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.
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.
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.
Attorney-General Jeff Sessions delivered an address today at Summit, hosted by the US Department of Justice, on religious liberty. Archbishop Kurtz of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was in attendance, along with many DOJ officials and religious leaders. Sessions' speech highlighted the major shift in our government's attitude toward religious freedom.
Imagine any of the DNC deep-statists or Swamp-RINOs saying this:
"Let us be frank.A dangerous movement, undetected by many, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom. There can be no doubt. This is no little matter. It must be confronted and defeated.This election, and much that has flowed from it, gives us a rare opportunity to arrest these trends. Such a reversal will not just be done with electoral victories, but by intellectual victories.
"We have gotten to the point where courts have held that morality cannot be a basis for law; where ministers are fearful to affirm, as they understand it, holy writ from the pulpit; and where one group can actively target religious groups by labeling them a “hate group” on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs. This President and this Department of Justice are determined to protect and even advance this magnificent heritage."
The major policy shift implied here is, as Sessions notes, an intellectual one. The Cultural Marxists have been pushing the 'personal is political' attitude upon us for decades. There's nothing more personal than one's faith. Sessions is stating flatly here that the day of government imposing its will on faith is over.
Now some will say, 'well, we've heard this rhetoric before, and what ever changes?' This is another main difference between this Administration and previous ones. The Trump Administration backs up its words with actual deeds. Sessions announced the creation of a new DOJ Task Force:
"Today I am announcing our next step: the Religious Liberty Task Force, to be co-chaired by the Associate Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy. The Task Force will help the Department fully implement our religious liberty guidance by ensuring that all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt, and how we conduct our operations. That includes making sure that our employees know their duties to accommodate people of faith. As the people in this room know, you have to practice what you preach. We are also going to remain in contact with religious groups across America to ensure that their rights are being protected. We have been holding listening sessions and we will continue to host them in the coming weeks."This administration is animated by that same American view that has led us for 242 years: that every American has a right to believe, worship, and exercise their faith in the public square."
This is fantastic news. In the full speech, Sessions highlighted some of the victories that the Justice Department has won for Religious Freedom. The creation of this Task Force will give existing laws some real teeth. The legal victories we've won since 2017 are just the beginning. The pernicious activities of the anti-Christian Left have already been curtailed quite sharply by Sessions' executive orders, new guidelines, etc. But the creation of this Task Force will enable the FBI and other federal authorities to investigate cases of religious discrimination more proactively. The Steamroller that's been flattening drug pushers, swamp creatures, and gang members is about to plow under militant anti-Christian activists.
As can be imagined, the Whacko Left went berserk all over the Internet at this announcement. The fake-news outlet The Daily Beast called the move "a holy war against LGBTQ people!" That headline is fairly typical of the hysteria being churned out by the Gay Mafia and the Corporate Media who no longer have Christians to bilk for cash with frivolous lawsuits.
The full text of the Attorney-General's speech can be read here, and it's definitely worth reading, because Sessions recounts several cases not reported by the Corporate Media. He also outlines the Administration's fundamental policies on Religious Freedom.
Along with Left-Wing whackos having TDS attacks over a sidewalk decoration, there's been a serious controversy raging over an article by Lori Alexander of The Transformed Wife blog. The title is Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos; by Mrs. Lori's admission, this article has 'gone viral'. Red Pill cultists Dalrock, Chateau Heartiste, and Reality Doug have all chimed in with their less-than-two-cents-worth.
I personally will agree with the authoress about tattoos. Personally I can't stand them. They might look alright on 250-lb. bikers, lumberjacks, and sailors; but on a female body they're about as attractive as some of those 60's avant-garde artists who drew moustaches on the Mona Lisa. Note that this is only a personal preference. I know a lot of guys who like tattooed women.
But virginity and debt? Let's just point out here that most women probably find sexual exclusiveness and freedom from debt attractive in men as well. But that aside, what really caused all of the uproar was the suggestion in the article that young women should avoid debt by foregoing college---the expenses of which are responsible for much public debt.
That's so; but the scandalous debt from education has more to do with rampant corruption in American Academia than anything else. And the highest debts incurred are for vital services like medicine, science, and engineering. What normal man would consider a relationship with a woman in, or studying in, these professions to be a bad thing?
The Red Pills do; mostly because they don't relish the idea of educating women in the first place. Dalrock and Reality Doug especially took some comments about the article and wedged them into their AWALT heresies. Dalrock took issue with Wendy Griffith who said:
"Ladies, the Lord wants you to know that you are a pearl of great price, a treasure worth pursuing and protecting. You are worth fighting for and, like the pearl in the parable at the head of this chapter, worth everything it might cost a guy to obtain you. You are worth someone sacrificing his time, his routine, his comfort, his money, his whatever in order to have you. You are worth it! You are a prize to be won. Don’t settle for Crumbs."
To Dalrock and other Red Pills, Love never factors into gender relations, so they completely miss the point that installing confidence in women might help them choose better men. Reality Doug lays it out plainly:
"You (pretty much every Western man, call me pompous) don’t understand women because you greatly overestimate their human value from a cultural perspective, which considers the time dimension and presumes probable survival and replication. Animals have a ‘present’ perspective. The women is mentally an animal (instincts first) that knows what you care about but does not understand what you care about. She is built for manipulation not conscious thinking...Woman’s psychologically manifest and immediate goal, in service of her ultimate evolutionary purpose of advancing her genes with the practical baseness of a wild animal, is relative herd status."
This is just stupid; and reflects the emotional immaturity of the Red Pills, who are also moral and intellectual pygmies. Mature men don't consider women as 'animals' but as human beings. And, as fallible human beings, are liable to do things like accumulate debts and lose their virginity. Thus it follows logically that while a man may prefer certain qualities; a mature man doesn't expect perfection. Nor is a man who finds Love some sort of a chump because he values the object of his desire.
The whole strength of monogamy is based upon couples valuing one another. This is because monogamy is combination of strengths. There is the power inherent in love. To turn it into a 'game' of competition and power defeats its entire purpose.
This week's Stock Market correction in social media stocks has the Manosphere's Red Pills giddy with excitement. They've been banned on many of those sites---mostly for doxxing, trolling, harassment, etc. They have their collective hopes up that Facebook, Twitter, and others are headed for financial oblivion. These corporations are nowhere near economic collapse---their stock values were hyperinflated---but the Red Pills can always dream, can't they?
Vox Day has been flapping his arms lately, hoping that Tor Books will collapse soon too. Tor won't publish Vox' less-than-mediocre science fiction, but does publish works by John Scalzi. Scalzi is actually a good writer whom Vox bitterly envies. Now Vox is especially exorcised because another Tor author dared criticize Arkhaven Comics---the Vox Day-run front that's supposed to overthrow the 'hegemony' of publishers Marvel and DC. It seems that Jon Del Arroz, an Arkhaven operative and Vox toady, referred to himself as a 'bestselling author' and a Tor writer disputed that appellation. Whatever Del Arroz said in response got him suspended (again) from Twitter.
But this brings up an interesting point; one that all of Vox' disciples would do well to consider. What has Arkhaven really got to show for all that crowd-sourced income?
Well, it seems that, as of June, Arkhaven is sharing less than 4% of comic market share with an unknown number of 'less than top 20' publishers. These all currently have less than 0.3% of market share apiece. That's hardly much of a challenge to Marvel (38%) or DC (32%). Vox doesn't even rate a per cent; he's in per mils.
Vox boasts that Arkhaven is a top-seller on Amazon. But that's Amazon retail where there is little or no competition. As it happens, Amazon has a dedicated site for comics called Comixology. What happens when you search for Arkhaven there?
By the way, the same thing happens when searching online with other major retailers and distributors like Comix Zone:
Or Dreamland Comics:
Then searching for Alt-Hero; Arkhaven's flagship series, we find that Midtown Comics, one of the largest retailers in the US, knows nothing about it:
And even on the Comic Books Subreddit, one of the nation's largest discussion forums on the subject, Arkhaven hasn't even been noticed:
I wonder if all of those donors to Arkhaven's crowd-sourcing can demand a refund? Because it doesn't appear that Arkhaven is actually doing much to promote sales. If they're going to be competitive with other publishers, they need to start competing.
But the Arkhaven fiasco is nothing new with Vox and his cult of fanatics. A little over a year ago, Infogalactic was going to dethrone Wikipedia as the online reference source of record. It hasn't even come close.
Unfortunately, fanatics are rarely discouraged by reality. But the next time you see a Vox-related project on a crowd-sourcing site, caveat emptor.
There were a pair of really good articles up today, on similar themes. One was from the blog, Freedom Through Empowerment which challenged the Feminist myth of toxic masculinity. Feminist writers---who are quite creative in dreaming up neologisms for nonexistent concepts---believe that our culture is essentially poisoned by masculine domination. The idea, of course, is absurd: both in that masculinity is essentially negative and that men actually dominate society.
The other article was posted at See There's Thing Called Biology, which questioned some of the hateful rhetoric of the Red Pills. I'm not sure of her take on the 'Metoo' Movement; but the authoress does raise some points about the unwillingness of Christian leaders to take sexual abuse seriously. The churches' neglect on these issues, is really due largely to Red Pill infiltration. However, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a joint statement some time ago on Domestic Violence. But the Red Pills would likely deny most of these points and dismiss them as 'Feminist.'
Which brings us to a term that some angry Feminist wrote to me in response lately: Gender Essentialism. Here's how Wikipedia defines this term:
"Gender Essentialism is the theory that there are certain universal, innate, biologically or psychologically-based features of gender that are at the root of observed differences between men and women...Essentialism thus refers to the existence of fixed characteristic, given attributes, and historical functions which limit the possibilities of change and of social reorganization."
The Feminists think that Essentialism is a very bad thing. However, such would contradict their notions of 'toxic masculinity'. How could masculinity be socially toxic without essential elements of masculinity? On the other hand, if there is nothing essentially feminine, how would society benefit from empowering women in the first place?
The Red Pills, being reactionaries, hold the opposite position. They believe that women have an essential nature---which is wholly negative. Men however are categorized into different archetypes: Betas, Gammas, Omegas, Zetas---but by converting (taking the Red Pill) they can become Alpha supermen to whom all things are possible.
In reality, these fixed characteristics inherent in gender are the very things which make change and social reorganization possible. It's the family unit---rightly called the bedrock of civilization---which has driven mankind to grow into communities and, ultimately, into nations. The social stability provided by monogamy and a recognition of gender polarity is why the Western World grew and prospered far ahead of other cultures.
Thus it stands to reason that breaking that foundation will lead to social decline. Societies which are strictly patriarchal (i.e. the despotic countries of the Arabian Peninsula) or matriarchal (i.e. some of tribes of Western and Central Africa) haven't progressed much beyond the state of barbarism. That's where the gender supremacists would see the world return. If anyone doubts this, witness Feminists rhapsodizing about the days when a Wise Woman ran a community or the Red Pills longing for a God-Emperor surrounded by his Alpha lords and princes.
It stands to reason too that harmonious gender relations obviously make for a happier and better society. And that's another thing the gender supremacists don't want. It's easier to control a divided society. That's also the reason why both Feminists and Red Pills are so notoriously racist.
Essentialism? Yes it exists, but it is a fact and not a social construct. Embrace it; don't scorn it.
