employees or volunteers who do, you need to expel them from that ministry.
If you run a publishing house that prints books by “non-complementarians,” you need to drop those authors.
If you speak at conferences, you need to speak against the affirmation of women as speakers, teachers, and leaders.
As for me, I stopped attending all churches that feature female preachers or teachers or pastors or priests years ago. Based on the declining numbers of equalitarian church congregations around the world, I'm far from the only one.
The Spirit to which Tony Jones is listening to is not the Holy Spirit. It is the sweetly whispering voice of the Prince of This World.
THERE IS NO EQUALITY. EQUALITY DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY REAL, MATERIAL, LEGAL, OR SPIRITUAL SENSE.
[A S/F magazine is mocking Vox's position on female science fiction writers]
As it happens, the publishing situation is actually much more dire and the destruction caused by women is considerably more widespread than many people imagine.
Consider this: as of 10 November, I have sold or given away 26,092 Selenoth books on Amazon alone in the last 11 months. Those are books that women at not one, but two, mainstream publishers were instrumental in declining to publish, and as a result, those books have not appeared in a single bookstore anywhere in the world.
Now, think about the multiplier effect of a major publisher's distribution channel compared to that of a small independent, electronic-only publisher? Even if it is only 5x, that likely would have been enough to put A Throne of Bones in the top 5 percent of best-selling fantasy. (This may be why the bestselling author who wrote to me said: "I very much found myself wondering what would have happened had it been published by a large house with a marketing campaign behind it.") And all the time spent reading those 26 thousand books, which was not inconsiderable, is time that was obviously not spent reading the various offerings of the mainstream publishers.
More importantly, the money that would have been spent on the nonexistent "multiplier books" was mostly not spent on other science fiction and fantasy novels, but was instead spent on the wide variety of other non-literary options available to the sort of men who make up the books' primary market. And I am far from the only male-oriented writer who was shut out by the SF/F gatekeepers in favor of the scalzified material. This means that there a very good case to be made that women have not only destroyed science fiction, but have also contributed significantly to the lower profits of the publishing industry as well as the ongoing collapse of the chain and local bookstores.
[A female UFC fighter claimed she could beat a male fighter]
I suppose it's true, if by "under the right circumstance" she means that she is armed with a .357 revolver and Velasquez is blindfolded with his arms and legs chained to a wooden pole.
But if she's talking about the octagon, the fact is that Rousey not only couldn't beat Velasquez, she couldn't last two minutes with me or any other man under the age of 60 who has even a modicum of genuine martial arts experiment. Keep in mind that Rousey weighs all of 135 pounds. I weigh a good deal less than Velasquez and I curl that much weight. In fact, I did 8x110 this very afternoon. Also, she clearly has no idea how much faster men are than her, nor how little ability she has to take a full-force blow from a bigger, stronger, faster man.
As I mentioned before, I once tried to go toe-to-toe with 225-pound Marine at a time when I gave up about 50 pounds to him. I was just as strong as he was; we lifted together a few times. And being faster, I may have even hit him a little harder than he hit me, but I simply couldn't stand up to his shots the way he could take mine. It's not about being tough, it's about having enough mass to absorb the force that is striking you.
Anyhow, the sooner someone makes Rousey put her body where her mouth is, the sooner this lunacy will end. It's just irresponsible for female fighters like her to be mouthing off in this regard because as long as the warrior woman delusion persists, there is a chance some idiot girl is going to get her skull fractured as a result.
At this point, I think it is perfectly reasonable to question if Lanza had anything to do with the shootings beyond being one of the victims of the real shooters. But what about those grief-stricken parents? And why is the media still going on about assault rifles when they have nothing to do with what supposedly happened at Sandy Hook?
I was entirely willing to reserve judgment, but the inexplicable anomalies are rapidly piling up again. The pattern is readily apparent and given the facts at hand, Occam's Razor increasingly suggests a false flag. I don't understand why anyone finds it hard to believe there are elements in the US government who don't hesitate to murder US citizens, given that the Obama administration openly asserts its legal right to kill citizens at will without due process.
Let's engage in a little outlandish legal conjecture and assume that the shootings were real. What, one wonders, would have prevented the administration from legally placing the children of Sandy Hook elementary school on its secret kill list and then ordering their assassination?
The whole article is pretty good, as Matt goes on to explain how the public school system is working precisely as designed. The fact is that if you believe in public education, you are every bit as much a Nazi as someone who believes Jews should be oven-baked and every bit as much a Communist as someone who believes in the abolition of private property. Adolf Hitler and Karl Marx were both absolutely avid advocates of public education, in fact, "Free education for all children in government schools" is the tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto.
Public school is systematic child abuse. It is that simple. Don't ever be defensive about home schooling. When someone asks you why you homeschool, just tell them "public school is child abuse" and give them the opportunity to explain how and why that statement is incorrect. They will not be able to do so.