A blog to which we link, Moonbattery, had an article up the other day about this post on Twitter:
The man pictured is named Andrew Pollack, and he lost a family member in last week's Parkland School shooting. The comments which followed are revolting. Here are a specimen of a few, posted at Moonbattery:
"I have zero sympathy for this man. Look at the shirt he's wearing. He helped murder his own daughter."
"His shirt, then the photo of his murdered daughter? It came full circle on him. Your beliefs effect everyone."
"I'm sorry that he lost his daughter, but he voted for Trump and now is suffering the consequences of his actions."
"The shirt: I'm sorry, but I have to laugh."
There are more such disgusting statements for anyone interested, but we feel that this sample is about as much as any sane person can tolerate. But that is the point.
We expect this kind of behavior out of the Left. Most people reading such statements are filled with repugnance at the coarseness of character they display. But if it is disgusting for the Left to stoop to these levels, it doesn't justify the same stooping from the Right. The Red Pill/Alt-RINOs believe that it does. It's not uncommon on many of their sites to see similar things written about tragedies.
Conservatives should always seek to be held to a higher standard. There's nothing wrong with using rhetorical devices like humor, sarcasm, memes, etc. in their proper place and context; but the average person is just as repelled by Right-Wing vulgarity as they are from the Left. Remember that the average person in America is not philosophically political. Most Americans cluster somewhere in the Middle between ideological Left and Right. Probably the majority lean slightly Conservative while still favoring a number of Liberal policies. One of the ingenious political tactics of the late William F. Buckley was to juxtapose the confidence and stability of Conservatism against the extremism of Liberalism. The Reagan Revolution was largely shaped by Buckley's coolness while Liberalism self-destructed. And, frankly, in geopolitics, the Soviet Union collapsed without WW3 by a broader extension of the same philosophy.
The Red Pills and the Alt-RINOs share with the Left a disbelief in humanity's potential for goodness. They both believe that people generally need to be ruled over by an elite who manipulates society for society's supposed own good. They only disagree on whom this elite should be: either superior Alpha Males from the Master Race or superior Commisars from the Master Universities. Both are at complete variance with the fundamental Conservative doctrine that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
The commentaries following Mr. Pollack's post are not only disrespectful to his humanity, but reflect the kernel of the intolerant spirit that brings about totalitarianism in a society. People who believe that man's daughter deserved to die because of the man's politics are a stone's throw from the Paris mobs who used to watch gleefully as whole families were wiped out on the Guillotine. If the Conservative Movement comes that---as the Alt-RINOs wish it to---then it ceases to be Conservative at all. That has already happened to American Liberalism: extremism has turned the Democrats into a party that Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, or Johnson wouldn't recognize if they were alive today.
Let's not let it get to that point. Faith also implies faith in our fellow-man.
Mick West, of the Metabunk site predicted---on the same day as the Florida shooting---that there would be theories flying around that the whole thing was a false-flag. And, sooner than expected, West turned out to be right, as he usually is.
The whole phenomenon of believing that these mass-murders are nothing but hoaxes really surfaced around the Sandy Hook Massacre in December, 2012; though there were some very few surrounding the Aurora Theater shooting earlier that year. The Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013 had the same doubters. Even though there were no casualties, the 2016 Pizzagate shooting also was said to be a hoax.
All of these theories are essentially the same: they assert that these events never happened, but were staged by the Media in collusion with local police, government, and various vested interests. It's well-known to the FBI and others in law enforcement, however, that criminal conspiracies become less secure the more people who are involved in it. And this is one of the glaring problems with these theories.
How does it happen that these things could be staged and none of the locals know anything about it? They don't notice groups of actors, truckloads of stage-props, and ominous-looking guys in trench-coats suddenly hanging around the neighborhood?
Because what we're essentially talking about here is roughly the time, planning, and personnel involved to shoot a movie. This just doesn't happen in places like Sandy Hook and Parkland without being noticed. And doing it covertly during the Boston Marathon is even more problematic.
Speaking of movies, has anyone seriously considered the cost of staging a hoax like this? I thought of the 1976 movie Raid on Entebbe, which re-created an Israeli rescue mission of a hijacked airliner in Uganda, In 2018 dollars, production costs for that film would be around $16 million. That's roughly what it would cost to film a staged incident like the Parkland Shooting. Not counting of course the massive blackmail and extortion costs which would have to be paid to ensure all the participants' silence.
Last but not least, if any Corporate Media outlet tried faking something like this, Trump, Pence, and Sessions would be the first to uncover the hoax and the first to expose it. This Administration hasn't been the least bit reticent about calling out fake news whenever its happened; and finding out Parkland and Sandy Hook were staged would be the Golden Opportunity for the Administration to discredit the Corporate Media permanently.
The people who believe these types of theories usually fall into the logical fallacy of believing that causes and consequences of a certain action are necessarily correlated. The fact that anti-gun interests cynically exploit these tragedies lead some to believe that these same interests must have caused the tragedy in the first place to bring about the desired end.
At a blog called The Thinking Housewife, we read the following as an example. The authoress writes: "The convergence of Ash Wednesday and St. Valentine's Day was too much for the gun-grabbing massacre mimics to pass up." (Why not that a psycho could pick the same date to make a dramatic statement?) "Yesterday's supposed shooting of 17 students has all the hallmarks of another Sandy Hook Hoax." (Why? The dynamics of the two incidents have nothing in common other than that they both targeted schools.) "Could it be real? The burden of proof is upon those who say that it was." (Actually, no: the burden of proof is upon those who deny it.)
She goes on to say that the whole incident seemed scripted, while ironically saying that "Mere photos of parents and children crying do not prove that any murders occurred." To this, we would add that modern journalists reading off scripts and faking grief doesn't disprove that they occurred. All that it does prove is that our Media is made up of idiots and incompetents who are competing to be the biggest drama-queens to get ratings. It's what's cynically called by media insiders milking a tragedy.
The Corporate Media itself though is also guilty of spreading hoaxes about the shooting. The Moonie-affiliated Newsweek and the Daily Beast swallowed a troll's story that Nicholas Cruz was a White Supremacist---the fact that he's Hispanic and not White never occurred to these brilliant media minds. Currently they're spreading the equally ridiculous hoax that Russian hackers are trolling stories about the shooting, rather than admit the embarrassing truth that the worst comments are coming mostly from American Liberals.
All of this nonsense prevents us, as a society, from focusing on the central problems that actually lead to these tragedies. Which will end up in a self-fulfilling prophecy for those faking the news.
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.
