Dalrock---one of the ringleaders of the Red Pill/Game Cult--- has joined in a chorus of post-Valentines Day voices denouncing cultural respect for women. His blog has become something of a conduit for misogynists. Alt-RINOs, and latent homosexuals to sneer at cuckservatives. Now, to these jokers, a Cuckservative basically defines all Conservatives whose social politics aren't to the right of Benito Mussolini's. They are also vocal critics of the Church, pretending in both instances that they are the real Christians and Conservatives.
Dalrock has titled one of his recent posts, Feminism + Chivalry = Modern Conservatives. Even the premise of the title is wrong. Feminism advocates that chivalry is demeaning. And what Dalrock and the rest of his cult advocates is in line with that same perspective. It's impossible that feminism and chivalry can coexist; hence advocating abolishing chivalry is a feminist position itself.
Dalrock is outraged by an article in The Federalist explaining why it's important to teach boys not to hit girls. He and one of his disciples, Larry Kummer, have taken issue with this position: the latter posting about it on his own site, Fabius Maximus. Kummer is a notorious crank who also contributes an investment site called Seeking Alpha. He's on record as saying that the Game/PUA movement is "the latest counter-revolution to Feminism." As we assert, though, it's actually an extension of feminism---whereby men adopt feminist premises and treat women accordingly. The Conservative position, though, is that Feminism is harmful to women. Understood in this context, one can see how violence against women is a logical outcome of feminism; and why the Red Pills are merely an extension of it.
In essence, Dalrock and Kummer are really male feminists themselves. Their whole social philosophy is gynocentric---Game is nothing more than accepting feminist stereotypes and reacting to them. Kummer admits this much, and Dalrock quotes him favorably as saying:
"We have broken the old gender regime. It can no more be restored than toothpaste can be put back in the tube."
Andrea Dworkin taught much the same thing. But the Big Lie here is that the 'old gender regime' is not broken. Gender is biological and gender-roles have been with us since prehistoric times. We actually find what we call 'chivalry' in extent ancient literature: across the board the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Hebrews practiced it in one form or another. The evidence even from prehistoric artifacts indicate that a special value was placed on women even then. This isn't going to change because a few modern crackpots say that it has, or will. The French Jacobins, Russian Bolsheviks, and Cambodian Khmer Rouge said the same thing. But they are gone while the populations of France, Russia, and Cambodia live mostly by the same social rules they always have,
Dalrock goes on to repeat more feminist talking-points: "As Kummer notes, chivalry is a vestige of a previous time, and is inconsistent with an age where we are repeatedly told that women are as tough as men. Today most people accept the feminist position that not including women in Delta and SEAL Team 6 is a terrible injustice."
First, it's doubtful that 'most people' believe that women should be commandos; but what Dalrock and Kummer overlook is the fact that the Pentagon blockheads who pushed for female inclusion had to lower the training standards so that women could qualify. In other words, they tacitly admitted themselves that women are not as tough as men.
These Red Pills seem to be the types of guys who, back in school, either got beaten up by girls or got beaten up by other boys for bullying girls. That's another way they're like feminists: they're projecting their own sexual frustrations on society at large.
As Conservatives, we believe in protecting and defending women as those who hold the future of mankind in their hands. As Christians, we believe in the same thing because Christ taught us to do so. And it's also just common sense.
A usually fun informal holiday was ruined today in Southern Florida. A local scumbag returned to the school from which he'd been expelled and killed 17 people in cold blood. An unknown number of others were critically wounded.
The suspect involved was such a complete loser that students actually guessed correctly who was responsible. But reading through the media, various blogs, and commentary, everyone except for the gunman was guilty of Florida's massacre.
There has been, for example, speculation about the suspect's politics. This may sound like a silly question; but what does that have to do with anything? Moonie-affiliated news streams like Newsweek and The Daily Beast have been stressing that there was a photo of the shooter wearing a 'MAGA' hat; other sites have pointed out that was a registered Democrat.
Does anyone happen to know who John Dillinger voted for? What party did Billy the Kid support? Or Bonnie & Clyde? Or Jesse James? Why is it any less ridiculous to know these things than to know (or care about) Nick Cruz' politics? It might make some difference if a crime of this magnitude was politically motivated; but there's no indication so far that this incident was. The media has mentioned that the suspect was outspokenly anti-Moslem; but Moslems weren't singled out for the attack.
People like this shooter are motivated by 'hate'; but their hatred is irrational. It's a neurotic type of hatred that projects hatred in general upon innocent people, things, or sometimes institutions and/or ethnic groups. There's little point in speculating about such people's motives---even if they were explained, they'd make no sense to anyone outside of investigators and psychologists.
The Corporate Media keeps these kinds of stories boiling for purely cynical reasons. Stories like these drive up ratings and high ratings translate to advertising dollars. And it's cheaper than producing crime dramas. In the past, the mass media used to promote religious institutions and other charitable organizations helping the victims. They would even give free advertising or hold interviews with people organizing such efforts. At an affiliated site, we profiled Sheriff Scott Israel, who has been leading the investigation. Sheriff Israel is himself a man of faith: in his case, the Jewish one. He takes the realistic approach that such incidents are inevitable as long as evil men have the means to carry out their evil designs; and that the challenge of modern law enforcement is to stop the perpetrators in action.
Though we disagree with Sheriff Israel on some of his gun-control positions, his theory of efficiency in coordinating first-responders and training for localized incidents is truly innovative; much like the way that the FBI stopped the wave of bank-robberies in the 1930s with the then-new technology of radio. While the police couldn't prevent hold-ups, radio enabled them to move from point to point rapidly---and as a team---thus making suspects' attempts to elude them difficult. The old saying, 'You can't outrun a radio' comes from that era. And Sheriff Israel's tactics have already stopped two mass-shootings from escalating from bad to worse.
This is what we need as a country in times like these. Faith that seeks solutions to what we can't control, and faith that reaches out to those who suffer from these events. Archbishop Wenski of the Miami Diocese said well that "we must come together as a community to support one another in this time of grief...with God's help, we can remain strong and resolute; and resist evil in all of its manifestations."
It's really amazing that anyone takes the American Corporate Media seriously any more. Aside from the constant stream of fake news---which is often very easily discredited---we have a growing list of so-called professional journalists getting caught in one repulsive act after another. And small wonder. When we learned last September that the social gatekeeper of the Beltway Media Elite was an admitted practitioner of Satanic Black Magic, what was left of the veneer of respectability evaporated.
So it's not surprising to hear from The Miami Herald that 25-year news veteran Robin Cross of WSVN-7 was suspended after being caught on videotape harassing and intimidating her next door neighbor. According to many sources, Cross has been a nuisance ever since she moved into the neighborhood. She has a particularly nasty habit of trotting out her press credentials and threatening to dig up dirt on people when she doesn't get her way.
And so her downfall came after doing this to neighbor Robert Fenton, a Miami-area car dealer. The minute-long video clip is laced with profanity: Cross is screaming, "You don't own the f----g road! Yes, I said f---- in case you haven't heard it before! Except maybe from your f----g son who's dating a f----g nigger! There, I said it out loud!"
Fenton's son is an attorney who is dating the ebony lass to whom Cross refers. In a statement to WSVN, Avery Fenton stated that his girlfriend "is a wonderful woman who was reduced to a racial slur by one of your employees last night."
The racial angle to this story is interesting. Not only did Cross' actions show her to be a typical journalistic bully but a covert racist as well. It's not so much that Cross used a racial slur so much as the fact that for 25 years, she posed as an objective, racially-neutral reporter. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising if she was reporting on race-related issues quite favorably (or more accurately politically correct). But what we see is that was all put-on; and that journalists act quite differently when they think that no one is watching.
In the bigger scheme of things though, this is further evidence that American media culture is in serious need of reform. And reform means from top-to-bottom. The entire media apparatus is corrupt and filled with incompetents who are basically paid to do nothing but prepare and read off scripts. There's nothing in the Establishment Media that has a shred of credibility or journalistic dignity left. Even President Trump prefers to go directly to the people via social media.
We recently heard about sports promoter Vince McMahon's project to build a competing league to the NFL. This is the kind of thing we need with the Corporate Media. Maybe some venture capitalists can build another news network? We can only hope.
President Trump's daughter-in-law Vanessa was hospitalized this morning along with two other unidentified persons after exposure to a suspicious substance which was mailed to her home. The letter was addressed to her husband, Donald Trump Jr. According to the US Secret Service, laboratory results have proven that the substance itself was simple cornstarch. But the effects of this action were not.
The incident caused derisive hooting from the Corporate Media hyenas, along with some truly sick commentary on certain blogs and in social media. However things like cornstarch can be employed as a carrier of deadly toxins. And, though the Media seems to have forgotten, another such packet was mailed to Eric Trump in 2016.
"I'm thankful that Vanessa and our children are safe and unharmed after the incredibly scary incident that occurred this morning." Donald Jr. said, "Truly disgusting that certain individuals choose to express their opposing views with such disturbing behavior."
The FBI said that the incident was under investigation; however Trump's remark seems to indicate that they may have a particular suspect in mind. The fact also that the Corporate Media is already downplaying the story adds some impetus to that theory. Regardless of who or what was behind it, the whole incident brings to mind something that Pope Francis said recently about American being too politicized. When people are guided by the notion that the personal is political then a political leader's family is considered a legitimate target of attack.
Mrs. Trump thanked federal and local authorities for their prompt action. And we should be thankful for them, too. Who knows when the next personal-is-political type may flip out and come after any one of us just as they did to the President's family.
Vox Day has published his fourth (and thankfully final) article purportedly refuting a Christian response to his Alt-Right Manifesto. Vox' article was somewhat anti-climatic, but nonetheless predictable. Blogger Comic Hound wrote a lengthy point-by-point commentary on Vox' Manifesto explaining how it contradicted Christian Doctrine. Aside from calling Comic Hound a Churchian and cherry-picking a few pieces of Scripture out of context, Vox never once proved his theory was aligned with Christianity.
And that's been the point of our following this controversy in all its agonizing detail. It's a practical illustration of a common cultish tactic. Whenever traditional religion opposes a cult, the cult-leaders and propagandists immediately shift the debate from its initial premise. They simply argue, as Vox has done, that his assertions are self-evident truths. And they liberally salt these assertions with jibes, insults, and mockery---all this is done to throw a smokescreen over the fact that few---if any---of their beliefs are consistent with traditional religion.
Cults are almost always vulnerable at this point, because they need the authority of a traditional religion to give their movement legitimacy; while at the same time rejecting its actually doctrine. Even cults like Scientology base their beliefs in allegedly prehistoric events; and some secular/political cults like Communism and Naziism state that their existence is a fulfillment of some evolutionary mandate. The Red Pills do both: they claim an inevitable triumph that fulfills both Biblical prophecy and evolutionary necessity.
To address some of the points in his fourth article: Vox claims that his opposition to international free-trade is in line with Conservative thought; while its advocates follow Marxism. This is completely wrong; Conservative economists like Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Baron von Hayek, Frederic Bastiat, and Harry Browne all argued that international free trade promoted world peace. And this is completely logical, since if nations mutually benefit from one another the threat of war is less likely. Marx believed in international trade---but controlled, not free trade.
Vox, however, claims---and re-asserts here---that wars come from his formula, "Diversity+Proximity=War." That fallacy has already been debunked; but the raw racism of such a position becomes clear when within the framework of economics. China and the US are radically different cultures but President Trump's trade policy with them has opened up a new era of cooperation and friendship. Neither country has an incentive for war now with both of us benefiting from the other.
Against this, though, Vox claims that the survival of the White race is a moral imperative, while at the same claiming that 'science' proves that there are human sub-species. What science he means, no one knows: but his position is contradictory. If the White Race is truly dying out (which is not likely) then it stands to reason that other races are better adapted in terms of human evolution and that survival of the fittest applies to them and not to us.
It's a good sign to see however that more and more Christians are standing up and denouncing the whole Cult of the Red Pill/Alt-Right/Gamers, or whatever they call themselves. As Pope Benedict once famously said of another group predicting that the downfall of the Church was imminent: "It's been imminent now for the last two millennia." Whatever these would-be Alphas imagine of themselves, they are the ones headed for the ash-can of history while, at the end of human history, the Church will remain standing and triumphant.
So we're now up to the third installment of Vox Day's rather lame defense of his Alt-RINO Manifesto. So far, Vox has yet to tell us how his Manifesto is based in Christian Doctrine or how this response to it is inconsistent with it.
This third section contains considerable arm-flapping and spouts of self-righteous indignation from Vox and his disciples. He's barely been able to go one paragraph in all three articles without references to Churchians, Cuckservatives, cretins, morons, and jackasses. This however is the Red Pill idea of high-level discourse.
One of the high points of this third article was when Vox---who usually employs the notorious echo symbol when referencing (((a Jew)))---actually accuses Comic Hound of anti-Semitism! No really, he says this. And he even---falsely---claims that Comic Hound's rejection of the infamous Blood and Soil doctrine implies opposition to Israel's existence as a nation. Anybody though who's read much of Alt-RINO literature realizes that the Red Pills who favor Israeli statehood do so not out of concern for the Jews; but only so the Jews have something like an Indian Reservation on which to live.
It's interesting to observe though that many Christians regard concentrating world Jewry into Palestine as a policy of the future prophesied Antichrist. Not all Christians agree about prophesies concerning the Jews---but it's really a moot point for our purposes since Vox is simply throwing out canards without addressing doctrines at all.
The Red Pills hold positions like these because they share with the Marxists a belief in Identity Politics. One of the points of Vox' Manifesto claims that politics stem from identity. This true when speaking of very primitive societies; but societies evolve and mature over time through close cooperation. Identity Politics exist at the sociological level of tribal systems, but are regressive social traits in a civilized society.
Vox claims that a nation's political structure is rooted in its national identity. If this were true there would never have been either revolutions or civil wars in human history. The American Revolution is a good example: both sides in the War of Independence had a common identity as British and polar opposites in their politics. Another more radical example is Korea. Korea had no historical identity with republican governments and the yet the country split into a Democratic republic and a Communist republic. What these examples show is that, in the modern era, Comic Hound is correct in that politics supersedes both culture and identity. And as we showed in the last post, the Catechism teaches us that such is the Will of God, that nations grow and learn from each other.
As a side note here: political and cultural problems generally stem from a spiritual problem. In the two examples above, America in 1776 was a deeply spiritual culture which felt restrained by British culture. Korea had a spiritual vacuum in 1945 which was easily filled by cults like the Moonies in the democratic South and by Communists in the North.
Copying another Game cultist, Chateau Heartiste, Vox asserts the Red Pill talking-point that "Diversity+Proximity=War." This, he believes, is self-evident; and refers to skeptics as morons. His only answer is a lot of sneering, although Comic Hound points out that wars fought over diversity were initiated by racists. Which should be easy to refute, if false. If we look back at the last 150 or so years we see the American Civil War (started by a cabal intent on extending slavery). Then we see the Boer War (started by a group who wanted apartheid). Then there was WW1 (started by an empire bent on ethnically cleansing the Balkans. They were allied with another empire which ethnically cleansed the Armenians). WW2 is self-evident on this point. Korea and Vietnam were instigated by men bent on driving the White Devils from Asia, just as the earlier Boxer Rebellion did.
So when Vox snorts, "What wars are these morons talking about", the answer is just about every major war since the Napoleonic Era.
Vox winds up his rabid screed by claiming that America does not exist on 'the idea that diversity is your right'. The First, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding.
But again this is mostly distraction. Where again is the Alt-Right Manifesto based in Christian Doctrine? Vox hasn't told us yet---maybe he will in Part IV.
So Vox has now published his second so-called defense of his Alt-Right Manifesto. This defense is supposedly a rebuttal of blogger Comic Hound's excellent article refuting the Alt-RINO positions and explaining how they conflict with Christianity.
Halfway through all of this and Vox has yet to address the core issue. So have some of his followers.
Vox has yet to demonstrate either how
1. Comic Hound's statements are inconsistent with Christian Doctrine, or;
2. How Vox' Manifesto is in accordance with Christian Doctrine.
Now that a day has passed and Vox has choked back some of his bile; he apparently realized those flaws in his argument, so he's cherry-picked a few verses of Scripture to 'prove' that Racism is a Christian value. Cultural Marxists argue the very same thing all the time. But consulting Articles 1929-1948 of the Catechism shows exactly the opposite to be true:
"Respect for the human person considers others 'another self'. It presupposes respect for the fundamental rights which flow from the dignity intrinsic in the person. The equality of men considers their dignity as persons and the rights which flow from it. The differences among persons belong to God's Plan, Who wills that we should need one another. These differences should encourage charity...Solidarity is an eminently Christian virtue."
Thus, Christian Doctrine---while it recognizes differences in people---holds that Empathy, Charity, and Solidarity are the attitudes which Christians hold. Vox distorts this view as advocating a one-world government: which it clearly does not. By Vox' illogic, Russian humanitarian aid to Syria and Ukraine would be immoral.
Vox also twists Comic Hound's words by making it appear as though the latter favors Open Borders. This assumption no doubt springs from his xenophobia which Comic Hound refutes in Point 5. Vox asserts that "nations have a right to exist homogenous and unadulterated by foreign invasion or immigration." Rather a paradoxical position for an American expatriate to take, to say the least.
In defense of this point, though, Vox tips his hand and shows that the Red Pill Philosophy is all about neo-Marxist 'Identity Politics' and not based in Christianity at all. He says: "If you are anti-Nationalist you are by definition anti-patriotic and anti-American. Even worse, you are a Globalist". Vox keeps throwing this term 'globalism' around as though it was some sort of anathema. He seems to have forgotten that both the League of Nations and its successor, the UN were mostly conceived by Americans. And they were created to advance Western Civilization and its ideals of Democracy and the Free Market. In fact, the Korean and Vietnam Wars were fought by the UN to stop one-world government under Communism.
Vox then makes this twisted statement which shows the brutality and vulgarity of his whole system: "All human beings are not equal in terms of worth." Then he goes on state that by the logic of such 'cretins' who believe to the contrary, no one would be damned and Christ's Crucifixion was for nothing. What Vox fails to realize---because he himself is a god in his own mind---is that all humans are equal in that we are in sin; and that "God so loved the world that He gave his Son so that all who believe in Him should have Eternal Life" (Jno. iii:16).
Point 8 deals with the Alt-Right Manifesto's statement about Science in Society which is so ludicrous that it hardly needs refutation. Those interested can consult what Comic Hound had to say about it in the link above.
We are holding our collective breath waiting for Parts III and IV.....
