Monday, August 13, 2018

HUNGARY BANS GENDER STUDIES' COURSES

       President Trump and Education Secretary DeVos, please take note. The Hungarian Government announced today that it was abolishing Gender Studies courses in their university system. The schools affected includes one founded by international arch-criminal George Soros.

     Dr. Bence Retvari of the Hungarian Secretary of State's office stated that "university degrees must rely on a scientific basis for their existence. Gender Studies, an offshoot of Marxism and Leninism, must be termed an ideology instead of a science." 

    A press spokesman concurred, stating further that subjects such as Gender Studies serve no national or economic interest and are consequently a waste of taxpayer funds. All that we can add to this is that attitudes like these are desperately needed in the United States too. Gender Studies here are not only a waste of valuable tax-funds; they are incubators of the worst breeds of social parasites. Up until the 1990's, Gender Studies' departments and degrees were practically nonexistent in the US. They spread like wildfire---with metaphorically the same disastrous results---under the instigation of Hillary Clinton, Donna Shalala, Janet Reno, and Johnetta Cole. 

     Naturally, Hungary's decision caused an explosion of outrage among Europe's Cultural Marxists. The American Media---except for some Conservative-leaning outlets---has largely ignored the story lest it give politicians over here any ideas. The commentary on most of these sites has been overwhelmingly supportive of Retvari's policy.  

      Wonderful news to start off the week. Let's just hope our politicians follow Hungary's lead. 


Saturday, August 11, 2018

DALROCK AND HIS MORAL PYGMIES VS. DOUGLAS WILSON

     Dalrock, a Red Pill blogger whose main effort seems to be undermining faith in traditional Christianity, has gone on the attack (again) against the Rev. Douglas Wilson of Moscow, Idaho. Granted, the Reverend Wilson is a controversial figure. But Dalrock takes on Wilson over this article,  wherein Wilson answers one of Dalrock's acolytes on the question of broken marriages. 

       Dalrock and others who worship the Red Pill hold to the extreme position that a wife is never morally justified in leaving a husband under any circumstances. Wilson shows (correctly) that the references that the Red Pills employ to support their positions refers to Christian converts within pagan marriages. These positions rely largely upon a misreading and misunderstanding of a few passages which the Red Pills contort to fit the misogynist philosophies underlying their entire cult. 

      For example, Dalrock chides Wilson for 'ignoring' a passage in the 1st Epistle of St. Peter (iii:5-6). This reads in many versions: "For after this manner, the holy women of old also trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and whose daughters you are, as long as you do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." 

     The Red Pills point to some of Abraham's lapses in faith---even nearly giving Sara to another man twice.  In the Greek however, we get a better understanding of the context:  "Thus once when the holy women, those expecting God, accustomed themselves to being under their own husbands. As Sara obeyed the Master Abraham, him calling upon Him whose children you have become; and the ones doing good, not fearing anything nor in dismay."

     As an example of supreme faith, St. Peter here praises Sara---through whom it was promised Israel and subsequently the Messiah. Sara obeyed Abraham because she trusted God---Who ultimately did intervene. An analogous situation would be Abraham's faith when commanded to sacrifice Issac. 

     Contrary to what these cultists believe, the Catechism explains: "According to Faith, the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of men and women; nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had as its first consequence a rupture in the relations between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations; their mutual attraction---God's own gift---changed into a relationship of domination and lust." (Pt.ii; sec.2, ch.iii:1607). From the Garden of Eden to August, 2018 that passage describes the Red Pill and Feminism perfectly. 

      The Red Pills see sin only in one-dimensional terms: that the nature of women tends to sin and tends to lead men into sin. They overlook any possibility that the actions of a man could destroy a relationship, thus they accuse Pastor Wilson of "trying to straddle two horses; the Word of God and the feelings of women." As if somehow, the two things are by moral necessity mutually exclusive.

       The Catechism further schools the Red Pills in verse 1609 loc. cit.: "In His Mercy, God has not forsaken sinful man. The punishments consequent upon sin, 'the pain of child-bearing' and 'toil in the sweat of your brow' also embodies remedies limiting the damaging effects of sin. After the Fall, marriage helps overcome self-absorption, egotism, pursuit of one's own pleasure; and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and self-giving."

      In Dalrock's twisted world-view, marriage contains no such remedies; but is solely based upon the aforementioned sins of "domination and lust." Love---which is the basis of both our relationships to others as well as to God---is noticeably absent in all Red Pill teachings. 

       Because both genders are subject to sin, each has the potential of destroying a marriage by perverting its meaning. The Church teaches that the family is a microcosm of the wider communion of saints. Consequentially, either spouse has an indefeasible right to terminate the union, or temporarily separate, in order that the dignity of marriage be preserved. Women are not morally forced to endure beatings, enslavement, adulterous behavior by their husbands, abuse of children, criminal behavior, etc. Part of the Church's mission is to help such people---not make things worse for them. 

Thursday, August 9, 2018

THE DOWNFALL OF ALEX JONES, PART II

      This story is not going away anytime soon. Since our last post, Google Podcast, I-Heart Radio, Linkedin, Disqus, and several lesser-known sites have cut ties in some way with Alex Jones and Infowars. This has all stirred up a huge controversy; with some claiming purges and censorship on one side to others calling for more purges and censorship on the other. 

      We need to step back and have some sensible dialogue about this, because it doesn't bode well for the future of Free Speech otherwise. 

      As we pointed out yesterday, this unprecedented, mass-attack on a single media outlet is probably motivated by legal liability issues more than anything else. A spokesman for Facebook said: "While much of the discussion of Infowars has been around false news... none of the violations that spurred today's removals were related to this."

     Apple stated officially: "Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure a safe environment for all of our users."

      Youtube stated their reason as "repeatedly violating our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures." This last phrase is especially telling. It's also interesting that Youtube and Apple both strongly suggest harassment as a reason, and it could also could be deduced as a motive from Facebook's statement. Which leads us back to allegations made against Jones in the Sandy Hook lawsuit. 

     This same thing happened nearly a year ago with the mass-banning of the sick Red Pill site, The Daily Stormer. Andrew Anglin, who ran the site was also being sued for harassment and libel---in two different lawsuits. (He recently lost the latter case.) The debate then also swirled around free speech. But the point here is that with Rights come responsibilities. We can't be responsible for how some use our words, but egging on people to commit acts of harassment and violence can't be excused. This goes for Left-Wing agitators too. Keith Olbermann nearly got the same treatment as Anglin and Jones got, but discreetly bailed out voluntarily before the hammer came down. 

      Let's not forget that, in the middle of this controversy, are the victims of Jones' agitation. Noah and Veronique Pozner, who lost a son at Sandy Hook wrote:

    "In order to protect ourselves and our surviving children, we have had to relocate numerous times. These groups use social media, including Facebook, to “hunt” us, posting our home address and videos of our house online. We are currently living in hiding. We are far from alone in our experiences, as many other families who have lost loved ones in mass shootings and other tragedies have reported the same  continuing torment."

      The Pozners are American Nationals, and deserve the protection of the law from this sort of abuse. So is Gene Rosen, a hero who saved six children at Sandy Hook and has suffered vicious harassment since 2012. He is now 75 years old.

     Robert Parker, who lost a daughter at Sandy Hook has been accused of being a 'crisis actor' and was attacked across the Internet after a CNN interview. The McDonnell Family, who also lost a daughter had the memorial they had raised for her stolen and vandalized. The thieves actually called them to taunt them over the 'hoax'. In 2016, the sister of slain Sandy Hook teacher Victoria Soto was assaulted in New York City by a man demanding that she confess that her sister never existed. 


       Last year, the Catholic Church near Sandy Hook had to request police to patrol the Church grounds during a memorial prayer vigil. This was because of threats against the Church. And so on. To the best of our knowledge, Jones has never denounced nor criticized any of these activities in any way. 


      These are neither the words nor the actions of any real Conservative. Jones---like Andrew Anglin before him---is simply playing the victim card. Though not reported by the Corporate Media, a number of Republican politicians have stood by the Sandy Hook victims. So should we.




       

     



        

Monday, August 6, 2018

THE DOWNFALL OF ALEX JONES

      Infowars, the media empire built around the colorful Alex Jones collapsed and collapsed hard today. Apple, Facebook, Youtube, and Sportify more or less simultaneously wiped Jones & Company from their respective services. Twitter is under a lot of pressure to follow suit. Jones has been in trouble for some time; in March over half of his Youtube advertisers quit on him. 

       I first heard of Alex Jones when he was interviewed by the late Art Bell sometime back in the 1990's. Jones was telling a story of infiltrating Bohemian Grove. Based on what I remember of Skull and Bones fraternities from college, the story sounded plausible. And it was an exciting story: immodestly, I'll admit, sneaking into Bohemian Grove sounded like something I would liked to have done. 

      Afterwards, I read Infowars fairly regularly. Jones was always impressive in the actual research he did. He cited publicly verifiable sources and questioned things that the Clinton and Bush gangs were doing. But things began to change as Jones' popularity soared. His stories became more and more improbable and based less and less in actual fact. I think I quit listening to him a decade or so ago. His stories were not only becoming dubious; he was picking up some very shady advertisers as well. 

      Jones really last crossed our radar screens here with his absurd claims about the Sandy Hook School Massacre. According to Jones, the shooting was a false flag; ostensibly to push for gun control and a police state. Neither of those things actually happened because of Sandy Hook, but Jones has made it his cause celebre. Probably more than anybody else, Jones has been pushing the Sandy Hook Hoax Theory, resulting in a pending lawsuit. 

       Jones and his wife divorced in 2015, and comments from his own attorney hasn't helped his credibility in the least:

    "At a recent pretrial hearing, attorney Randall Wilhite told state District Judge Orlinda Naranjo that using his client Alex Jones’ on-air Infowars persona to evaluate Alex Jones as a father would be like judging Jack Nicholson in a custody dispute based on his performance as the Joker in “Batman.”
“He’s playing a character,” Wilhite said of Jones. “He is a performance artist.”
      Jones' ex-wife disputes this, claiming that Jones is a violent maniac. Either way, it's difficult to take him seriously. Fanatic or fraud, Jones lost his focus a long time ago. It's sad in a way, because Jones' career really had a promising start. But fame and fortune went to his head. It's rather reminiscent of what St. Paul said to his disciple, St. Timothy about the love of money being the root of many evils. 

       Despite what the tech companies say, Jones' multiple bans likely were related to the legal liabilities that he was incurring. A 1989 US Supreme Court Case ruled:

    "This case refined the actual malice standard. Daniel Connaughton, a candidate for an Ohio judgeship had some members of his office investigated by a grand jury. One of the witnesses testifying in the case offered a quote to the Journal-News referring to "dirty tricks" that Connaughton allegedly practiced. He sued the newspaper and won. The Supreme Court determined that the newspaper did not pursue the truth with due diligence. It's worth going over what the Supreme Court determined was "actual malice."
According to the Court:
1. The paper relied on a questionable source.
2. It did not seek out other, more reliable sources.
3. It ignored taped evidence to the contrary.
4. It ignored Connaughton's statements to the contrary.
5. It ignored the probability of questionable facts.
6. It published an editorial that seemed to indicate prejudice, as it contained opinions that were harbingers of conclusions reached in the news article.
7. The newspaper's management and its reporters gave differing accounts of assignments concerning the story."

   Jones is, by these standards, in for a real legal beating over his treatment of Sandy Hook; and Apple and the others likely didn't want to find themselves in the same boat as the Journal-News in the 1989 case. 

       Even before the US became independent, the 1734 Zenger Case established the precedent upon which our 1st Amendment is based: "The truth is an absolute defense against libel charges." It's always better to go with the truth, no matter how lucrative falsehood might be.



       
      


Sunday, August 5, 2018

ANTHROPO-EXCEPTIONALISM; OR 'WHERE'S THE BEEF?'

      Blogger Insanity Bytes had a good article up today.  It seems that some doofus objected to something she said on the grounds that it was "anthropo-exceptionalist." For those who have real lives outside of postmodern academia; this term is another meaningless neologism that actually replaced an earlier nonsense term, Speciesism. 

     Like many of our current false philosophies, Speciesism gained currency during the effete decade of the Clinton Co-presidency, the 1990's. Proponents of this theory argue that human arrogance and egotism accounts for a false belief that mankind is superior to any other life form on earth. In college, I recall hearing a lecture by a professor of philosophy arguing this very thing. At the end of his speech, I asked "If what you say is true, why should we believe you any more than we'd believe a monkey?" He turned an angry red, and replied that I was an ignoramus. 

     We really do live in a deeply depraved age. People seriously argue that gender has no basis in either biology or psychology. They argue that a foetus isn't a living being. They say that Civilization is evil, and that religion is dangerous. So it's no surprise that they also believe that human beings and sewer rats are equal in the universal schemata of things. Attitudes like these in practical use lead to the kind of stupidity displayed in Portland yesterday.

      The State of Nature is not exactly kind to human beings, which is one reason why one of our earliest religious statutes is "to fill the earth and subdue it; to have dominion over the fishes of the sea; and over all the flying creatures in the skies; and over all the cattle and over all the creeping reptiles."  The proponents of Speciesism will scoff at the corresponding passage which states that man was created in the Image of God. But even their own evolutionary theories lead essentially to the same conclusion. According to Evolutionists, nature operates on the principle of survival of the fittest. Nature is full of threats like predatory animals, wildfires, violent storms, blizzards, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and epidemic diseases. Civilization is mankind's defense against such things; therefore, we are the fittest species to survive and have every right to advance our species. 

       And, on the subject of Rights: the proponents of Speciesism talk of the rights of other species and our moral duties towards them without realizing that rights and morality are exclusively human concepts. Their whole theory is one massive contradiction of itself on nearly every aspect. 

      A century ago, German-American professor Wolfgang Kohler published The Mentality of Apes, the most exhaustive research on primate intelligence ever conducted. Kohler concluded that the most intelligent adult chimpanzees---mankind's closest genetic relative---never surpassed the average intelligence levels of a human 2-3 year old. By his own admission, even those levels were only reached by training and coaching. Contrast that with the findings of researchers like Maria Montessori and Jean Piaget on the rapid learning abilities of human children. 

     People who believe in theories like Speciesism must entertain an extremely low opinion of humanity and human nature. The same Professor Kohler mentioned above once pointed out that the leftist leanings of Academia even in his day were poisoning the soul of humanity. "If," he said at a speech at Dartmouth University, "mankind is a product of his economic class as the Marxists teach; or a product of subconscious drives as the Freudians teach---how is he ever responsible for his actions?" Add into that mix Atheism and Moral Relativism and you've a society well on the road to disaster. 

       For all of their prating about Ecology, the people who believe in Speciesism are about as far removed from nature as possible. Our ancestors who lived closer to nature understood it a lot better. My grandmother used to tell about the most terrifying experience of her childhood was her family riding in a sleigh on the way to Church and getting chased by a wolfpack. Those wolves weren't chasing them for fun, either. The horse ran into a neighbor's barn; and after Great-Grandpa bolted the door, the wolves started hurling themselves against the windows to break in. And yet there are animal-rights activists who insist that wolves never attack human beings.

      The animal world is driven by a survival instinct and human moral concepts aren't a factor. I recall a few years ago, a TV ad (that was removed after complaints) showing a mother and her two kids driving along when they saw a sow-bear and her cubs. They got out of the car and were walking out towards the happy Bear Family sharing their experiences. Anyone who knows anything about the instinctual habits of bears knows that doing things like that in real life are shortcuts to an early grave. It's hard way to learn the superiority of reason to instinct; but it's surprising how many humans end up mauled, crippled, or dead every year because they think that wild animals' brains work like ours. 

       


      

Friday, August 3, 2018

VOX DAY LASHES OUT AS ARKHAVEN TANKS

    Since we pointed out recently the fact that Vox Day's latest gimmick to infiltrate the mainstream has been a complete wash-out, Dark Lord Beale has been on an online rampage. Vox is blaming Conservatives for "not following the leader" and insinuates that mainstream comic venues won't discuss Arkhaven "out of fear of making it more popular."


  

      But, as we pointed out in the previous article, the industry people aren't discussing Arkhaven material because it's nowhere to be found. The fact that Vox is already playing the Victim Card is a good indication that this project is in some serious trouble. 

       Vox' crowdsourcing campaign for Alt-Hero raised almost a quarter-million dollars, and the project was promoted in Breitbart News and several other venues. And what do they have to show for it? Even a Conservative voice within the comics industry saw the inevitable back in January:

      Those are good questions. And the sales numbers are showing that Alt-Hero hasn't even come close to making any impact on the industry or the industry culture whatsoever. In fact, one of the most remarkable features of the whole Alt-Hero fiasco has been that it's actually been worse than many of us anticipated. Bad artwork; sparse dialogue, incomprehensible storylines on the one hand, and unbelievably bad management and marketing on the other culminated to bring the whole project to nothing. 

      To give an example of how desperate Vox and his followers have become, today they were raving about a "vicious attack on Alt-Hero" in Dynamite Comic's 4th issue of Centipede. A character in that issue said that "Alt-Hero is a joke." The joke is on Vox' disciples; because that issue was released almost a year ago; when Vox was still raising funds:



      And here's how Vox and his toadies at Bounding Into Comics spun it:


    Arkhaven's "ongoing series"?  In October, 2017, Alt-Hero was still on the drawing-boards. But these jokers make it sound as though Dynamite Comics just published the remark yesterday. 

     As a side note, Dynamite Comics ranked #6 in market-share in June, while Arkhaven didn't even have enough sales volume to get a ranking. So much for Vox' ridiculous claim that his "lesser competitors are frightened" over his non-accomplishments. 

      Granted we could use some reform in the comics industry, but Vox and his followers are just compounding the problem.  

      

      

Thursday, August 2, 2018

Q ANON AND FAKE NEWS

       Well, today is the first of August and it appears that our friend Q Anon has misfired on one of his predictions. 



       This was to be the month that "the world discovered the truth." About what, he doesn't say; although the previous sentences allude to bumbling bureaucrats, dead cats that bounce, and the moral righteousness of panic. 

        This hasn't slowed down the movement, however. The Corporate Media noticed a few of Q's supporters at a GOP Rally in Florida tonight at which President Trump was in attendance. 


     We only spotted one or two Q-Anon signs in the crowd, although the Corporate Media made it sound as though there were thousands of his acolytes present. 



     In today's media climate, we can't be certain that these Q-supporters weren't really hired by the press themselves for staged photo-ops. The way that the Corporate Media suddenly all had 'Q Anon' stories lined up on cue is a bit suspicious. And for the Media to be accusing others of fanning conspiracy theories is hypocritical, to say the least. 

     This is really a part of the reason why Q and others like him gain so much public currency these days. A large part of our population---if not the majority---have completely lost faith in the American Mainstream Media. This failure of media credibility opens up a huge opportunity for confidence-men and conspiracy-kooks to exploit a public hungry for real information. It's only in a vacuum left by the absence of professional journalists that things like Pizzagate, the Sandy Hook Hoax Theory, and Q Anon can flourish.



      If we had real journalists again, it wouldn't be up to a few freelance bloggers to expose stories like the one above as a hoax. Instead, our postmodern 'journalists' spread lies of their own. They behave as though they resent Q Anon---not because he's misinforming people, but because they no longer have a monopoly on misinformation. 


     The real 'calm before the storm', I think, is that our culture is in a transition phase between the collapse of the Media Establishment and the return of Professional Journalism. In our system of free enterprise, a vacuum doesn't last very long. Right now, we're seeing the rise of independent outlets; although the first wave of it is deeply biased and partisan. For example, we have The Young Turks on the Left and Info Wars on the Right. These types of shows are setting the pattern: access to information uncontrolled by interest groups. What they haven't learned yet is professional objectivity. When entrepreneurs realize that people want objectivity, that will be the way of the future. And a future without our Corporate Media can't be anything but a positive one.