ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

Do you really want to hurt me?

A four-part series on "Killing Vox Day". And I have to say, despite his purportedly homicidal intentions, the author says nicer things about me than most of my friends and family do.
1). Vox Day is Honest
Whatever you think about Vox Day's opinions, you cannot deny that he states them publicly and consistently in the face of intense criticism.

Being honest does not mean telling the truth per se. It does not mean that what you say is ultimately correct. Honesty means telling the truth as you see it, based on your best understanding of the situation. Vox is acerbic, biased, and prone to fits of exaggeration, but taking these things into account, he generally says what he thinks to the best of his knowledge.

If anything, I've been stunned by how open Vox Day is about his evil, evil plans. In terms of Hugo strategy in particular, his modus operandi seems to be openly declaring his strategy, openly following through with said strategy, and then laughing at his enemies' confused responses....

2). Vox Day is Intelligent (and Sane)
One of the things I have noticed about detractors of Vox Day is that they assume Vox is either an idiot or insane. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Vox is an extremely sharp person. He knows how to argue successfully. He can set up a consistent argument, pick out flaws in his opponent's reasoning, and generally defend intellectual positions that few other people can. Why these positions are difficult to defend hardly matters. What matters is that he has the chops to defend them.

If you need an example of this, just look at the arguments he presents in any given blog post and the bleating of his supporters in the comments. There is a world of difference. And this is why they keep coming back – because he is very, very good at arguing for them. You don't rally around a person who consistently loses.

Another good example is this interview on CSPAN where he gives a logical and eloquent argument for the right of American states to secede from the Union. You can tell that the host was expecting an easy kill against a right-wing nut job and ended up with a lively, intelligent debate.

Vox likes to credit his years of strategy gaming for these abilities (Advanced Squad Leader in particular). Personally, I like to credit years of playing Cooking Mama for my three Michelin stars and Mario marathons for my six-foot vertical jump. The more likely factor is that Vox is an avid reader - he displays a more than passing familiarity with philosophy, statistical modelling, and yes, military history and tactics (particularly Fourth Generation theory - more on this later).

Again, this is not to say that his arguments are objectively true, only that he does a good job of flustering, discrediting, and generally taking down his opponents. He can think logically, tactically, and worst of all, strategically. He does not win because of the inherent strength of his positions, but because of his technique in defending them. That is not the behavior of a drooling troglodyte or an insane person.
After seeing the first two parts of the series, I sent the author a copy of SJWs Always Lie, as I thought he might find it to be useful in analyzing my thought processes. As I thought he might, I wasn't surprised to see he posted a fair review of it:
This book is a necessary buy for anyone who finds themselves under attack for their politics. Two sections in particular stand out: the anatomy of a SJW attack and the response scripts. It will tell you exactly what to expect, what frame of mind to get in, and how to respond.

That said, I take exception with Vox's suggestion later in the book that the antidote to the thought police is an equal and opposite thought police for conservative organizations. I understand his argument that 'they started it, so it's fair game,' but it seems like the opposite of the ideal outcome: un-policed thought.

I will hasten to add that this is a mere academic consideration when you are under active attack from a group that wants to destroy your good name and livelihood for political reasons. Your first priority is to defend yourself, and this book will help you do just that.
I will point out that the mistake he made in the second paragraph is no different than the one that many, indeed, MOST conservatives make. The tactic is not the outcome. The means is not the end. To achieve the objective of unpoliced thought, we must police our organizations against the SJW thought and speech police. Like the Germans with mustard gas in WWI, they will not abandon the tactic unless and until it is used against them with greater efficacy.

Labels:

141 Comments:

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 02, 2015 12:13 PM  

What's the over-under on this guy becoming a regular around here? A month? He should check out Robert Lindsay's ideas for an alternative left.

I disagree with his armchair psychology though. Not ODD, just very high IQ and selfish.

Anonymous map September 02, 2015 12:18 PM  

Vox,

"The tactic is not the outcome. The means is not the end. To achieve the objective of unpoliced thought, we must police our organizations against the SJW thought and speech police. Like the Germans with mustard gas in WWI, they will not abandon the tactic unless and until it is used against them with greater efficacy."

I cannot stress how important this basic point is. Essentially, it's forcing the enemy to be hoisted on their own petard. The typical mindf*ck of this position is to pretend that you are not becoming what you hate by not using the other sides tactics against them.

Anonymous ZhukovG September 02, 2015 12:20 PM  

The capacity of your opponents to underestimate you has never ceased to amaze. Then again perhaps rainbow colored hair dye causes brain damage.

But the writer above does seem to realize that if you go after Vox Day, then you are in for the rhetorical or dialectical (your choice) fight of your life.

Assuming of course that Vox bothers to respond to you at all.

Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 12:24 PM  

"The typical mindf*ck of this position is to pretend that you are not becoming what you hate by not using the other sides tactics against them."

Precisely.

Just because David used Goliath's own sword to finish the job does not imply moral equivalence between the armies of the living G-d and the six-toed, uncircumcised, blaspheming Philistine.

Blogger Edward Isaacs September 02, 2015 12:28 PM  

To me, the question is whether the means necessary to the desired end are themselves moral. It seems to me that if there is no morally allowable means to victory, then, morally, one ought to concede defeat.

Is thought policing morally permissible, or not? What about other tactics that would undoubtedly be effective in discrediting SJWs? Are they, in themselves, morally permissible? If you've anywhere argued that they definitely are, I have missed it and would like to see it.

But most of what I hear coming from this site, and others on the alt-right, is the idea that these tactics are necessary to achieve the desired goals, or even in some cases necessary for survival. That is not a moral argument, however, and absolutely does not show that the means are themselves morally permissible.

The same thing could be said for some other issues, such as immigration. We can agree that mass immigration is a bad thing, and that mass deportation would be a solution to the problem. But would it be a morally permissible solution? I have never heard an argument that it is. Where would I go to hear one?

/pol/ grounds morality in the good of one's own race. For them, the racial good is the final end of the will. Everything is justified, if it keeps the race alive. But that kind of morality is monstrous.

There are certain tactics that are immoral no matter what and unjustified in all cases, even if your enemies are using them. Lying, for example, is one. But even if lying were an insuperable strategy, against which no truth-tellers could possibly stand, it would still not be morally permissible to lie to defeat the liars.

So where and how do you draw the line?

Blogger RobertT September 02, 2015 12:30 PM  

You're winning, Vox. Against all odds, you're winning. Deepest respect.

Blogger Daniel September 02, 2015 12:32 PM  

@5 Is thought policing morally permissible, or not?

Yes. SJWs are permitted to do it badly. We're going do it right, and leave no survivors.

Now shut the fuck up and get back on the bench, Nancy.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 02, 2015 12:33 PM  

I will point out that the mistake he made in the second paragraph is no different than the one that many, indeed, MOST conservatives make. The tactic is not the outcome. The means is not the end.

Jack's 1st Law of Civilization: A civilized man treat others according to what they are.

It is discivic to treat a barbarian like he's a civilized man, because that will just give the barbarian the opportunity to destroy your civilization. No man can call himself civilized if he isn't willing to fight barbarians and won't attempt to keep barbarians away from his civilization.

Thought Policing is similar. You can't call yourself an advocate of freedom if you're not willing to keep control freaks out of power. You can't call yourself a free speech advocate if you're not willing to tell someone to shut up when they're trying to pass oppressive speech codes.

It's an easy question: is that person trying to gain power in order to boss other people around, or is he trying to gain it in order to keep other people from bossing him around?

Blogger Danby September 02, 2015 12:34 PM  

@5 Edward Isaacs
Gee is it moral to toss the squatters out of your building?
Is it moral to fire somebody who puts their political ideas ahead of the good of the organization?
I just can't figure it out!

We don't care.
Go peddle your useless moralizing on the other side's websites.

Blogger luagha September 02, 2015 12:40 PM  

What's your morality, Edward?
What do you mean by thought policing?
What do you mean by morally permissible?

Obviously these terms are cultural/religious/chosen. Without going Nazi or Muslim because they are too easy, plenty of native tribal people think and thought it just fine to torture captured members of enemy tribes and indeed members of said tribes expected the same - even considered it an honor to show their bravery by surviving the torture as long as possible. But that doesn't fit into our current morality.

Thought policing, also, is a matter of keeping your organization pure. Don't want your thoughts policed, stay in your own organization. Unless you mean something else.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 02, 2015 12:41 PM  

So where and how do you draw the line?

Where it kills barbarians and protects civilization. Where else would you draw it.

Blogger bearspaw September 02, 2015 12:42 PM  

Civilized or not, my money is on this guy playing Silver-tongued devil.
Rule #1.

Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 12:42 PM  

"But even if lying were an insuperable strategy, against which no truth-tellers could possibly stand, it would still not be morally permissible to lie to defeat the liars."

Our side is not lying.

Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 12:45 PM  

Proclaiming the truth again and again and again without apology is not thought-policing - it is truth-telling. The truth is a mighty, mighty weapon if only more people would open their mouths and speak it and stop wringing their hands about the consequences.

Heck, we nailed the Truth to a tree, how charitably do other vessels of the truth expect to be received in this war?

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 12:49 PM  

My opinion on the 'would it be permissible to lie to destroy your foes' topic started out as a firm "Hell no! If your position isn't built on a foundation of truth, then why the hell is it your position in the first place?"... but then I remembered things such as 'disinformation', 'feints', and 'divide and conquer', all of which are legitimate and time-honored warfare concepts that contain an element of deception.

On a more pragmatic level, telling lies about your enemy is generally self-defeating because, well, frig, just look at what the Supreme Dark Lord has been consistently doing to his opposition every time they're stupid enough to tell a checkable lie in public.

I suppose what I'm going to take away from this is 'It may be useful, from time to time and depending on the tactical situation, to lie /to/ your enemy. But lying /about/ him is a bad idea. And lying to /yourself/ is inevitably suicidal.'

Anonymous Soga September 02, 2015 12:49 PM  

Another thing Edward isn't quite understanding: the Left aims to police thought, but the Right sees the need to police behavior.

After all, for civilization to exist, there must be rules and standards to which members of said civilization must adhere. Civilization is about raising people to meet standards; barbarism is about lowering standards to meet the lowest common denominators among people.

Anonymous Bz September 02, 2015 12:50 PM  

Danby, just so. We simply must abase ourselves before these terrifying entry level moral conundrums!

Blogger Edward Isaacs September 02, 2015 12:52 PM  

To answer the direct questions:

@11

My morality is Catholic.

By "morally permissible act" I mean an act that is not in itself a sin. Something that could conceivably be done sinlessly.

By "thought policing" I mean whatever Vox means. Because if I am going to let him convince me to perform "thought policing" and other such actions as a response to SJWs, I first need to know whether those actions are objectively immoral or not.

@12

I would draw the line where an action becomes a sin.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 02, 2015 12:54 PM  

@Vox

Waking up in this guys cabin with your legs broken is a distinct possibility.

Take appropriate precautions.

Blogger VD September 02, 2015 12:55 PM  

It may be useful, from time to time and depending on the tactical situation, to lie /to/ your enemy. But lying /about/ him is a bad idea. And lying to /yourself/ is inevitably suicidal.

Very good. That is correct.

Blogger FALPhil September 02, 2015 12:56 PM  

@9 - I think Jack is correct.

But, more tot the point, as Soga points out, SJWs are defined by their behavior, not their ideas, and distinctly, not their philosophy, but their behavior.

That being said, I found the 4-part series rife with logical fallacies and unwarranted assumptions.

Blogger VD September 02, 2015 12:56 PM  

Take appropriate precautions.

Besides the Ridgebacks, guns, and laser-triggered landmines? What's left, orbital artillery?

Anonymous Soga September 02, 2015 12:56 PM  

Edward, where in the Bible does it say you can't filter out people for having goals contrary to your organization's?

Blogger MidKnight (#138) September 02, 2015 12:57 PM  

Vox likes to credit his years of strategy gaming for these abilities (Advanced Squad Leader in particular). Personally, I like to credit years of playing Cooking Mama for my three Michelin stars and Mario marathons for my six-foot vertical jump. The more likely factor is that Vox is an avid reader - he displays a more than passing familiarity with philosophy, statistical modelling, and yes, military history and tactics (particularly Fourth Generation theory - more on this later).


I don't think he realizes how much reading and comprehension goes into learning Squad Leader, and being able to play it effectively.

In a way, it's almost shorthand for "did all the other reading he mentioned"

Blogger JDC September 02, 2015 1:02 PM  

If you need an example of this, just look at the arguments he presents in any given blog post and the bleating of his supporters in the comments.

This always makes me laugh. Have they ever read his debates with Nate?

Blogger Edward Isaacs September 02, 2015 1:05 PM  

@23

I doubt the Bible contains any such proscription.

However, the question strikes me as loaded, since I am a Catholic, which means I do not adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Further, the Bible does not contain any (explicit) condemnation of many immoral things, such as embryonic stem cell research.

But most of all, my question is not about "thought policing" specifically. That was just an example. The same goes for mass deportation--it was just an example. My question is about the process of reasoning: How do you draw the line in any given case? How do you recognize a morally legitimate retaliation strategy from one that is morally illegitimate?

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 1:10 PM  

@26 -- ethical conduct in war is defined largely by target selection, not method. Consider that the exact same action can be a war crime or a medal-worthy act of valor depending on whether you're doing it to a noncombatant or an enemy combatant.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 02, 2015 1:10 PM  

Edward
My morality is Catholic.

Question: would you oppose elevating a Calvinist to the position of Pope? Or would you support obvious thought-policing to keep that from happening?

Anonymous Homesteader September 02, 2015 1:11 PM  

Lets be clear.

Sun Tzu - "all warfare is based on deception."

Robert Frost-" “A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel”.

The example I give to the Homesteader kids-
"If a killer asked where your mother was, would you tell the truth?"

Friends, though, deserve Truth. Even unpleasant truth, as necessary.

Chin-stroking moralizing is what got us here in the first place.

Anonymous Dave September 02, 2015 1:11 PM  

"Besides the Ridgebacks, guns, and laser-triggered landmines? What's left, orbital artillery?"

Drones, man, gotta have drones

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 02, 2015 1:12 PM  

How do you recognize a morally legitimate retaliation strategy from one that is morally illegitimate?


Oh, that's easy. Just follow Obama's lead and claim to have read Aquinas.

Next?

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 02, 2015 1:12 PM  

Besides the Ridgebacks, guns, and laser-triggered landmines? What's left, orbital artillery?

In this case, I would look into expendable body doubles.

This guy seems focused.

Blogger ScottD September 02, 2015 1:12 PM  

Self defense is not a sin, in fact, it is the moral act.

Anonymous Rusty Fife September 02, 2015 1:12 PM  

@23 Edward Isaacs,

Off the top of my head, the answer might be 'repentense'. Justice allows an eye for an eye; mercy allows them to repent.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 02, 2015 1:16 PM  

Oh, and rev3 reminds me of the Minsheviks. Looking for moderation among fanatics is a futile exercise, expecting moderation from fanatics is simply foolish. He seems too intelligent to really be a leftist, but he mentioned "graduation" so perhaps it's just an "early 20's" mindset.

Certainly his notion that SJW's can ever see Puppies as human has zero basis in fact.

Blogger Edward Isaacs September 02, 2015 1:16 PM  

@28

I would oppose elevating a Calvinist to the papacy, obviously.

Hmm. Let me ask you a question.

Why do you oppose SJWs? Is it that you perceive them and their characteristic actions (including but not limited to "thought policing") to be immoral, and do you see yourself as fighting in some way for a moral good? Or is it simply that you recognize that their actions threaten your interests, and so you fight to protect those interests?

Blogger JDC September 02, 2015 1:18 PM  

My question is about the process of reasoning: How do you draw the line in any given case?

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Matthew 12:30

I realize that quoting scripture to you Edward is not what you are looking for (if you want I can try to find a comparable quote from a bishop or cardinal), but this is an answer to your question.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 02, 2015 1:19 PM  


I would oppose elevating a Calvinist to the papacy, obviously.


Ok, so now all of a sudden the notion of being a thought policeman is ok? Your chin stroking moralizing ceases when an institution that you wish to see protected is involved, clearly. You are a thought policeman who opposes inclusion! Yet you demand that the rest of us not engage in that behavior to protect our instutions, is that right?

Isn't that rather hypocritical of you?

Blogger Bluntobj Winz September 02, 2015 1:20 PM  

@5 @18

"It seems to me that if there is no morally allowable means to victory, then, morally, one ought to concede defeat."

Heinlein's character Lazarus Long had the appropriate response. I paraphrase: "If someone begins an argument with "It seems to me" you may safely disregard the rest of what they have to say."

The second response that is appropriate is "Check your premises. You will find at least one of them is wrong."

Third: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

And Finally: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."


Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 1:20 PM  

"I doubt the Bible contains any such proscription."

@26 Edward Isaacs

I know you admittedly do not hold to sola scriptura, but here is a Biblical principle worth considering:

If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party.

You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. (cf. Deuteronomy 19)

For "purge" you may also read "filter."

Anonymous Giuseppe The Kurgan September 02, 2015 1:23 PM  

The line is wherever the enemy wants it. It is absolutely moral to subject them to their own tactics. I have my own rules on that, which necessitate mercy to the innocent, but I counterbalance it by utter mercilessness to the guilty.

Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 1:23 PM  

"Why do you oppose SJWs?"

We don't. They oppose us.

"Is it that you perceive them and their characteristic actions (including but not limited to "thought policing") to be immoral, and do you see yourself as fighting in some way for a moral good?"

Lying is immoral. They always lie.

'Or is it simply that you recognize that their actions threaten your interests, and so you fight to protect those interests?"

Our interest is the truth, so yes, we will fight to protect that most precious interest from liars whose only objective is to trample the truth underfoot.

Blogger Dexter September 02, 2015 1:25 PM  

I don't think he realizes how much reading and comprehension goes into learning Squad Leader, and being able to play it effectively.

I have played ASL against many guys who did not read, understand, and know the rules. They were easily crushed. It is pretty much like an amateur defending himself in court against a professional lawyer who knows the law inside and out.

It is very different from a lot of games in which a "good enough" knowledge of the rules will suffice.

Anonymous Homesteader September 02, 2015 1:25 PM  

Regarding threats-

Countermeasures aren't discussed, except for honey-pot disinformation tactics. Jewels aren't stored in the jewelry safe.

I'm sure Vox has it covered.

Anonymous SS September 02, 2015 1:29 PM  

What's left, orbital artillery?

When is that ever not a good idea?

Blogger Danby September 02, 2015 1:32 PM  

@Edward Isaacs
I'm a Catholic too.
What amazes me is your insistence that the readers of a blog provide you with a course in moral reasoning. Particularly when few of them are Catholic.
IF you do not know how to arrive at a moral conclusion, this is not the place to ask for basic instruction.

Deportation is sending an interloper back to his home. That is all it is. Regardless of how long he has been here, or what he has done here, he has no right to be here. A nation has the right to defend itself against those who would destroy it, just as a person or a clan has the same right. Even if those people are non-violent, they are still invaders and can be turned back and sent back if they make it through the defenses.
The analogy I used earlier is the correct one. If you own a building and someone breaks into it and sets up house, are you morally permitted to evict them, even to the point of using force and violence? Yes, you are. Squatting is a species of theft, and the use of force is permissible to defend yourself from robbers and thieves. There is literally no moral difference between evicting squatters and deporting illegal aliens.

As far as "thought policing" goes, before the question can be answered, the term must be defined. The definition I will use here is "removing people from your organizations based on their opinions", which seems to be what you're objecting to.

As a Catholic, surely you can see that not only is there no moral problem with doing so, removing liars and heretics from positions of influence is a duty, particularly when the fate of souls is involved. Certainly the Church has never shied away from such.

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 1:32 PM  

@36 -- My answer to your question would be "Yes."

Although I will point out a question you neglected to ask. The question 'Do you see them and their /goals/ to be immoral?' should also be explored, as well as 'Do you see SJWs and their characteristic actions to be immoral'. After all, somebody could hypothetically be fighting by entirely honorable and legal means, without reproach... but if he fought for a cause opposed to yours and unwilling to compromise, you'd still have to fight him.

But really, its an "all of the above" as regards 'why do you oppose SJWs?' I consider their desired end goals of 'social justice' (aka cultural Marxism) to be abominable in and of themselves. I consider the methods they're not only willing but all too eager to stoop to in pursuit of that goal to be abominable. For these two reasons alone I would oppose them.

But I also have a vested self-interest in opposing them because even if I didn't give two shits about their goals or their methods, they /still/ wouldn't leave me alone. When your opposition is bound and determined to press the attack regardless of whatever you do or don't do, and will accept nothing less than unconditional surrender, that really narrows down your options.

I'd ask you why you aren't over asking the SJWs why /they/ can't try practicing tolerance and live and let live, except that the question would be purely rhetorical. We both know the answer already -- 'Because there is not the slightest chance in hell they'd listen to you. You'd waste less oxygen trying to talk to a wall.'

Anonymous Homesteader September 02, 2015 1:34 PM  

Ultimately, scruples become self-congratulatory posturing. Victory ends the fighting. A secure peace is the greatest kindness you can bestow on your foe.

OpenID phamilton September 02, 2015 1:35 PM  

Edward, please read St. Jerome's writings against Helvidius.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

Moralize over whether St. Jerome's verbal mauling of Helvidius crossed the line. And after you've determined exactly where the line is, come back and let us know. We eagerly await the results of your intensive study. Good luck, and go with God.

Blogger McChuck September 02, 2015 1:37 PM  

Why do I oppose SJWs? For the same reason that I took up arms to oppose the Soviet Communists in my youth. I consider the SJWs to be nothing more nor less than the 'useful idiots' that the Communists seeded throughout the civilized world to sow discord and disharmony, with the avowed purpose of weakening us through the destruction of the culture of Western Civilization.

They are at war with us, and their goal is our utter destruction. An attack upon my culture is an attack upon my people. The survival of civilization is the ultimate moral good. Any means at all are permissible in defending civilization from barbarism.

You say you are a Christian. Go then an meditate upon the fates of Sodom, Gomorrah, Jericho, the cities of Canaan, etc. And then read Deuterotomy again.

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them?[b] 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

Blogger Edward Isaacs September 02, 2015 1:43 PM  

@38

"Yet you demand that the rest of us not engage in that behavior to protect our instutions, is that right?"

It certainly is not right, because I have not demanded anything of you. I have asked you for a moral argument to support your positions. I was not coyly asking a disingenuous question just to sow discord, or convict your conscience, or whatever it is you seem to think I was trying to do. I was asking a question because I wanted an answer.

You gave me an example of one instance in which "thought policing" is not immoral. Very well. I concede that thought policing is not, in itself, immoral. That does not settle the entire issue--is it morally licit only for private organizations, or in government as well? In organizations which actually have a formal ideology, or also in those which have only an informal culture? How do we draw the line in specific cases? And so on.

But, you have provided me with a starting point for thinking about that specific tactic. So, thank you.

Still, there are other tactics, and my question was not about any one of them in particular but about the grounds by which to evaluate them. You are focusing on the specific example--I can only guess for rhetorical reasons. So here is another example.

In Vox's recent summary of his SJW survival guide, he gives only this advice concerning morality: "Play as dirty as your conscience will permit." He then gives this example of a tactic to employ: "If you have an SJW relying upon you for something, play dumb and assure him that he'll get it on time, then fail to deliver, all the while promising that it's going to be done next week."

Well, my conscience certainly does not permit that. Would yours? And more to the point: what is the basic moral reasoning underpinning such a statement? Maybe my conscience is erroneous, and this is actually a morally licit action to take. But I would need to see an argument as to why that is.

@45

"What amazes me is your insistence that the readers of a blog provide you with a course in moral reasoning. Particularly when few of them are Catholic.
IF you do not know how to arrive at a moral conclusion, this is not the place to ask for basic instruction."

Hmm.

Yes, I can see now that this is what I am doing. I suppose I thought to do it because the moral conclusions that many readers have come to here and elsewhere in the alt-right blogosphere are, frankly, stunning and very novel to me.

"Deportation is sending an interloper back to his home."
"There is literally no moral difference between evicting squatters and deporting illegal aliens."

Isn't the mass deportation of even legal aliens one of the things Vox and others insist is necessary to avoid bloody wars and cultural decay?

Anonymous liljoe September 02, 2015 1:43 PM  

link to the CSPAN interview?

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 1:43 PM  

Scruples belong at the 'Should I fight?' and 'Who am I fighting?' stages of going to battle. You have to make sure that the importance of what you're fighting over is proportionate to the level of damage you intend to cause, and that you're not looking to cause harm to someone who doesn't deserve it.

However, once you've settled those two questions -- and you should already have had them firmly settled in your mind /before/ throwing the first punch -- then you've already answered every question that actually /needs/ scruples.

Anonymous Homesteader September 02, 2015 1:44 PM  

Vlad the Impaler wanted to win, not impale.
Ghengis Khan wanted to win, not depopulate.
The Romans wanted to win, not crucify.

Half measures in war only embolden the enemy and demoralize your troops.

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afganistan being examples thereof.

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 1:47 PM  

@50 -- my conscience is that I will do my best to deal in good faith with anyone who is dealing in good faith with me.

I can't imagine too many SJWs who'd clear that hurdle.

Sure, if I ran into one who actually did (although I'd sooner expect to run into Princess Celestia handing out free muffins at the side of the road), then I'd play it straight with him. But the average SJW would need about five seconds to try and lie to me or about me, at which point fuck him, the moral high ground just became something I'll only work to keep if its tactically advantageous for bombarding him from above.

Blogger Torial (#170) September 02, 2015 1:50 PM  

Regarding
If you need an example of this, just look at the arguments he presents in any given blog post and the bleating of his supporters in the comments. There is a world of difference. And this is why they keep coming back – because he is very, very good at arguing for them. You don't rally around a person who consistently loses.

This is pretty good analysis -- I would clarify that as an individual frustrated with the state of things, I can't do much, but combined with others, I can achieve a lot. Vox Day doesn't cave like a Republican, and is willing to fight battles against encroachment. For my part, I am glad to fight on a front of the culture war that has a chance of winning because it is being handled by a strategic, tactical and principled leader.

Anonymous Olaf Plankwell September 02, 2015 1:50 PM  

@22

My choice would be meson guns. Atmosphere doesn't degrade performance.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 02, 2015 1:51 PM  

My question is about the process of reasoning: How do you draw the line in any given case?

By applying your reason along with Divine Revelation, which as a Catholic you know means Scripture and Tradition. How else?

Blogger luagha September 02, 2015 1:51 PM  

Start with mass deportation of illegal aliens, Edward. Is that moral?
Our laws require it. Any harm which occurs to the illegal aliens and their issue (whose legal status is current at question) is the fault of their own illegal action, not those of the deporters.

Once that question is answered, then we can go on to the deportation of previously-thought-legal aliens.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 02, 2015 1:52 PM  

@5. Edward Isaacs: "/pol/ grounds morality in the good of one's own race. For them, the racial good is the final end of the will. Everything is justified, if it keeps the race alive. But that kind of morality is monstrous."

Collective survival is good, not monstrous. It is an indispensable condition for other goods.

What's monstrous is the kind of false morality that results in racial annihilation. Those who try to impose such morality are practicing g-word. That is gravely immoral and illegal.

Any creature is bad-of-its-kind if it practices and promotes a morality of collective self-murder, however cleverly disguised it is, and however persuasively and forcefully advocated it is.

Such a false morality is mutually exclusive with the good life, which must have a proper place for the natural ends of sexuality and marriage, which are collective perpetuation.

Collective survival (which without racial survival is an empty phrase) is non-negotiable. Experience proves that it has to be, because in the presence of brilliant, aggressive, team-minded, intense, vociferous ethnic competitors, everything that can be negotiated away will be. Bit by bit, basic and essential understandings of sexuality and inheritance will be corrupted -- we have all seen this.

The minimum requirements for not being g-worded on a racial level cannot be up for grabs piecemeal.

The legal issue is secondary, because the laws of an extinct people are moot. But it is still a valid issue. The struggle to impose a false morality that will lead to a genotype ceasing to exist is a g-word-al effort and thus criminal under international law; such an effort cannot be consistently justified by appealing to law.

The minimum cultural conditions of collective survival do not stand under the judgement of "moral" rhetoric (often pressed by glib, self-interested enemies); rather, proposed moral rules have to be assessed in the light of the requirements of life.

Once one has that firmly in mind, one can talk usefully about reasonable, proportionate means for defeating social justice warriors. (And those who program them with their foul and ultimately destructive doctrines.)

Given the proven destructiveness of social justice warriors the legitimate scope for measures to defeat them must be wide.

Anonymous Homesteader September 02, 2015 1:53 PM  

Rabbi B- "Lying is immoral."

Not in war.

Blogger Danby September 02, 2015 1:55 PM  

@Edward Isaacs
The Grand Inquisitor would like a word with you.
If you haven't actually thought about these things, you don't belong here. You're too intellectually short for this ride. You seem surprised that anyone could disagree wiht the SJ consensus.

We don't care about convincing you.

We don't care about your moral scruples

We don't care about your more-moral-than-you-damned-fascists posing.

We don't care what you think.

We don't even care what you do.

Now shut up and go away until you grow up, fucktard.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 02, 2015 1:56 PM  

I would oppose elevating a Calvinist to the papacy, obviously.

Then tell us how you would prevent that without the so-called thought-policing you're so concerned about us using.

Fair warning: you're probably one or two comments away from being labeled a concern troll, so if you have a point, you might wanna get to it.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 02, 2015 1:57 PM  

Edward Isaacs: "My question is about the process of reasoning: How do you draw the line in any given case?"

By reading the book of nature.

Blogger Edward Isaacs September 02, 2015 2:03 PM  

@59
Thank you for your thoughtful and serious response.

@62
I have already conceded the point about thought policing. See @50.
As for "concern troll", I have been called that every time I have asked a question here.

@61
Your rhetoric has succeeded. I no longer want to engage in this conversation thread, so I no longer will.

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 2:04 PM  

As the old saying goes -- 'Speech might be free, but you /pay/ to rent space in my auditorium.'

If SJWs wanted to thought police each other, on a 'You must obey this and believe this in order to keep your SJW badge!'... well, shit, knock yourselves out, guys. Your group has membership rules and you enforce them on your members. This is not wrong.

Its their desire to thought-police /everybody else/ that we object to.

We're not arguing over 'Should police exist?' We're arguing over /jurisdiction/.

Blogger dlw September 02, 2015 2:04 PM  

The point the some commenters continually miss is that while the Torlings and their ilk have circled the wagons and are developing ulcers defending their ideological turf, Vox is not.

It will always be an asymmetrical battle, because Vox isn't defending anything. As he has reminded us periodically, Vox doesn't care.

You can't even call it a war if your opponents are doing all the work for you... Vox is like someone who occasionally taps the side of a fishbowl to see the fish take off in a circle.

The SJWs keep telling us how smart they are. It might even be true. But even if they're the smartest goldfish in the world, they're still goldfish.

Tap. Tap. Tap-tap-tap...

Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 2:06 PM  

@Edward Isaacs

How did the Master deal with such attacks? Too many examples to post as illustrations, but the following is instructive and hits all cylinders:

One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me: John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

“Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

(cf. Luke 20 and John 8)

Blogger Edward Isaacs September 02, 2015 2:09 PM  

@40 @41 @67

I am sorry: thank you as well. I will think and pray about these verses.

Anonymous Stephen J. September 02, 2015 2:11 PM  

VD: "To achieve the objective of unpoliced thought, we must police our organizations against the SJW thought and speech police."

I'm not even so sure that "unpoliced thought" should be the objective, although I would note that thought cannot ever by definition be "policed" (although it can certainly be brainwashed and bamboozled, or disallowed from having an effect). What needs to be preserved is the maximum capacity for unpoliced discourse, meaning no action may be taken by the state to prevent speech or punish it based on its content and -- ideally -- individual citizens may punish speakers for the content of their speech only through personal shunning of those speakers individually (as opposed to the organized mob tactics SJ leaders deploy against not only opposing speakers but anyone even vaguely associated with them).

The paradox of freedom in any arena, as a value, is that it can only be reliably realized and guaranteed if the boundaries of the arena in which it's exercised are not themselves subject to change via the exercise of that freedom. Free speech, to be truly free, can advocate for anything except the abolition or limiting of free speech. Freedom of association, to be truly free, should allow for any association or refusal thereof except that which by its nature prevents that freedom in others. And so on. Thus the defense of any freedom involves by definition the prevention of any exercise of that freedom which would negate, or reasonably tend to lead to the negation of, the freedom itself. It is not policing; it is preserving.

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 02, 2015 2:12 PM  

The tactic is not the outcome. The means is not the end. To achieve the objective of unpoliced thought, we must police our organizations against the SJW thought and speech police. Like the Germans with mustard gas in WWI, they will not abandon the tactic unless and until it is used against them with greater efficacy.

I like to think of it as follows. I've had police officers tell me that once someone breaks into your house and you are there, you have to assume the worst (castle doctrine) and it doesn't matter whether you use a pistol, a long gun, a sword, a brick, a pocketknife, a dog, feet/fists, or a directed energy weapon. You have to examine the potential for collateral damage and pick the tool that works best for the situation given your available resources, but otherwise it's all fair game.

As for the intended target? They've already forfeited their rights once they began a forcible felony. You don't want to specifically kill them, you want to eliminate the threat, even if it kills them in the process. Once you are morally justified the choice of method becomes a tactical and not a moral choice. If they have a knife? You can use a gun, no problem, even though that appears to some naysayers to be an escalation or overkill; it doesn't matter once the morality of the matter is established.

The problem arises when the SJWs/etc claim that they have the moral high ground, and thus the ends justify the means. They are "fighting" for inconsistent, ever-changing, nebulous and evil utopian goals that are really designed to just give them control over others. We are fighting for a concrete, attainable, individual freedom and sovereignty. A phrase from the LDS scripture comes to mind: "I seek not for power, but to pull it down."

It is important though to keep our sanity and morality by using the right tools for the job in this cultural war. Like Vox says, punch back twice as hard, which implies a liimit. You wouldn't set off a nuke at your front door to stop an intruder; but use a gun, even a very powerful one? Yep. A gun is horrifying in the hands of a criminal, but in the hands of a father defending his family it's heroic and smart. The SJWs are bringing rhetorical guns and knives and starting a fight. We had better bring at least the same to defend ourselves, and turn the tables.

The results of this cultural war will turn into mass real physical casualties eventually if not reversed (history clearly bears this out). In this case the ends do justify the means as far as what many have done to counter the SJW narrative; we have the true moral high ground, and they are literally an existential threat to us and everyone else (for crying out loud, look at Phil Sandifer's tweets). If we can keep things out of the physical realm by employing their tactics against them now, given they pulled the rhetorical guns first, so much the better for everyone.

Anonymous Soga September 02, 2015 2:17 PM  

I suggest you spend some time thinking about how war changes things. As you know, God said "thou shall not kill", but commanded the Israelites to kill in war. The understanding of "thou shall not kill" applies in a predatory manner, such that the best English parsing of the commandment is "thou shall not murder".

Yet, it is clear that killing in war is not a violation of this commandment. This suggests that the nature of war demands a more nuanced understanding of morality.

This is not to say that these principles have exceptions, but rather, that the circumstances of war fall under a different category from what the principle falls under.

For example, as pointed out above in someone else's comment, God placed restrictions on how the Israelites were to wage war. These were different principles entirely.

Anonymous Sun Xhu September 02, 2015 2:17 PM  

What's left, orbital artillery?

It's the only way to be sure.

Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 2:19 PM  

@68

These are the times we live in, Edward:

They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers OPPOSE THE TRUTH.

They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

(II Timothy 3)

I don't carry a gun to protect just myself from harm.

Blogger VD September 02, 2015 2:19 PM  

Well, my conscience certainly does not permit that.

Why do you think your conscience is any interest to us? Why are you so narcissistic as to imagine that what you say, think, or do is of any import whatsoever to anyone here?

Lick the boots of the SJWs if you like. Tell the enemy where you plan to land, when, and with how many if you wish. But save your sermons and your moralizing for those who have requested it.

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 2:19 PM  

One of my favorite quotes from John C. Wright:

"Of course its unreasonable! /War/ is unreasonable! If it were reasonable, it would be called 'peace'!" -- Marshal Atkins, 'The Golden Transcendence'.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper September 02, 2015 2:22 PM  

After reading that guys article I have to wonder why the heck is on the other side? Honestly, he seems smart and decent enough that with a bit of work he could be one of us.

Wonder if we could turn him to the Light.

Now Vox as for supplementing the stuff you mentioned , try solar powered long-linger drones with multi-warhead hyperbaric clusters or FASCAM pods.

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 2:27 PM  

@76 -- My guess is 'long and intense early indoctrination that he's painfully starting to shake off'. I was lucky, my parents were unreconstructed old reactionaries /and/ my primary and secondary school districts were run by old-fashioned sorts with a great distrust of modern educational methods . God knows how fucked up I'd be if I'd grown up raised or educated by SJWs.

So yeah, best wishes to this guy and may he eventually reason himself clear of the fever swamps. I'm rooting for him to make it... let's just hope he genuinely wants to.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz September 02, 2015 2:32 PM  

@60

And not to those who would destroy you or your family. Morality does not constrain you to tell the truth to murderers, thieves, or despoilers.

Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 2:36 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous rubberducky September 02, 2015 2:41 PM  

Read this guy's page, he's got the usual race obsession you find with an SJW, and he can't admit that a lot of Vox's magic ability to win is that having the truth DOES go a long way, but other than that he's alright.

But he and several Ilk who parachuted in over there kept referring to this place as "Vox Populi" not "Vox Popoli"

funny how the dead language keeps beating the living one

Blogger Russell (106) September 02, 2015 2:43 PM  

You don't rally around a person who consistently loses.

And yet Scalzi has a following. Methinks his analysis is a bit superficial.

I'm a VFM because I rather march out to meet the enemy in full battle with others of the same mindset, whether we win or lose, than to skirt around the edges of society, trying to avoid the baleful gaze of the perpetually offendable, wondering when my badthink will have me judged and executed by the chinless, wobbling, hair-dyed lunatics.

I rather go down fighting, than end up with knife in the back in the dark.

Vox presents a standard for Truth. I'll rally around it because he's willing to defend it with everything he's got.

For the TL;DR SJWs: Baaaaaaaa.

Anonymous Stephen J. September 02, 2015 2:44 PM  

@45: "As far as 'thought policing' goes, before the question can be answered, the term must be defined. The definition I will use here is 'removing people from your organizations based on their opinions'..."

I would suggest a further refinement: "Thought policing" is expelling people from your organizations for opinions not relevant to the function of the organization. The Church has every right to excommunicate heretics, i.e. those who attempt to teach a doctrine that contradicts the Catechism, but no individual bishop has the right to excommunicate a priest or layman who simply vocally disagrees with that bishop's actions in a particular legal case, or opinions on a particular proposed social policy (so long as that disagreement does not itself contradict, or is based on deliberately misrepresenting, the Catechism).

Sarah Hoyt, who disagrees with Vox in many ways, nonetheless agrees that his attempted expulsion from the SFWA was an act of thought policing because the SFWA has no jurisdiction over member opinions nor professional interest in them; as an organization it is in principle solely about advocating for its members' benefit in business transactions and contracts.

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 2:45 PM  

@81 -- I think his premise had an unstated "Unless you're living in denial of reality." attached to it. Which would entirely explain Scalzi's continued following, SJWs being what they are.

Anonymous Anonymous September 02, 2015 2:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger Daniel September 02, 2015 2:48 PM  

Karma karma karma karma karma...'s a bitch.

Anonymous patrick kelly September 02, 2015 2:48 PM  

"But even if lying were an insuperable strategy, against which no truth-tellers could possibly stand, it would still not be morally permissible to lie to defeat the liars."

Yes.

Were Danish Christians morally obligated to honestly answer questions from murderous Nazi's about the location of Jews in hiding? No.

We exist in a fallen creation, where pure moral actions are not always, usually rarely, possible, especially in mortal war.

Danby pretty much expressed the rest I had to say, he was nicer....

Blogger Russell (106) September 02, 2015 2:52 PM  

@83 cglasgow99

Maybe. Sure doesn't read that way, though, and I can't read his mind.

OpenID cglasgow99 September 02, 2015 2:54 PM  

@87 -- Actually, now that I've thought about it some more, I'll split the difference -- the reason Scalzi has a following is for the same reason Vox has a following. They think he's a winner.

Of course, thinking that Scalzi's a winner /is/ the "living in denial of reality" part. *g*

But then again, wasn't Scalzi himself celebrating the 'victory' of the 2015 Hugos? The Hitler video sorta sums up what was wrong with that line of thinking.

Anonymous Difster September 02, 2015 3:09 PM  

SCORE!!!!!!! Amazon took down the parody.

Now it's really on.

Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 3:10 PM  

" . . . the reason Scalzi has a following is for the same reason Vox has a following. They think he's a winner."

He (Scalzi) has a following, 'cuz 'birds of a feather . . . '

Vox has a following . . . well . . . 'cuz he is AWESOME

Anonymous Athor Pel September 02, 2015 4:05 PM  

"67. Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 2:06 PM
...
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
..."



Which is funny, they accused Jesus of blasphemy for claiming the same thing later on.

Since they were lying we now see an example straight from the Bible of rule #1 and rule #3, SJWs always lie and SJWs always project.

Blogger Rabbi B September 02, 2015 4:37 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger John Wright September 02, 2015 4:42 PM  

If I may, mockery and raillery is not untruth, for it does not attempt to deceive. In fending off, hunting, and destroying an enemy, one must pursue the foe with diligence.

Allowing a man to join your social club or industry when you have firm reason to suspect that his philosophy makes him impossible to trust and likely to degrade or destroy that club or industry is not required by any law of morality known to me, or any Biblical injunction.

The love of peace and the desire for fairmindedness do not extend to self destructive acts. Giving the enemy the benefit of the doubt is prudent when and only when some doubt yet remains. If by his words and actions he has unambiguously displayed his intentions are hostile to everything sacred, it is pure folly to warm him to your bosom as a friend. He is a scorpion and will sting you: such is his nature.

The degree to which one owes fealty to a corrupted justice system, or should abide by customs of courtesy that act only to your own disadvantage and never to the foe's, is a delicate one. I suggest that the prudent course is to respect and abide by such rules and systems until the preponderance of evidence makes it clear that the system is beyond reformation. If it can be reformed, take steps to reform it. If not, announce your intent in public to destroy, and then take steps to destroy it.

But in general, keep in mind that the ends do not justify the means. The act in question must be a licit goal, pursued in a licit fashion, and the nature of the act must itself be moral.

Deception in warfare is of course licit. You may lie to Nazis about Jews in your cellar.

And if you later regret the act, once all the Nazis are dead, why, then, that is what the confessional booth is for.

How my dear brothers in Christ, the Protestants, handle this moral conundrum, I do not know and cannot say. All I know is that there are as many warrior saints as peaceful ones: Jesus both told us to turn the other cheek and to sell our coats to buy swords. I think He meant both, and quite seriously.

We must both forgive, and fight, with all our hearts and all our strength.

Blogger The Rev September 02, 2015 5:56 PM  

Hey guys. Long time reader, first time commenter. I stand fully ready to take my blows for the "bleating of his supporters in the comments" bit. I'd like to make up for it with the following:

I have been absolutely floored by the difference in behavior between the Dread Ilk and the TruFans. The Dread Ilk have, by and large, conducted themselves fairly while giving excellent feedback. You have questioned, critiqued, and challenged my statements. I haven't had this much fun since Grad school.

The TruFans have attacked me as a shill and a deep-cover Puppy while rejecting every statement I made out of hand. I'm a pacifist, and I still wanted to strangle the stupid out of a few of them. If this is what you guys have had put up with, I can understand the desire to nuke it from orbit.

Last, Vox does not need to worry about me breaking into his home. As an SJW of indeterminate gender, sexuality, and race, I naturally long for the rapish touch of my beloved Scalzi. I cannot BELIEVE Amazon would CENSOR a BOOK just because they don't agree with the type of LOVE it portrays. #LoveWins

Anonymous patrick kelly September 02, 2015 6:06 PM  

@95 "I'm a pacifist, and I still wanted to strangle the stupid out of a few of them."

Heh, funny, I know the feeling, although I am far past pacifism by now.

Welcome, I think you fit in just fine here. Opposition is tolerated especially if you're not an extremely obnoxious twit. Even I have not had the ban hammer swung at me as far as I know, and I pretty much just clown-troll here for my own entertainment, and manage to learn quite a bit.

Blogger VD September 02, 2015 6:09 PM  

I have been absolutely floored by the difference in behavior between the Dread Ilk and the TruFans. The Dread Ilk have, by and large, conducted themselves fairly while giving excellent feedback. You have questioned, critiqued, and challenged my statements. I haven't had this much fun since Grad school.

You're certainly welcome to hang around as much as you like. You're smart enough to bring something to the table, so if you see an assertion with which you disagree, go ahead and try to shoot it down. Maybe you'll learn something, or maybe we'll learn something.

This honestly isn't an echo chamber. You wouldn't be the first critic to become Ilk, in fact, I think there are several former critics among the VFM.

If this is what you guys have had put up with, I can understand the desire to nuke it from orbit.

I've put up with it for 14 years. Perhaps my naked contempt for them will make more sense to you now.

Anonymous patrick kelly September 02, 2015 6:09 PM  

@94 John Wright

Once again you brighten this place with illuminating prose. Thank you.

Anonymous Blaster September 02, 2015 6:25 PM  

@36

Edward Isaacs: Why do you oppose SJWs? Is it that you perceive them and their characteristic actions (including but not limited to "thought policing") to be immoral, and do you see yourself as fighting in some way for a moral good? Or is it simply that you recognize that their actions threaten your interests, and so you fight to protect those interests?

This is far too broad a question to answer in one blog comment. The one sentence answer is because they routinely deny reality, which is not something that can be sustained without consequence (usually drastically negative consequence. Deny the cave is collapsing and you will not take the precautions you need to take to avoid being crushed. The more complex answer is that there are many value conflicts, and based on the way this thread is going, that the most relevant value conflict I have is this:

I value institutions, organizations, and companies that are efficient and effective at achieving their stated goals.

I also value intellectual openness, intellectual honesty, and freedom of speech more than SJWs. I believe that most SJWs place their pet crusades and status signalling above openness, honesty, and freedom of speech. I am particularly offended by SJW closed-mindedness, since openness is a liberal trait, not a conservative one. Conservatives tend to be open-minded only as necessity dictates). Not infrequently, I have no problem with the theoretical ideals behind the particular crusade, but strongly object to their thought-policing methods. But in my view, and most relevantly to this thread, is the degradation of organizations infected by SJW parasites or SJWism.

Imagine that a professional football team hired a General Manager who, for ideological reasons, decides to sign a squad of only Mormon players, rather than acquiring the best players the team can afford. It's easy to predict that such a team would be a disaster and in the high stakes, cutthroat world of professional sports, that General Manager would be fired in short order. This is the fundamental flaw of SJWs. Obviously, a real SJW General Manager wouldn't actually sign Mormons, he would sign based on racial and sexual diversity quotas.

This example highlights the core flaw of SJWs, but does not describe how the SJWs usually work. As described, the SJW general manager will fail spectacularly for all to see, because the consequences to his reality-denying ideology will happen very quickly. This does not deter actual SJWs, though. Instead, the SJW says: how can we change reality so that we can achieve our goals. In this case, it means trying changing the sport of football so that the best teams are racially and sexually diverse. They will infiltrate the media and administration. They'll gradually introduce changes that make the game less competitive, less athletic, and less ruthless-- that is, everything about the game that fans care about.

More importantly, many areas of life the consequences of SJWism won't show up so quickly or dramatically, even when you do have someone come in with a blatant ideological agenda. The degradation of the organization will happen gradually, as quality talent is replaced by parasitic ideologues. One day you will discover your productivity has fallen, your competition is ruthlessly eating away at your business and you're stuck with a group of useless ideolgues.

Though again, as I said this topic is too complex to sum up in a single post. Certainly the rampant thought-policing and SJW shaming tactics are the most threatening problems, the core of it all is reality-denial.

Blogger James Dixon September 02, 2015 6:31 PM  

> There are certain tactics that are immoral no matter what and unjustified in all cases, even if your enemies are using them. Lying, for example, is one. But even if lying were an insuperable strategy, against which no truth-tellers could possibly stand, it would still not be morally permissible to lie to defeat the liars.

So you value being a nice guy over survival. Good for you. We'll make sure your tombstone says "He lies a nice guy".

But in any case, you're wrong. When the lives of people I care about are on the line I'll lie as often as necessary to preserve them.

> My morality is Catholic.

I assume you mean Roman Catholic, as that's the common usage.

> I would draw the line where an action becomes a sin.

So you'll never sin again? Again, good for you. Don't expect us to even try to adhere to that standard.

> What's left, orbital artillery?

Eric hasn't been designing that for you? I need to stop by his site and give him a hard time. :)

> Why do you oppose SJWs?

I don't oppose SJW's. They oppose me. They are the ones who want to see me jobless, homeless, friendless, and begging in the street while everyone walks by laughing at me. They brought the fight to us, not the other way around.

If you think I'm exaggerating, you merely need to read more of what they write.

> Isn't the mass deportation of even legal aliens one of the things Vox and others insist is necessary to avoid bloody wars and cultural decay?

Above a certain level, yes. There is a limit to the amount of immigration a country can handle. If you go over that limit, even legally, you'll get the problems Vox has described.

> Any harm which occurs to the illegal aliens and their issue (whose legal status is current at question)

There is no question. The standard for that was set by the Clinton administration in the Elián González case. The children go back with their legal guardians. The only question is whether they are US citizens or not. If they are, they can apply for entry
when they reach adulthood.

> Your rhetoric has succeeded. I no longer want to engage in this conversation thread, so I no longer will.

Meh. Your choice. You'll run the gamut of opinions here. If you can't take it, then you'd best not post.

> I will think and pray about these verses.

That's all any of us can do. Come back when you're ready.

Anonymous patrick kelly September 02, 2015 6:35 PM  

@100 James Dixon: "I don't oppose SJW's. They oppose me. They are the ones who want to see me jobless, homeless, friendless, and begging in the street while everyone walks by laughing at me. They brought the fight to us, not the other way around.
"

Yes, this 1000x. May I politely suggest new lurkers read up on some history before asking questions like "why". It's really pretty darn obvious once you do.

Anonymous Nxx September 02, 2015 7:07 PM  

@ Edward Isaac
To me, the question is whether the means necessary to the desired end are themselves moral. It seems to me that if there is no morally allowable means to victory, then, morally, one ought to concede defeat.

Translation from Cuckservative to English:

While the other soldiers are out in the rain fighting for me and mine I'll just sit here in my bunk bitching about their moral inferiority for stooping so low as to willingly fight in muddy terrain.

Anonymous BigGaySteve September 02, 2015 7:13 PM  

When I posted on his blog that if you order everything Castalia house has to offer at once you get a signed shirtless pic of Vox, he seemed interested in it.

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 02, 2015 7:13 PM  

What's left, orbital artillery?

No... claymores. A few M18 claymores with remote wireless clackers.

Because rabbits always try to swarm you.

Anonymous BGS September 02, 2015 7:54 PM  

Besides the Ridgebacks, guns, and laser-triggered landmines? What's left

It might be betraying my side but if you put up extra mirrors gays will stop and preen at them. If you can find a fun house mirror that makes them look fat they might run away crying. If you really want to be safe put one of these in front of a pit trap.
http://www.dudeiwantthat.com/omg/fools/infant-circumcision-trainer.asp

You don't rally around a person who consistently loses.And yet Scalzi has a following

Perhaps he wins at losing big.

Read this guy's page, he's got the usual race obsession you find with an SJW,

If you are reading this Rev, have you ever meet a black as smart as seen on TV?

@99Imagine that a professional football team hired a General Manager who, for ideological reasons, decides to sign a squad of only Mormon players, rather than acquiring the best players the team can afford

In a world with random drug testing & strict law enforcement that all Mormon team would win against Mikey Vic and the roid ragers.

Blogger The Rev September 02, 2015 9:53 PM  

@105

Black Presidents on TV or black criminals on TV?

Anonymous NewAnubis September 02, 2015 10:04 PM  

I have been reading Vox for years having been forwarded from WND to this blog. The only thing I really care to engage in is truth/honesty in debate. Generally uninterested in the games of persuasion, weaponizing humor, etc. which seem to avoid or at least obfuscate the intended goal of arriving at a truth sans the truthseekers' ego. I recognize that this is often impossible to do but alas, if he had his druthers, I believe Vox would bypass the nonsense and traject in bullet-like fashion to a true truth even, and perhaps especially, if he'd held an opposing view at the start.

So, before this turns into some mushy bromance, i am grateful for what I continue to learn from both the host and VFM here.

I also believe that Rev's soul is not solidly enmeshed with the dark side and was shocked, shocked I say, to read what by all measures appears to be an honest assessment in the first of his series.

Blogger Groot September 02, 2015 10:50 PM  

Hi, The Rev, and congrats on de-lurking. You straightforwardly identify as an SJW. In contrast to your deft summaries of the ilk, what do you think separates you and your stances? What truths do you hold dear that we scorn or do not see?

Blogger SciVo September 02, 2015 11:28 PM  

@ Stephen J.: "Thus the defense of any freedom involves by definition the prevention of any exercise of that freedom which would negate, or reasonably tend to lead to the negation of, the freedom itself."

Progressives ape that by averring that they are tolerant of everything but intolerance. It is a pose that has nothing to do with preserving freedom, because of the difference between a civil liberty and a civil right.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 02, 2015 11:33 PM  

Scruples belong at the 'Should I fight?' and 'Who am I fighting?' stages of going to battle. ... once you've settled those two questions...then you've already answered every question that actually /needs/ scruples.

There are only two unforgivable war crimes: fighting a war that wasn't worth doing whatever it took to win, and losing a war that was.

Blogger Danby September 02, 2015 11:55 PM  

There are only two unforgivable war crimes: fighting a war that wasn't worth doing whatever it took to win, and losing a war that was.

Iraq came to mind

Anonymous Homesteader September 03, 2015 2:02 AM  

"Never fight a battle where nothing is gained by winning". -General George Patton

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Anonymous AbuDhabi September 03, 2015 2:24 AM  

@94
>Deception in warfare is of course licit. You may lie to Nazis about Jews in your cellar.

Wait, what?

Per my recollection of Aquinas and Augustine, you may not. You may remain silent, or kill the Nazis, but not lie to them.

Blogger The Rev September 03, 2015 6:54 AM  

@108

Hey Groot!

The short version is "race." The medium version is, some of the racial theories flying around here are so far out of my experience in everyday life that I cannot even begin to take them seriously. I'll probably get called out for "disqualifying," but again, that's just my experience.

The long version is, I'm not yet sure that you're better than the thing you're trying to replace. Seeing some of the clarifications in these comments on what was meant by "thought police of our own" have been encouraging. I can theoretically get behind thought police whose sole function is beating down other thought police.

Anonymous 0007 September 03, 2015 7:03 AM  

Considering the inane babbling coming from the mouth of the present Pope, I would think that any self-confessed catholic would be doing some serious soul-searching.

Anonymous Blaster September 03, 2015 10:04 AM  

The short version is "race." The medium version is, some of the racial theories flying around here are so far out of my experience in everyday life that I cannot even begin to take them seriously.

I disagree with the "mean time to civilization theory" but appreciate the idea. I also favor legal equality and believe that race-blindness is a virtue in the context of daily interactions with individual people.

But I also think that the left's push for diversity has gone too far. They're pushing racial and ethnic diversity for its own sake (often hypocritically), and a lot of the race and immigration arguments I see flying around these parts are explicitly counter to this phenomenon. White guilt and non-white racial grievance are common (and highly divisive) themes on the left. I find the racial self-consciousness and double standards of the left to be just as damaging and divisive as the race nationalism on the right.

In my experience, the only time the left actually commits to race-blindness is when they are applying absurdly equalist ideologies to deny observable differences between racial populations-- perhaps out of irrational fear of promoting racial stereotypes or a very real fear of being branded racist and shunned.

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 03, 2015 10:43 AM  

Hi, The Rev, and congrats on de-lurking. You straightforwardly identify as an SJW. In contrast to your deft summaries of the ilk, what do you think separates you and your stances? What truths do you hold dear that we scorn or do not see?

Probably race and IQ. That's the current unspeakable landmine today. SJW's strive heroically to keep any discussion of the subject out-of-bounds. They believe---and enforce---the idea that only culture and nutrition explain IQ differences among different human populations, even though the partial genetic basis of IQ has long been recognized.

Like all SJW's, The Rev believes that only culture and nutrition explain IQ group differences. He may also believe that "race" is a false construct. The difference between him and other SJW's is that he doesn't seek to smear and demonize someone discussing the subject (much less holding a different opinion on it).

Blogger The Rev September 03, 2015 11:29 AM  

@117

Hi, #188! Yes, that is the biggest issue for me. Not that the thought that IQ and race are linked is so faint-on-couch unthinkable, but because it has not been proven adequately enough for my personal standards.

I would be all for reading non-anecdotal evidence and studies that take nutritional and cultural factors into account. I've already read a good bit of the canon of modern day racialism, and it's 90% anecdotes, solipsism, and really terrible science. The other 10% is the fiction, some of which is quite good! Turner Diaries for life.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 03, 2015 11:41 AM  

[SJWs] believe---and enforce---the idea that only culture and nutrition explain IQ differences among different human populations, even though the partial genetic basis of IQ has long been recognized.

Also that IQ doesn't exist, can't be measured, isn't important anyway, I'm smarter than you, and shut up!

Blogger Cail Corishev September 03, 2015 11:50 AM  

Rev, JayMan has done a lot of work in that area. You might start with his Race, Inheritance, and IQ FAQ.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 03, 2015 11:58 AM  

@118. The Rev: "I've already read a good bit of the canon of modern day racialism, and it's 90% anecdotes, solipsism, and really terrible science."

I'm glad to hear you are knowledgable on these matters. Who are the main canon authorities whose really terrible science you have uncovered?

Here is a thumbnail sketch of the concept of an ethnic genetic interest; is that a reasonable summary, in your view, and what do you think of the concept?

Have you read Kevin MacDonald's trilogy, and what do you think are the main implications of his theoretical framework? Is the idea of "experiments in living" reasonable? What about the concept of a "group evolutionary strategy"?

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 03, 2015 12:01 PM  

Nicholas Wade's book follows The Bell Curve. Both are very well supported and annotated with regard to the Race-IQ question. Wade wouldn't have published his book if he wasn't retiring from the New York Times (kind of like Nick Copernicus publishing De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium on the day he died...good planning there).

Anonymous patrick kelly September 03, 2015 12:34 PM  

@113 "Per my recollection of Aquinas and Augustine, you may not. You may remain silent, or kill the Nazis, but not lie to them."

Aquinas and Augustine were wrong. (I'm assuming your characterization of their opinion is accurate, I have not invested much effort in seeking their particular guidance in these matters).

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 03, 2015 12:39 PM  

The Rev, do you happen to have read The Culture Cult: designer tribalism and other essays?

The author, Peter Sandall, published it only when he retired from his position as Senior Lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Sydney, Australia, and thus when he could not be punished for what he had to say: that the whole history of received anthropology is a scandal.

Why is that, do you think? Do you think that is a coincidence?

Why is it that nobody notices what you tell us is the "really terrible science" of the professors until they say something that dissents from the dominant politics?

Why is it that years and decades drift by, and there is no refutation of Kevin MacDonald, only smearing and no-platforming? If his work could be refuted, it would be a ticket to a lifetime of rewards for whoever did it, but there is only an awkward, embarrassingly protracted silence.

Strange.

Does this look to you like the healthy practice of science within a young paradigm, where there is much excitement about the productive now programs of experimentation that racial denialism is providing?

Or does it look like the degenerate practice of science in a senescent paradigm, when the vital questions are obviously never going to be answered within the mandatory assumptions and in the mandatory language, and "respectability" is maintained, if at all, by shutting people up with carrots and sticks and propaganda?

Blogger The Rev September 03, 2015 1:36 PM  

@121

In terms of non-fiction, I've mostly read David Lane's Neo Wotanism stuff, Creativity movement books, and a good bit of Evola/pre-post-WWII spiritual fascism.

And as I type this, I am experiencing the sinking realization that I've only read the wacky, far out stuff and that there's a large body of more scientifically-oriented works that I know nothing about. Fair enough.

Alright. Anything else I should add to my homework?

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 03, 2015 2:39 PM  

The more Frank Salter you read, the better. Frank Salter is this guy. (Only ten minutes on YouTube; can you spare ten minutes?)

I strongly recommend you read Kevin MacDonald's trilogy in the order it is meant to be read:
1) A People that Shall Dwell Alone
2) Separation and its Discontents
3) Culture of Critique

The point is: the theoretical framework is in the first book. Unless you have that, the rest is just history. If Kevin MacDonald had only assembled a bunch of data, he would not be an important person; it's as an evolutionary psychologist with important things to say about implicit and explicit programing and the construction of culture as an arena in which group fitness is contested that he is really important.

He has a lot to say that's not in his major works, and he has a good stable of fellow academics (writing under pseudonyms to avoid the Cultural Marxist lynch mobs) so you want to read online:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/
and (for the serious stuff, which I assume is what you are looking for)
http://www.toqonline.com/

And some other reasonably "intellectual" blogs, such as:
http://www.eurocanadian.ca/, which is sometimes just news and commentary, and sometimes quite serious on what is happening in the social sciences, and
http://www.unz.com/isteve/, which is very digestable, and probably less scary, because Steve Sailer is very, very careful, to the point of being evasive, in order to avoid offending the wrong people too much.

Also: Derb! Start here; by the time you mull over his point and get through his regular reading list, I think you'll agree with me that that's a good starting point. (And this is why I don't list Charles Murray separately.)

There's a lot more that's good, but usually with a cultural and philosophical rather than a scientific focus, such as:
http://www.counter-currents.com/

Is that enough to get you started?

Anonymous BigGaySteve September 03, 2015 2:43 PM  

@105 Black Presidents on TV or black criminals on TV?

Black President's on TV during a debate without a teleprompter when his earpiece was jammed was reality.

The other 10% is the fiction, some of which is quite good! Turner Diaries for life.

I knew 5 people that volunteered to help with Katrina that went down believing in equality & came back saying the Turner Diaries came true. That's how I found out about the Turner Diaries. Which side did you root for in the Turner Diaries?

Also that IQ doesn't exist, can't be measured, isn't important anyway except when non Asian minorities commit execution level crimes.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 03, 2015 2:56 PM  

Please tell me you will at least read:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-on-the-prescriptive-poverty-of-the-social-sciences

See? You don't even have to copy and paste, you just have to click.

I'd hate to think you were genuinely willing to learn, but walked away without having read or learned anything.

You would probably drift back into forgetfulness, and then into the conviction that you know all about that racialist stuff, and that there is nothing to it of higher caliber than some jailbird's Neo Wotanist ravings, because that is all you ever cared to read, in order to laugh at it.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 03, 2015 2:59 PM  

@127. BigGaySteve: "Also that IQ doesn't exist, can't be measured, isn't important anyway except when non Asian minorities commit execution level crimes."

:D

Score.

Blogger The Rev September 03, 2015 3:00 PM  

@126

Already started reading through Jayman's stuff, will add MacDonald as I can find it. Some of this stuff really needs a Kindle edition.

@127

I've known Black Professors and Blacks who couldn't figure out email.

Oddly, I rooted for Whitey most of the time. When they were fighting government, I was all "Yeah! Suck it POTUS!" Even some of the early murders didn't bother me that much. The depictions of Jews and Blacks was so minstrel-sideshow-esque, I didn't see them as humans.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 03, 2015 3:13 PM  

@130. The Rev

A lot of it is on Kindle, but a frustrating amount isn't. The fix is in, unfortunately:

http://www.amren.com/features/2015/08/a-blow-against-anti-white-science/

"The trouble is that hardly anyone read Bias in Mental Testing, and hardly anyone has read this book. Oxford University Press priced it at a scandalous $84.00, and although it has been out since April 2014, it has only five reviews on Amazon.com (all give it five stars). Prof. Jussim has a regular column at Psychology Today but piecemeal blogging isn’t enough to promote his arguments."

The facts are out there, firmly established and scientifically irrefutable, but priced out of your hands and excluded from mass distribution and debate.

Blogger The Rev September 03, 2015 3:29 PM  

@131

Hmm. Guess it's time to get a-torrenting.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 03, 2015 3:34 PM  

I know nothing about torrenting. What should I know about it?

Did you notice that TOQ archives are freely available as PDFs?

Blogger The Rev September 03, 2015 3:44 PM  

@133

Oh. I meant, "I'm going to see if I can find some of these expensive books as free downloadable PDFs somewhere."

Anonymous Whitey McWhite September 03, 2015 4:17 PM  

It probably won't take you long to find The Culture of Critique.

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/goyim/je1.pdf

But that's cheap on Kindle anyway.

I don't know why A People That Shall Dwell Alone isn't on Kindle -- I bought it when it was, and Kevin MacDonald definitely wants that information out there.

Good luck finding the expensive stuff.

Normally I'm all for intellectual property rights, but this is not about that, it's about keeping the public in ignorance on a matter of terrible importance.

When Alexander Solzhenitsyn's important book on the Jewish question in Russia, 200 Years Together still isn't published in English, that has nothing to do with any respect for the author's property rights or wishes. It's just suppression.

Blogger Carl Philipp September 03, 2015 4:55 PM  

So The Rev, have any on "your team" seen you posting here and freaked out about it? :P

Blogger Groot September 03, 2015 11:52 PM  

@The Rev:
"some of the racial theories flying around here"

I agree with your characterization, as you'll see very little consensus on the topic here. The strongest current I detect is a sort of grim resentment of racism against whites and the hypocrisy it entails.

My attention span seems most comfortable at about 800 page nonfiction books, so, if you're similarly inclined, I'll start with a recommendation for Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate (and everything else he's written -- I think I have and have read every book he's written). He is a Canadian-born Harvard psychologist, so you can imagine he swims very naturally in the SJW waters.

The following recommendation, if you take it, you'll have to hide deep on your Kindle: The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein. It delves briefly into race, but is really a talk about how people are different, and discusses techniques from math and the social sciences about how to characterize and graphically display the distribution of these differences. It doesn't sound like you have a mathematical bent, but it's pretty gentle.

Both of these are quite old now, and googling them turns up many torrents, I note, for no reason. I also second reading things by Derb, just because he's a good writer and generally is not out to outrage first and inform second.

Blogger SciVo September 04, 2015 1:56 AM  

@ Groot: "The strongest current I detect is a sort of grim resentment of racism against whites and the hypocrisy it entails."

Damn straight. And I'm happy to report that small-towners in Oregon generally feel the same way, without having read any blogs like this, let alone any 800-page books.

Blogger The Rev September 04, 2015 7:34 AM  

@136

Nope, not yet. My actual friends are studiously ignoring the whole thing. Though I assume it will, at some point, be used as evidence that I am a false-flag Puppy by a SJW somewhere.

@137

Added to the list, and added to the list. And yeah, anything past algebra gives me a headache.

OpenID cglasgow99 September 04, 2015 3:20 PM  

Congratulations on your entry into the Sad Puppies, Rev3.

http://therev3.blogspot.com/2015/09/dammit-guys.html

Blogger iman rahman September 04, 2015 4:38 PM  

I like it this really good information
Vimax Canada Vimax pills Obat perangsang wanita Boneka Full Body Obat Vimax
Meizitang Botanical Herbal Slim Vimax oil Semenax Vimax asli Pelangsing tubuh alami Obat pelangsing alami Celana Hernia Selaput dara buatan Obat kuat malang Vakum pembesar penis Vimax canada Vimax Viagra usa Ciri Vimax asli Foto abg bugil Vimax Izon Ciri ciri vimax asli Harga vimax asli vimax asli Testimoni vimax
Vimax izon Pembesar penis alami

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts