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

Sunday, September 06, 2015

Embrace your extremists

Nero explains some of the rules of ideological alliances to a moderate:
Winston Churchill once said, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a positive reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." The logic of this should be obvious. Churchill recognized (rightly) that maintaining Britain's liberal order was worth allying with the devil. No one went to war with the Nazis just because of the tactics they used. They primarily did it because they couldn't stand the idea of living under a Nazi regime. I can't stand the thought of living under what Cathy calls the "quasi-totalitarian" Social Justice regime. And I will pay any price necessary to make sure that quasi-totalitarian ideology is defeated and sent back to the urine-soaked faculty lounge from whence it came.

Cathy confuses what is prudent with what is moral when she says that rejecting certain far-right allies doesn't count as appeasing the Left. Certainly, taking on allies who alienate the vast majority of people you're trying to persuade is tactically stupid. But purging people when they have done nothing to damage your cause, but happen to have made you uncomfortable because of something unrelated, is simply cowardly. There is a very troubling tendency among many Gamergaters to believe that anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is somehow "icky" or should be held responsible for the sins of Jack Thompson. This isn't the early 2000s. Most conservatives have moved on from the stupid anti-video game craze, and the ones who are most loudly on Gamergate's side generally never bought into that craze in the first place. Refusing to accept support from people who would destroy your ability to maintain your coalition is one thing. Simple bigotry against conservatives because you don't like the idea of being on the same side as people you laughed at on the Daily Show is quite another.

I agree completely with Cathy re Nyberg, so I won't respond to this prong. I will, however, only say that Social Justice Warriors take no notice of the difference between "combatants" and "non-combatants," which is typical of fascists and terrorists. The only way to stop such people from targeting non-combatants is to make them afraid to do so, because they know the retaliation from you will hurt so much more than anything they could do. Mutually assured destruction requires the commitment of both sides to destruction if the other starts something, and it is why we have yet to see a nuclear war. If you want to stop people using bad tactics, the only way to do it is to make them prohibitively costly. And the only way to do that is to use the same tactics with such brutal efficiency that they cry "uncle" and agree to a ceasefire.
As I have noted on several occasions, for reasons unbeknownst to me, moderates are always more focused on firing on their own side than on the enemy. They are also always more open to negotiation and dialogue with the enemy than with their own extremists.

This is one of the reasons why moderates never accomplish anything. Ideally, moderates would stay out of the way, let the extremists lead the charge, and then show up after the victory is won and handle the negotiations using the extremists as leverage.

"Do you want to surrender to me or do I stand aside and watch as my very good friend here follows through on his promise of no quarter?" Accepting surrender is the true and proper role of the moderate. Policing those engaged in positive action is not.

Labels: ,

212 Comments:

1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Iron Maiden Live After Death September 06, 2015 7:17 PM  

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 7:18 PM  

I've had the impulse, so I know exactly why. When your opening gambit is throwing someone on your side under the bus, you think the enemy will appreciate the fact that you have shown yourself to be a reasonable fellow who follows his principles, and doesn't merely blindly attack someone for the simple reason that they are on the other side, despite your own side doing the exact same things.

Yes, I am aware of how this strategy plays out in reality...

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 September 06, 2015 7:31 PM  

Culture wars are wars. Taking prisoners and feeding them is a luxury. Converting the enemy and sending them in, is a strategy.
I've paused to consider clarity of vision is everything in leadership. It's also a gift.

Look at SJWs perhaps this way:- from sophomores to Muhammadans to neo fascist rights campaigners to communists to blood soaked tyrants all share the same space of 'delusions of moral adequacy'.

What's distinguished Christianity historically and even now is "sinners saved by the grace of God" The eastern orthodox church and Russia because of it now lives under a banner "God, have mercy on me the sinner". Russia and to a lesser extent China, have emerged from a generation of myopic delusion into a light of specific pragmatism while the West enters it's days of darkness.

Solzhenitsyn summarizes the death of 60 million people this way: if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

Blogger overcaffeinated September 06, 2015 7:36 PM  

Noob question (?) , Mytheos Holt isn't Nero, right? And also does anyone have the link to what he's replying to?

Anonymous Satan's Hamster September 06, 2015 7:37 PM  

While I agree with the sentiment in general, Churchill is a poor choice to demonstrate it. Britain supposedly went to war to protect Poland from the Nazis, yet Churchill ended the war by giving Poland to Stalin. He bankrupt Britain, lost the Empire, saved the Soviet Union, and was so unpopular that the British people tossed him out even before the war was over.

Blogger Robert What? September 06, 2015 7:39 PM  

I read a number of blogs on the "right". Many seem to spend more time criticizing Vox than the SJW orcs. I for one will not be part of a circular firing squad. That being said, there are many who are simply posing as being on the right.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 7:42 PM  

See? He makes a holla at his homeboy Satan, and Satan totally throws him under the bus.

Moderates...

Anonymous More Cow Bell September 06, 2015 7:51 PM  

See? He makes a holla at his homeboy Satan, and Satan totally throws him under the bus.

Moderates...


I'd like to hear you play better guitar than Adrian Smith.

Anonymous Strange Aeons September 06, 2015 7:53 PM  

If I'm in a discussion and somebody supposedly on "my side" calls for compromise with Team Goodthink, he may well be a moderate but for all intents and purposes I've been regarding him merely as one of them pretending to be one of us.

Blogger Doom September 06, 2015 7:56 PM  

You explain why I often won't get involved. My brother, in fights, was like that. I hate that aspect of him, and consider him a coward. So I literally beat the shit out of him. I will not, now, side with pussies. If I feel that they are being allowed the lead in these things, I will not involve myself. Get rid of these fucking cunts. Or let them lose it, but I won't sign up to lose.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 06, 2015 7:57 PM  

Ask the "moderate " scolds if they have ever scolded the left, that takes the air out of their sails

Anonymous Roundtine September 06, 2015 8:07 PM  

Moderates of good faith are wrong because they apply the laws of peace during war. Example: never hit a lady. Moderates would be overrun be a female army wielding Nerf crotch bats.

Blogger Eric September 06, 2015 8:08 PM  

Moderates drive me completely batshit crazy! With enemies at the gate the last thing we need are these douche-hats throwing ropes over the walls.

How is it that they do not understand what they cause when they attack their own side?

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:09 PM  

"Look at SJWs perhaps this way:- from sophomores to Muhammadans to neo fascist rights campaigners to communists to blood soaked tyrants all share the same space of 'delusions of moral adequacy'."

I'm shocked and apalled.

Also, I don't think you know enough.

As for Churchill, why do people like Milo pretend that Hitler intended to invade Britain? All German aggression was directed at eastern, Slavic nations, until Brits and Frogs stupidly sacrificed themselves in order to slaughter the wrong pig, so to speak.

"WE'RE GONNA SAVE POLAND" *does absolutely nothing as Poland gets rolled over*

You know, if you refuse to attack because you believe that defence wins war: DON'T FUCKING START A PREEMPTIVE WAR.

Preemptive wars exist to gain the initiative. The intitiative is meaningless if you're just gonna turtle up.

What's more, Britain was never at risk from Hitler. France, maybe, but they bungled that like champs.

What war hawks don't get: being peaceful MAY lead to you getting attacked. Being a rapid animal WILL get you attacked. Hope this helps.

Anonymous Giuseppe The Kurgan September 06, 2015 8:10 PM  

VD,
in general I agree, but there are lines that for me can't be crossed. I had this view as long as I can remember and recall discussing it years ago already after seeing a film where some US soldiers rape a young Vietnamese girl during the Vietnam war and their officer basically ignores it. It wasn't a focus of the film, just a side issue. I thought then, that even if in a vicious war against a ruthless enemy, if I ever came up on one of the guys on my side raping a little girl, I would put a bullet in his head myself.

I do not agree with firing on your own side as a moderate, but that works up to a specific and very clear line. Beyond that line, I will LITERALLY fire on "my" side.

I believe by the way, that this is in keeping with correct Christian doctrine, because otherwise one needs to become a demon to fight demons. And while I have no problem doing that to demons....the line must end there. If you behave demonically to those who are not themselves demons...you cross the line.

If you have time I'd like your view on this as it's one point about you I am still not very clear on.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:11 PM  

*rabid*

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral September 06, 2015 8:11 PM  

@5 Satan's Hamster

Britain supposedly went to war to protect Poland from the Nazis

Yah, and the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler.

While you are staring at the pretty colours on the surface, real stuff is actually happening elswhere.

Britain went to war to protect Britain. Nobody gives a flying f3ck about Poland.

Anonymous Paynim Pussy September 06, 2015 8:16 PM  

I'm shocked and apalled.

Also, I don't think you know enough.

As for Churchill, why do people like Milo pretend that Hitler intended to invade Britain? All German aggression was directed at eastern, Slavic nations, until Brits and Frogs stupidly sacrificed themselves in order to slaughter the wrong pig, so to speak.

"WE'RE GONNA SAVE POLAND" *does absolutely nothing as Poland gets rolled over*

You know, if you refuse to attack because you believe that defence wins war: DON'T FUCKING START A PREEMPTIVE WAR.

Preemptive wars exist to gain the initiative. The intitiative is meaningless if you're just gonna turtle up.

What's more, Britain was never at risk from Hitler. France, maybe, but they bungled that like champs.

What war hawks don't get: being peaceful MAY lead to you getting attacked. Being a rapid animal WILL get you attacked. Hope this helps.


Allahu Akbar!

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 8:16 PM  

Didn't we just use to call moderates quislings and have them shot? Maybe I watched the wrong episode on the History Channel.

Blogger David-093 September 06, 2015 8:18 PM  

"Didn't we just use to call moderates quislings and have them shot? Maybe I watched the wrong episode on the History Channel."

K-selection. Nothing focuses the mind quite like a life or death situation.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:23 PM  

They went to war to protect Britain so what they do is to ensure that they lose 100.000s of lives, and get assraped economically in a way that made Britain a hollow husk of it's former self. Brilliant.

There was no indication that Hitler wanted to attack Britain. There was also no indication that they could even pull it off.

You may argue that it's better to be safe than sorry, but that's the kicker: starting a war doesn't make you more safe it makes you less safe.

WE NEED TO DECLARE WAR ON GERMANY OR THEY WILL KILL LOTS OF BRITS AND BRING RUIN OF HOUR COUNTRY.

TOP KEK

Anonymous NorthernHamlet September 06, 2015 8:23 PM  

VD

for reasons unbeknownst to me

Both sides cry so often about every perceived slight, it's hard to take any of it seriously.

There's also this reason: I find among liberal friends it's difficult for them to paint me as nutty, since I'm always the moderate, like they can more right-leaning folks. No one would believe them. At the same time, and I've literally said this during discussions with them... that when they say they want even tighter restrictions and why can't I compromise more? I explain that I am the compromise. I explain that my friends on the right would have tanks and who knows what else if the liberal doesn't accept what I'm saying. They always fold and never bring it back up, no matter the issue.

And frankly, I usually just want them to shut up.


Anonymous Achilles September 06, 2015 8:23 PM  

Is the problem really moderates in this case?. I think it is the anti-authoritarian leftists we ally with. I get "the enemy of my enemy", but many of the people in gamergate seem to be marxists who just don't like being on the receiving end of SJW fire. They'd be fine with a huge, intrusive totalitarian government as long as they got to play their video games. In my opinion, they will ultimately betray us and the liberal impulse they currently defend. Their ideology demands it. Some decided it was time to push out the right-wing elements of gamergate. Hence the attacks on Breitbart. How are they any different than the SJWs who want to keep the Puppies out of the Hugo Awards? Moderates may have joined the attack based on perceived tactics but the core seems like standard SJW tactics to me. Invade, take over, and exclude. Is it unwitting moderates crating friendly fire? I could be wrong, but I see enemy action.

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral September 06, 2015 8:24 PM  

@14 Tommy Haas

What's more, Britain was never at risk from Hitler.

After Dunkirk, which German hesitancy resulted in a moral but not material victory for Britain, Britain's only defense was the RAF. Germany knew this, which is why they conducted the Blitz. If Germany had been a little more competent, they would have won that war and easily invaded Britain.

Your ahistorical musings, while colourful, are unsupported by the facts.

Anonymous Mike M. September 06, 2015 8:24 PM  

"Accepting surrender is the true and proper role of the moderate. Policing those engaged in positive action is not."

Truer words were never spoken.

@14 Tommy Haas. Unfortunately, Hitler DID intend to attack the Western powers. I would up doing a paper on the subject for Naval War College courses. His intent was to fight a short war in the East to get resources, fight a war in the West to get the British and French off his back, crush the Soviets to get more resources, then defeat the UK and USA (possibly through negoiation) in a fight for supremacy.

Fortunately, the US and UK saw through this and stop-punched the scheme.

Blogger ray September 06, 2015 8:24 PM  

"The only way to stop such people from targeting non-combatants is to make them afraid to do so"


Like the Boomers and their self-serving, impossibly naive 'All we are saying is give peace a chance', fronting for Peace bestows ongoing moral and ethical cover.

The reason the fems and marxists and allied thugs have conquered America and the West is precisely because they are not afraid. Most are spoiled-brats who never had to grow up, or grow at all. Like Obammy. Indeed, they are secure physically and financially, in Full Gloat Mode, as the SF Convention illustrated. Two terms of their feminist/commie 'president' and his Politics of Resentment and Lies. Control of government, family, academia, law and the courts, corporations, churches . . . all accomplished either by force or via carpet-bomb propaganda, which is just soft coercion for the fat masses.

They all will chirp happily about bathing in male tears, and they all will continue torturing babies in the womb (because A Woman's Choice is America's real god) until the power to do so is taken away from them, and they are too terrified to pull this bullshit any more. Much less profit off it, and live secure, comfortable, empowered lives.

As Scripture attests, even when the Lord himself tosses them into abject terror, rubbing their faces in His power, many will continue to rebel against Him, and against everything that is good. Fake 'conservatives' pretending these people can be reasoned-with or mitigated politically are cowards and liars. Collusion with evil earns you an eternity with them, not with the Lord.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:26 PM  

Seriously, what wrong with me? I meant to write BRING RUIN TO OUR COUNTRY

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 8:27 PM  

What the fuck is Tommy rabbiting on about tonight?

Blogger Thucydides September 06, 2015 8:28 PM  

Consider the rather bizarre arrangements on the Progressive side; they whinge on about woman/gay/oppressed/whatever "rights" and how only they are standing up for the victims, yet you never hear a single word from them when women are killed by domestic violence in so called Honour Killings (especially even here in Canada), nor is there any break in the silence when gay men are hanged or thrown off tall buildings in Iran, or any protest lodged on the innumerable violations of women in the Islamic world.

Churchill may have claimed to make "favourable mention" of the Devil should Hilter invade Hell, but the Progressive/SJW side is openly allied with the Devil, and probably believe they will be able to control him when their project reaches fruition.

If I'm alive to see it I'll laugh like hell as the SJW's are lined up and shot, "Studies" professors ejected by force from university campuses wearing burkas and "Gay Marriages" dissolved in the bloodiest and messiest ways a depraved imagination could conceive. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind....

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:28 PM  

"After Dunkirk, which German hesitancy resulted in a moral but not material victory for Britain, Britain's only defense was the RAF. Germany knew this, which is why they conducted the Blitz. If Germany had been a little more competent, they would have won that war and easily invaded Britain.

Your ahistorical musings, while colourful, are unsupported by the facts."

What, Germany tried to invade Britain after the latter DECLARED WAR on the former? Say it ain't so!

I also doubt that a successful invasion of Britain was even remotely possible. That's the opinion that I find when looking at this topic.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:31 PM  

"What the fuck is Tommy rabbiting on about tonight?"

Oh shut the fuck up you slime. Dont get cute with me.

Look how impotently he is tying to hijack the "rabbit" epithet. xD

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral September 06, 2015 8:31 PM  

@23 Achilles

Is the problem really moderates in this case?. I think it is the anti-authoritarian leftists we ally with. I get "the enemy of my enemy", but many of the people in gamergate seem to be marxists who just don't like being on the receiving end of SJW fire. They'd be fine with a huge, intrusive totalitarian government as long as they got to play their video games.

This is completely irrelevant to the strategic situation. That is the point. War is not philosophy.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:33 PM  

"Fortunately, the US and UK saw through this and stop-punched the scheme."

"Fortunately" the US and the UK partook in a war, which lasted 6 years and led to 45 million dead.

It's almost like you guys consider WW2 to be the Franco Prussian war.

Can you prove these claims?

Blogger Giuseppe September 06, 2015 8:36 PM  

"Seriously, what wrong with me?"

Well, for a start you bought into the Satanic religion of a pederast.... oh you mean spelling-wise... sorry i couldn't help it.

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 8:37 PM  

Oh shut the fuck up you slime. Dont get cute with me.

I wasn't trying to get cute. I was wondering what batshit crazy nonsense you were up to, Tommy. You're a fucking moron and I thought you knew that's what we think of you.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:37 PM  

You guys are a whole lot worse adjusted than you think.

Blogger VD September 06, 2015 8:40 PM  

Settle down, gentlemen. I'm sure we're all very impressed by your manly ability to make liberal use of four-letter words.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:40 PM  

"I wasn't trying to get cute. I was wondering what batshit crazy nonsense you were up to, Tommy. You're a fucking moron and I thought you knew that's what we think of you."

Except that's not what "rabbit" means. It's something of a mix between "coward" and "shitlib" (very sloppy, I admit)

Further, claiming that Hitler wouldn't have invaded Britain, least of all successfully, if it hadn't for Churchill's braindead, indiscriminate, Zionist warmongering, is hardly indefensible.

Anonymous Achilles September 06, 2015 8:40 PM  

@32 zen0 : I would imagine part of the strategic situation would be figuring out who is shooting you in the back.

Anonymous Culture War Draftee #151 September 06, 2015 8:41 PM  

It was Neville Chamberlain that declared war on Germany. He's not exactly recalled as a master strategist.

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 8:42 PM  

@VD

Apologies. I'll let it go.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 06, 2015 8:45 PM  

As a fer-instance: I follow a liberal #GGer on Twitter who talks a lot about wanting to get more girls into gaming and game creation. I could point out the folly of this, but I don't, because every time he brings it up, he puts the SJWs on the spot and makes them look stupid. When he offers to help girls get started in gaming, they don't know how to respond, because that's not really what they want. They don't want to play or create games; they just want to complain about being excluded and destroy an industry for it. He exposes that lie (whether he even understands it or not), so it would be foolish to get in his way.

Likewise, he doesn't take shots at right-wing #GGers or try to exclude them from the group for badthink. Everyone stays focused on the common purpose.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 06, 2015 8:45 PM  

In my experience, moderates tend to be conflict-averse people who genuinely want to be liked by other people. The conflict-averse side means that they will always try to put a lid on any disagreement that they may be around, the "want to be liked" part leads them to tend to mollify whoever is most outspokenly offended.

This leads them to appease the perpetually offended and oppose others. In the short run it buys peace. I've seen this in family settings, in offices, in classrooms and so forth.

In the longer run, moderate conflict-avoidance in combination with a desire to be liked tends to be a bully magnet. Once a moderate realizes that many people he thought were likable are actually repulsive, and also realizes that embracing conflict is often a better way to end one than to appease, he will eventually cease to be a moderate.

Anonymous Conservative would put it differently, probably defining moderates as r's who become K's under stress.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:46 PM  

"It was Neville Chamberlain that declared war on Germany. He's not exactly recalled as a master strategist."

He is considered a tool for his "appeasement" of Hitler, not for his decision to wage war.

Churchill is a guy that wanted to start WWIII after WWII just ended. (Operation Unthinkable) He also wasted a YUGE number a of ANZACs in a poorly thought out campaign in Gallipoli.

Given the fact that the war ended in disaster for Britain, despite their "victory", I think that criticism here is merited.

Sorry, I don't buy that Germany was or has ever been capable of successfully invading Britain. Pointing out that they bombed British cities after war was declared, is somewhat daft. Well of course they did.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother #225 September 06, 2015 8:46 PM  

Tommy,

Never forget that we allow you here as an enemy plaything. You ARE our enemy, our forbearance notwithstanding.

Tommy, have you ever heard of "The Battle of Britain"?

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 September 06, 2015 8:50 PM  

adjusted to holding a peace conference between sunnis shiites and sufis?
adjusted to reconciling scientism with logic?

the only universal brother hood that has existed successfully intergenerationally is "sinners saved by the grace of God" It has a two thousand year record.

It's not that Christianity is rational and imperative, It happens to be the only "rational" there is.

It's a process of elimination. Eliminate the Impossible and what is left it Truth.

ergo "Word of God, Jesus, Maker of Heavens and Earth"

Russia thus rising. It's not merely logical.

Blogger Dan in Tx September 06, 2015 8:54 PM  

Hitler actually was hoping that somehow they might align with England against the Soviets. Even after England went to war. It is why they allowed the British soldiers to escape at Dunkirk. In hind sight a strategic mistake but at the time he just couldn't believe that England and the U.S. would side with Stalin.

Anonymous Stephen J. September 06, 2015 8:54 PM  

As I have noted on several occasions, for reasons unbeknownst to me, moderates are always more focused on firing on their own side than on the enemy.

You think that because you think you are on the same side as the moderates. You're so far off in left field, you are literally on your own side. No one, but Milo, gorilla mindset guy, JCW and your followers are on your side. You're your own thing. Everyone firing at you is not on your side.

Blogger Dan in Tx September 06, 2015 8:55 PM  

..... now about that Japanese invasion of the west coast.....

*ducks*

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 8:59 PM  

"Never forget that we allow you here as an enemy plaything. You ARE our enemy, our forbearance notwithstanding."

You are a religious fundamentalist kook that ís only different from ISIS in the details. Referring to someone as an enemy because he doesn't share you religion makes you part of the same Meta-team. May you and yours suffer forever.

What about the Battle of Britain? Did I ever deny that fighting took place between these two nations? I am claiming that it was imprudent of the British government to fight this war because there is good reason to believe that Germany didn't intend to invade Britain before the declaration of war. The Battle of Britain was AFTER war was declared.

Once again: "better safe than sorry" really works only if you're actually safe. Had they been able to finish Germany off within a year, it would've been reasonable to claim this, once future shitlibs criticize the leaders for the decision.

But that's not how it turned out. The joined the war and lost their Empire and their status as a superpower. They were bleeding geysers of debt and lost huge numbers of lives. All that because refraining from war MIGHT'VE led to Germany attacking anyway. MIGHT.

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 8:59 PM  

Everyone firing at you is not on your side.

Isn't that a tautology?

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 9:01 PM  

No one, but Milo, gorilla mindset guy, JCW and your followers are on your side.

And Roosh and Sad Puppies and Larry and Brad and GamerGate...

But yeah, hardly anyone.

Blogger VD September 06, 2015 9:04 PM  

You're your own thing. Everyone firing at you is not on your side.

And yet, the minute that I so much as criticize the moderates, they immediately start crying about how they are on my side. Strange, that.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 9:06 PM  

Anyone who knows a bit of history will recognize many states that benefited from staying out of Great Wars TM. Sweden. Spain, Turkey. France in the 30 Years War (until very late)

Britain being an island and having a much better navy than Germany is a strong argument against joining wars against it.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 9:14 PM  

Of course you are the enemy, Tommy. I am genuinely surprised you haven't figured this out by now.

Blogger Jim September 06, 2015 9:15 PM  

Tommy, I believe you have zero understanding of Britain's strategic interests at the time of WWII. You are saying they should have ceded control of the continent to Germany (Britain's FP since before Napoleon was to prevent anyone from gaining full control of the continent) AND allowed Germany full control over their route to India while Germany built enough ships to challenge British naval supremacy in their own backyard. At that point, it wouldn't matter if Hitler was a nice chap and Churchill's drinking buddy. Britain would find itself entirely dependent on Germany. That is what was intolerable. Poland was both a demonstration that Hitler represented a threat to British interests and an excuse to act.

Afterwards, yeah, Britain lost its empire and became dependent on the US instead. But the collapse of the empire was inevitable after WWI when the British forgot what their interests were and dissected the Ottoman Empire. And the US was an ocean away, so it was still preferable.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 9:17 PM  

I think "plaything" is below the belt though. This is neutral ground. A tavern. Everyone who can abide by the rules is welcome, ally, neutral or enemy.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 9:17 PM  

Look, if somebody could dialectically explain to me my errors, I'd appreciate that. Most responses have been personal attacks over being a pork dodger, preposterous arguments pointing out that Germany did attempt to invade Britain after all. (PROTIP: an if a-then b proposition is 1 if a = 0)

The only good riposte was the guy claiming that there IS evidence of Hitler's plans of defeating US/UK, but it was devoid of substantiation.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 9:23 PM  

"Of course you are the enemy, Tommy. I am genuinely surprised you haven't figured this out by now."

Why, because I do not share your opinion wrt the unfathomable? How primitive!

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral September 06, 2015 9:24 PM  

@15 Guiseppe the Kurgan

I thought then, that even if in a vicious war against a ruthless enemy, if I ever came up on one of the guys on my side raping a little girl, I would put a bullet in his head myself.

And his buddy would put a bullet in yours.

I read a disturbing piece in a historical magazine about a British soldier attempting a rape of a German girl and ended up blowing her throat and part of her chest off from a situation that probably was just meant to stop her from screaming in protest.

Let us be thankful this is just a cultural war, and proceed accordingly. Hurt feelings are not life threatening injuries. Perspective is important.

Blogger James Dixon September 06, 2015 9:25 PM  

> You guys are a whole lot worse adjusted than you think.

Oh, we know exactly how "worse adjusted" we are. You would be wise to remember that the next time you think we're so weak, Tommy.

> No one, but Milo, gorilla mindset guy, JCW and your followers are on your side.

Hey, Vox, we have it on good authority that you're an isolated kook. I guess that means we're all sock puppets, right?

> Referring to someone as an enemy because he doesn't share you religion makes you part of the same Meta-team.

Tommy, your religion says it's mandatory for you to convert or kill us. And yes, that's what it says, however much you might argue otherwise. If you are a faithful Muslim, you are the enemy. Now, if you're as much as faithful Muslim as most New York City Roman Catholics are faithful Roman Catholics, then we have room to talk.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 9:28 PM  

Why, because I do not share your opinion wrt the unfathomable? How primitive!

Because I am fully persuaded that there will be a full-blown war between Christendom (or perhaps I should say West - the retarded bastard child of Christendom) and Islam. And even if you wouldn't actually behead me right now, or even consider it, you will. And it's understandable, if we consider not being a Christian understandable. If we do, then it follows logically.

But we're not there yet, so we have the luxury of having neutral ground like this.

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral September 06, 2015 9:30 PM  

@57 Tommy Haas

Look, if somebody could dialectically explain to me my errors, I'd appreciate that. Most responses have been personal attacks over being a pork dodger,

Way to go to the BS Bullpen, Tommy.
Hint: not dialectical.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 9:32 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 9:32 PM  

I thought then, that even if in a vicious war against a ruthless enemy, if I ever came up on one of the guys on my side raping a little girl, I would put a bullet in his head myself.

And his buddy would put a bullet in yours.

Should that stop you from doing the moral thing? Yeah, I know this is all abstract, internet-tough-guy talk but if we're truly committed to being moral people, do we let the threat of death keep us from doing the moral thing?

Anonymous kawaika September 06, 2015 9:32 PM  

"You are a religious fundamentalist kook that ís only different from ISIS in the details. "

And? Am I supposed to be ashamed of this?

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 9:37 PM  

"And even if you wouldn't actually behead me right now, or even consider it, you will."

Yeah sure.

If you don't tread on me, no I won't.

Blogger Jim September 06, 2015 9:37 PM  

Btw, I know a lot of serious muzzie who disagree with that claim. Guy who prays 5 times a day and so forth. According to you, he isn't faithful, because he doesn't want to kill.

There is no such thing as a faithful Muslim. Just lying cowards that are too afraid to leave, lest their most zealous co-religionists kill them for apostasy.

Blogger Lucas Temple (a.k.a. Armenia4ever) September 06, 2015 9:38 PM  

"If you want to stop people using bad tactics, the only way to do it is to make them prohibitively costly. And the only way to do that is to use the same tactics with such brutal efficiency that they cry "uncle" and agree to a ceasefire."

I've come to realize that the moral high-ground isn't just useless vs particularly active and vicious SJWs, but a dangerous handicap.

As Internet Aristocrat has said, "You can't reason with these people. They don't care. They are narcissists to the core."

Now each situation is different, but when you deal with SJWs actively trying to go after you, fighting fire with fire is an absolute necessity.

If an SJW is going to attempt to get people fired from their jobs, they should be subjected to the same treatment if not harsher to make them realize what terrible dicks they actually are.

Now "scorched earth" isn't necessary all the time when dealing with SJWs. It's the one's that pick up the rifles that need to have salvos fired in return.

If I learned anything from GamerGate, its that the same boycott tactics, public shame, and pressuring tactics SJWs employ can be utilized against them with devastating effects.

Companies and corporations still have yet to realize that disgruntled people sending emails to them usually don't represent even 5% of their customer base. Until they do, these tactics will continue to be effective and we should utilize them like our cultural enemies are.

If your enemy has a tank, you need one as well.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 9:39 PM  

"Now, if you're as much as faithful Muslim as most New York City Roman Catholics are faithful Roman Catholics, then we have room to talk."

How undignified. >:( But not only do I question your claim (it's not "convert or die" but "convert or pay the infidel tax") even if that was what was necessary, I wouldn't do it. If that means I get to burn some more, oh well...

Btw, I know a lot of serious muzzie who disagree with that claim. Guy who prays 5 times a day and so forth. According to you, he isn't faithful, because he doesn't want to kill.

Blogger James Dixon September 06, 2015 9:39 PM  

> According to you, he isn't faithful, because he doesn't want to kill.

Not according to me. According to his own holy book.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 9:42 PM  

Yeah yeah yeah....

Anonymous Wyrd September 06, 2015 9:43 PM  

Noice...

Squire leaving loverly lent tools:

stuff and things

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral September 06, 2015 9:44 PM  

@64 Harsh

I know this is all abstract, internet-tough-guy talk but if we're truly committed to being moral people, do we let the threat of death keep us from doing the moral thing?

I know the talk is abstract, but it is about a reality that is consistent in its character. Everyone thinks they will do the right thing, no matter what, until the unexpected happens.

That is why there is a test:


…33But Peter said to Him, "Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away."
34Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times."
35Peter said to Him, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You." All the disciples said the same thing too.

Blogger James Dixon September 06, 2015 9:44 PM  

> Yeah yeah yeah....

LIke I said, Tommy, however much you might argue otherwise.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 9:45 PM  

Curious: how did disecting the Ottoman Empire harm Britain EXACTLY. I should probably know this but I am not the most well read person here.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 9:48 PM  

You will consider my side to have tread on you. When that goes on for a while, and both sides hear of the other's atrocities, both sides will consider it fully justified to pre-emptively kill the other guy the moment they identify him as being on the other side. Perhaps even torture. To get some payback for those atrocities.

We had our civil war here in Finland, a few generations ago. These were all just ethnically similar Finns. Nothing different about them. Often shared the same greater family. But they burned each other alive gleefully, just because one side identified with the color red, and the other with white.

When the war was over, their children didn't actually torture each other to death, but they did stab with knives. And so did their children. When I was a kid, everybody knew that if you met some folks from the neighboring town, you had to stab them with a knife. We didn't know exactly why, we just knew that it had to be done or they'd do it to us. Only later did I understand that it was because my town was red and they were white in the civil war.

But when the different sides are also ethnically different, it will be an order of magnitude more brutal. It has been scientifically proven that you feel MUCH less empathy for seeing pain inflicted on a member of another race. When it was Finn against Finn, we had to overcome the natural empathy in order to be brutalized for the war. When it's white against middle-eastern, we're there right away, when the shooting starts.

Blogger Ragin' Dave September 06, 2015 9:48 PM  

"( But not only do I question your claim (it's not "convert or die" but "convert or pay the infidel tax")"

I pay my "infidel taxes" is copper. Wrapped around lead. Delivered at high velocity. I will never bow to a pedophile, moon-god worshipping, sodomite-approving prophet. Period.

Anonymous kfg September 06, 2015 9:49 PM  

"Taking prisoners and feeding them is a luxury."

Taking prisoners and eating them is logistics.

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 9:58 PM  

Taking prisoners and eating them is logistics.

The war cry of the Picts, I believe.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 9:59 PM  

Sometime (but definitely not in this thread) I would like to see a debate on the moon-god part of that. It's great rhetoric, I know, but it seems to me it's not quite that simple. I believe an argument could be made that it is just appropriating some imagery from the pagan past of the culture, and that Christendom has done the same.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 10:00 PM  

"Only later did I understand that it was because my town was red"

I knew there was something "off" about you.

Not every person in Finland participated in the Civil War though.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 06, 2015 10:04 PM  

Btw, the first line was a joke.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 10:05 PM  

I didn't participate in "knife tag", I was just aware of it, and occasionally heard of the post-weekend injuries.

Blogger Mindstorm September 06, 2015 10:05 PM  

Was that list British propaganda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book
What was its purpose, if I have to spell it for you?

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 10:08 PM  

But only just now, after that many generations, has it come to the point where Millennials are no longer hostile to each other for their great-grandparents' civil war affiliations. When I was a kid, the wounds were still sore.

Blogger Jim September 06, 2015 10:18 PM  

Curious: how did disecting the Ottoman Empire harm Britain EXACTLY. I should probably know this but I am not the most well read person here.

Because the Ottoman's were weak, but they occupied the primary route to Britain's holdings in the East. Before WWI, the Ottomans were vital to keeping other powers, (principally Russia) out of the region. By getting rid of it, Britain created a power vacuum that they couldn't completely fill, allowing Russia, France and Italy in, as well as creating new states. This shifted the imperial competition to the Middle East, right along Britain's colonial supply line.

It's like inviting a knife fight right besides your jugular vein.

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral September 06, 2015 10:21 PM  

Look people, it is an acceptable convention of international politics that one supports terrorists without admitting to it., but they never ultimately come out in condemnation of these troops.

Moderates attack their own side's shock troops like the political noobs that they are.

Read VD's second paragraph in the post.

To every thing turn, turn, turn,
And a time, for everything,
Under Heaven........

Anonymous Viidad September 06, 2015 10:25 PM  

@Tommy

I agree with your views on Britain. No reason for them to go after Germany either in WWI or WWII. It was hubris and they paid for it... just not as much as they should have. Damn the Limeys.

Anonymous Allahu Akbar! September 06, 2015 10:28 PM  

Muhammad loves the cock.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 10:29 PM  

Still, Hitler went down, and Stalin was weakened to a point where we managed to keep our independence. Worked out absolutely great. Everybody with imperialist plans got their butt kicked.

Thank you Hitler, thank you Stalin, thank you Churchill. You were a great bunch.

Blogger Log September 06, 2015 10:35 PM  

If you adopt your enemies' principles, then there is no principled difference between your enemies and yourself: you are what you fight; you are what you hate; you are what you condemn; you are what you do.

Blogger Desiderius September 06, 2015 10:39 PM  

"for reasons unbeknownst to me"

Oh I'll bet if you put your thinking cap on you could some up with something...

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral September 06, 2015 10:42 PM  

@87 Viidad

No reason for them to go after Germany either in WWI or WWII. It was hubris and they paid for it... just not as much as they should have. Damn the Limeys.

Both times they managed to suck in the Americans to finish the job. The Empire was fading anyway. They did manage to turn it into the Commonwealth, however.

Unfortunately, Americans rely on high sounding rhetoric, while the British prefer realpolitik.

For instance, according to what I have read, FDR thought Stalin was a essentially a democrat. Seriously.

Of course, he was on the verge of death, but is that really an excuse?

Anonymous zen0 the Ephemeral September 06, 2015 10:46 PM  

@90 Log

If you adopt your enemies' principles,....

What if you just adopt their tactics, without their principles, WHICH IS WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.

Anonymous Fp September 06, 2015 10:47 PM  

"We had our civil war here in Finland, a few generations ago. These were all just ethnically similar Finns. Nothing different about them. Often shared the same greater family. But they burned each other alive gleefully, just because one side identified with the color red, and the other with white."

Really!? You mean it was over colors like blood and crips street gangs?

Blogger Log September 06, 2015 10:52 PM  

Principles are rules of behavior.

"a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."

Blogger Michael Maier September 06, 2015 10:52 PM  

This kind of shit is why I have nothing but contempt for my bosses. They capitulate pathetically to outside forces and never stand up for their own troops. The ones doing the job and taking the fucking hill.

Loyalty counts.

Anonymous Mike M. September 06, 2015 10:52 PM  

@92 Zeno:

FDR was an idiot, as well as a borderline fascist. He was fortunate not to have lived into 1946...the Congressional investigation into the Pearl Harbor attack would have damned him for negligence.

Blogger Log September 06, 2015 10:53 PM  

And tactics are the means, or methods, you deploy to gain an objective - or, in other words, how you behave to attain your goals.

So, if you lie to beat liars, you are a lying liar who lies.

Blogger Jim September 06, 2015 10:54 PM  

Really!? You mean it was over colors like blood and crips street gangs?

They put red and white in great barrel, equal to numbers of Fins. Then they reach in, they take. Where there was one Finnish people, now there are two. The two fight, until there are one.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 10:55 PM  

Colors, or any other such symbols, of course emerge for a reason. Whites wanted to keep Finland the capitalist state it had been. Reds wanted socialism or communism, depending on how extreme they were.

But quite soon the only question was, are you red or white. And there was no neutral option in the areas where the fighting was hard. Neutrals were considered white by reds, and red by whites. So, that was the absolute worst thing to be.

If you were the opposite color, you had to pay for everything your side had done.

Anonymous 334 September 06, 2015 10:58 PM  

@98. Log

Ah, c'mon. You know it's not that simple. What are the liars lying in service OF? That's the real issue. Their lies are simply tactics. David used them when he fed the showbread to his troops.

Blogger Michael Maier September 06, 2015 10:59 PM  

Just shoot them now, please... it will save killing later:

http://www.returnofkings.com/70129/islamists-harass-swedes-in-increasingly-immigrant-filled-swedish-suburbs

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 11:00 PM  

So, if you were a neutral in a red town, you became red just to not be killed by your townsmen. White, similarly. If you actually had a strong position, you would of course escape to that territory. But if you are neutral, then why would you? You still have to pick a side, only now you don't know anybody there. So, most people choose the color according to the path of least resistance.

Anonymous Fp September 06, 2015 11:00 PM  

"Whites wanted to keep Finland the capitalist state it had been. Reds wanted socialism or communism, depending on how extreme they were."

I see, so politics and governing played a role in setting up the colors initially. Too bad you couldn't wave a green or blue color just to bring some levity to the situation. I would have chosen the white side.

Blogger Michael Maier September 06, 2015 11:02 PM  

Mike M. September 06, 2015 10:52 PM
@92 Zeno:

FDR was an idiot, as well as a borderline fascist. He was fortunate not to have lived into 1946...the Congressional investigation into the Pearl Harbor attack would have damned him for negligence.


He wasn't "negligent". He set those men at Pearl up to die. He was a Commie-leaning, murderous tyrant Gut-shooting and dying slow of sepsis would have been too good for his deservedly-polio-ridden-totaliarian-ass.

I wish I had a small-yield-nuke-RPG to obliterate Mt. Rushmore.

Blogger Michael Maier September 06, 2015 11:03 PM  

Shit... I just realized... wrong Roosevelt...

Blogger Log September 06, 2015 11:05 PM  

@101

Well, here we arrive at a fundamental problem.

Revelation 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

And, because the anticipated response is "God Forgives Me!" -

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Since all liars go to hell, without reference to what they are lying in the service of, well, it seems that the tactics, or principles, *are* the issue.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 11:09 PM  

Before you idiots get baited, _again_, you should know that Log is Mormon.

Blogger Jim September 06, 2015 11:10 PM  

Shit... I just realized... wrong Roosevelt...

Not really. As badass as Teddy was, he abandoned Self Government in favor of making government "work." He was patient zero of the Progressive virus.

Blogger Log September 06, 2015 11:13 PM  

@108

The Bible is not unique to Mormonism, and Mormonism isn't relevant to any aspect of anything I have said here.

Anonymous 334 September 06, 2015 11:14 PM  

@107. Log

Ah,but are all people who lie once or twice "liars"? I suspect the term refers to those for whom lying is characteristic, not those who employ the device on occasion because the options available to them are limited by circumstances.

When Jesus talks about "liars" (John 8:42-47) he is talking not just about people who have lied once or twice (which would be everyone, including this entire discussion) he is talking about those who "cannot bear to hear" his word. Yeah, they are of their father the devil, and they lie, but the tactic is only part of the problem. They are totally sold out to the greater lie and thus cannot endure hearing it contradicted.

I'm sure you don't want to take a legalistic view of "all liars" in Revelation, Log, unless you're just trollling. You've lied. I've lied. If "all liars" are toast, let's give up now. We're headed for the Ninth Circle, every one of us.

I think it means something more than the most simplistic, literal reading.

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 11:16 PM  

And tactics are the means, or methods, you deploy to gain an objective - or, in other words, how you behave to attain your goals.

So, if you lie to beat liars, you are a lying liar who lies.


Idiotic sophistry. You play the game to win. If you're going to concern troll here, I'll say to you what I've said to others, get out of our way or get stomped.

Anonymous 334 September 06, 2015 11:22 PM  

@112.

Ah Harsh, you are delightfully ... er ... Harsh.

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 11:24 PM  

The Bible is not unique to Mormonism, and Mormonism isn't relevant to any aspect of anything I have said here.

I'm just happy to put a little sand on your path. Because I have a long memory.

Now I just want to see if these jackasses let themselves be baited, despite that.

Blogger Log September 06, 2015 11:25 PM  

@111

The scriptures say what they say at face value. Granted, you may add to or subtract from them at will to attain to the desired interpretation. It is a time-honored tradition.

But is "SJWs always lie," true, or is it false?

If it is false, would the continual repetition of this falsehood mark one for whom lying is characteristic?

Anonymous 334 September 06, 2015 11:26 PM  

@114.

Thanks, Markku. Did not know that. Over and out.

Anonymous 334 September 06, 2015 11:28 PM  

@114. Markku

The "at face value" is tough bait not to swallow, but I will defer to your considerable experience.

Blogger Log September 06, 2015 11:28 PM  

@114

So long as someone thinks that consistency with the scriptures is important, then they can be reached. One man's trolling is another man's truth.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother #225 September 06, 2015 11:29 PM  

It's too easy to draw Tommy out. Like taking candy from a baby.

Fundamentalist kooks are a dime a dozen in Islam, Tommy. Our crazies (If they even are ours) hold signs outside of funerals. Yours slaughter women and children, fuck their cousins, murder their own daughters and fuck goats.

You also worship a counterfeit deity. A fake ass moon god.

Blogger Log September 06, 2015 11:31 PM  

In fact, one might say "Truth is trolling among lying liars who lie."

Blogger Markku September 06, 2015 11:33 PM  

Our crazies (If they even are ours) hold signs outside of funerals. Yours slaughter women and children, fuck their cousins, murder their own daughters and fuck goats.

Best quote in all the history of ever. I'll have to put that in a file.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiot(Ret.) September 06, 2015 11:42 PM  

ISTANBUL(NOT CONSTANTINOPLE)
DannyR

Blogger Harsh September 06, 2015 11:42 PM  

Ah Harsh, you are delightfully ... er ... Harsh.

Hehheh, I do have the subtlety of a sledgehammer, I admit.

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 06, 2015 11:54 PM  

Before you idiots get baited, _again_, you should know that Log is Mormon.

Please, that has nothing to do with this. I am a mormon, and I think Log is missing the point here. Most of the LDS people I know believe in fighting fire with fire. When it comes to life and liberty, even in the cultural war realm online, that isn't even a question.

In fact, it is LDS doctrine that when faced with an enemy intent on your destruction that you are justified in resorting to actions that you normally wouldn't take. You must be judicious wherever possible and listen carefully to what God wants you to do; you shouldn't just adopt whatever depraved tactics willy-nilly. However, there is no problem whatsoever with being smarter, faster, more strategic and tactical, and more brutal than your enemy. Vox's advice to punch back twice as hard is sound advice, so long as you're not doing it for revenge, but for morally justified reasons (e.g. self defense, defense of liberty and christianity, etc).

If you've got time to think, then you have time to line up your actions with what God says is A-OK for the situation. And contrary to what many people think, decisive and overwhelming action is very often justified. When you don't have time to think and you have to act as quickly as possible, you will revert to your training and experience. There is nothing immoral with training to be brutal and lethal for defense of life and liberty.

Anonymous James Parliament September 06, 2015 11:56 PM  

Read a lot from SJW's Always Lie today, and now this post.

I'm glad Markku speaks up on this - I'm a moderate by nature, but I've been convinced (intellectually) that being a moderate NOW is a fatal flaw. I'm working against instinct here.

The primary moderate concern - which VD addressed in his book - is that one will get caught
up in a wave of overzealousness, and commit atrocities. Even if it's not quite that bad, moderates are moderates because they hate the risk of an extreme negative outcome.

When a moderate listens to the current, mainstream slop, and knows it's false, he is still concerned (or at least I am) with the souls who believe the lie. I, at least, keep on believing there's a chance to convert them.

The temptation is to shoot at the extremists because they are intellectually/psychologically scalding those souls I am trying to save - who are often, themselves, moderates for the other side. I can't simply recommend reading this blog. They are not ready for such strong drink. (Here again, I was formerly tempted to shoot at extremists, but you have convinced me that this is folly).

One of the best things you've done for me, Vox, is to promulgate 4GW. It re-framed the culture war, so that I recognize I am not accountable for your actions, but I might still benefit from your expertise. I'm part of the push, but fighting my own front. And at times, the morale boost is nothing short of incredible.

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 12:00 AM  

@124

It's not that I'm missing the point. It is that the point I am making is being missed. What most LDS believe is not the relevant question. The relevant question is "is adopting your enemies' principles/tactics consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ?"

For those who care about being consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, that question deserves consideration.

Matthew 16:26
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Or, in other words, what is a man profited if he shall win against every opponent in this world, and lose his soul in the process?

If you don't care, the discussion is a non-starter.

Blogger Markku September 07, 2015 12:01 AM  

Please, that has nothing to do with this.

It does, because years ago we used to have a problem of Mormons constantly baiting a discussion in such a way that it always turned into a discussion about Mormonism. It seemed like a deliberate missionary tactic. I absolutely hated it. Log was one of the worst offenders.

So, now I'm poisoning the well for him. How rude of me.

Anonymous kh123 September 07, 2015 12:05 AM  

"Ah, those lovable Cretans.

And those that preach circumcision should retain their penises, since their teachings deserve neutrality on our part.

Blessed are the Ephesian silversmiths, for theirs is the kingdom of mammon.

'The Last Temptation;' great movie. Excellent film.

And recall the words of Noah after partaking of the sauce: 'Double rainbow, full on'."


-Paul, in his Epistle to No One. Ever. 3:36

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 12:05 AM  

I am in the blood and fire camp. No quarter, no mercy. No moral preening about allies.

Trying to be reasonable did conservatives no good for five decades, it just earned them defeat after defeat, sell-out after sell-out. Now the movement visibly fraying - what, after all is 'cuckservative' about if not the end of patience with the moderate approach?

What have the internationalist libertarians (and that was, until the last few years, my ideological camp) accomplished at all, with all their efforts to be inoffensive? Did anything good come from their culturally-neutral policy ideas?

And in all that same time, the SJWs, starting with the post-communist leftist rebirth via the PC movement in the early 90s, have gone from strength to strength. Until... just lately, when a few crazies were actually willing to fight back.

I might disagree with Vox on any number of issues, but I post here, and I've gotten active here because he's one of the few willing to wade right into the flames with sword raised high, and I'll never turn my fire on him or anyone else fighting the SJWs.

Because, if we don't aim our fire where it belongs, those lunatic, fanatic morons will bring civilization down on everyone's heads, including their own. We can crush them now, at a relatively lower cost, or let the tragedy they are writing unfold, at a cost far larger.

Sherman's march
Carthago delenda est
The First Crusade
Wrath and destruction
Let the SJWs reap what they've sown.

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 07, 2015 12:06 AM  

@118 Log,

You need to read Vox's new book. (It's a great book!) He talks about the rhetorical statement "SJWs always lie" and how that's not a true dialectical statement, etc. It's not a lie itself because everyone with a brain knows you're talking about a pattern and not a strict logical construction. Otherwise I'd be heading towards some nasty punishment in the next life for all the sarcastic crap I say at home.

What I would say to you is you need to go study the war chapters in Alma to see what the military leaders did, including to the king-men, and how it wasn't a sin. That's fighting fire with executions, and it was completely justified. Even if you yourself would recoil at doing some of those things, they had to be done, and if they weren't the people would have been destroyed or enslaved. Think a little bit about it, and you'll see some scary parallels with what we're facing today.

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 12:09 AM  

@130

A lie does not cease to be a lie when it is called "rhetoric." A lie does not cease to be a lie just because everyone knows you're lying, and you admit you're lying.

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 07, 2015 12:10 AM  

It does, because years ago we used to have a problem of Mormons constantly baiting a discussion in such a way that it always turned into a discussion about Mormonism. It seemed like a deliberate missionary tactic. I absolutely hated it. Log was one of the worst offenders.

So, now I'm poisoning the well for him. How rude of me.


Well, now I feel a tiny bit bad for my pointing him to some LDS scripture, but I hope you'll see I'm not trying to be a missionary so much as help a fellow LDS person see the light.

That said, just keep in mind there are mormons of all stripes. Much to my chagrin in many cases. I think you've had some annoying experiences with some over-the-top ones, and I apologize for that. But try not to poison the well for the rest of us, we're swell people I promise!

Blogger IM2L844 September 07, 2015 12:12 AM  

Context and true intentions (not just stated intentions) matter, Log. This doesn't require some kind of long winded philosophical discussion dissecting Kantian ethics. SJWs demonstrably have no compunctions about lying for purely egocentric reasons. Let's not conflate apples and miniature rocket ship trophies

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 12:12 AM  

Markku,

Please provide citations where I "baited" a conversation into a discussion of Mormonism as a missionary tactic. Should be simple if I was, as you claim, "one of the worst offenders."

Per the rules of the blog, you must provide.

Blogger Markku September 07, 2015 12:14 AM  

Must I? I won't. How do you like that?

If you are unsatisfied, just tell me. I'm sure we can work out a solution for our conflict.

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 07, 2015 12:16 AM  

A lie does not cease to be a lie when it is called "rhetoric." A lie does not cease to be a lie just because everyone knows you're lying, and you admit you're lying.

Oh baloney. You just said that all sarcasm is lying with that broad brush, and that's clearly wrong. Look, let me translate it for you:

SJWs always lie = SJWs lie so often about SJ-related issues that you have to assume they are lying and look for the tells.

So if a SJW says "the sky is blue" you don't need to assert that they're lying. If an SJW says something about christianity, you're stupid to not assume they're lying or distorting. Even if it turns out they're not lying at the time, you are perfectly justified in first assuming they are.

My gosh, this isn't difficult. You don't have to be so rigid. Everyone knows that SJWs don't technically always lie, but everyone here (including me) has had so much experience seeing them lie about important things that to call them liars is completely appropriate. Don't split this hair, it's connected to a creature that bites.

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 12:17 AM  

@133 , you say "context and true intentions (not just stated intentions) matter[.]"

Not according to the cited verse from Revelations.

The issue I am treating is "is adopting your enemies' principles / tactics consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ?" In particular, does becoming thought-policing liars - err, "rhetoricians" - pass the test?

This seems to ought to matter to professing Christians who profess belief in the Bible.

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 12:19 AM  

@136

This isn't difficult.

"Act honestly before God and man. Beware of Gentile sophistry; such as bowing and scraping unto men in whom you have no confidence. Be honest, open, and frank in all your intercourse with mankind." - Joseph Smith

Doctrine and Covenants 10:25
25 Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.

What's it to be?

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 07, 2015 12:22 AM  

@137 Log

You are quoting one scripture and neglecting the entirety of the rest! Nobody said we should lie like SJWs; not Vox, not Markku, not anyone I'm aware of. SJW tactics include: out-grouping/isolating, appealing to emotion, using rhetoric instead of dielectic, etc. I'm pretty sure that using those tactics against SJWs is not in and of itself evil, so long as you use it only when necessary.

Blogger Harsh September 07, 2015 12:26 AM  

<a href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/09/embrace-your-extremists.html#comment-138</a>

You are more than welcome to take the attitude of "I will not lower myself to use my enemy's tactics" but I have no such compunctions. I will lie, cheat, and steal to defeat the SJW enemy and when it's all over I will gladly face my maker and accept His judgment. If I'm found unworthy, so be it.

My question is, what are you willing to put on the line for this war?

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 12:27 AM  

Mike,

That's a value judgement you can make for yourself. You'll notice I'm not dictating any particular conclusion. Remember, if you adopt your enemies' principles, then there is no principled difference between you and your enemies.

Since you're LDS, I can trust that you are familiar with the Book of Mormon, so I need not rehearse how the Nephites adopted the principles of the Lamanites and were made weak like unto them, and were finally destroyed because of that choice.

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 07, 2015 12:29 AM  

@138 Log

And now Marrku's going to be officially annoyed.

Once again, nobody has advocated using lies and deceit. Using emotional rhetoric, for example, does not need to include lying. It's unfortunate that you conflate these things all together, and can't seem to see past that.

A question: do you speak to your children in pure dielectic? Do you never simplify, appeal to emotion, use fear or raise your voice when they are in danger or are damaging property, and so forth? If you never do, then you're a robot. Those things are not sins in and of themselves; misapplied, yes, but by themselves, no.

That's the crux of this whole discussion. You don't BE an SJW to defeat SJWs, but you DO use the tools at your disposal to defeat the evil shmucks. A gang banger who murders someone with a gun is evil, and the gun was clearly a heinous tool to use in that instance. A father defending his family from a home invasion with a gun is righteous, and the gun is a glorious wonderful tool in that instance.

Now do you get it?

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 12:29 AM  

@140

Here is what I am willing to put on the line for the real war, not this make believe war between two social hierarchies engaged in a pissing contest for control over the hearts and minds of men by means of thought policing and lying.

38 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 07, 2015 12:31 AM  

Apologies, Markku. I've made my points, I'm bowing out.

Blogger Markku September 07, 2015 12:32 AM  

I'm just waiting to see if Log is unsatisfied, because I have a GREAT solution. Then I'm going to bed.

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 12:33 AM  

Speaking of me being in the blood and fire camp...
Amazon published THIS a lot faster than I expected.
My latest contribution to the book wars.
This one might actually get on Scalzi's ban list. Hard to say why...
A gentle reminder

Blogger Harsh September 07, 2015 12:38 AM  

Log, what the freaking hell are you talking about? That's not even an argument. You're spewing random quotes. That shit don't fly here, boy.

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 12:39 AM  

@142 - Yes, I do speak to my children in pure dialectic, and I instruct them in spotting rhetorical manipulation and deceit.

So, let me ask: do you emotionally manipulate your children or lie to them to get the outcomes you want out of them?

Do you suppose God does likewise? Are such practices consistent with the golden rule?

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 12:43 AM  

@147

The real war is to follow the teachings of Christ against the voices of all who would dissuade one from that path. If they can decoy you into fighting some other war, well, they beat you, because you joined them.

Blogger IM2L844 September 07, 2015 12:44 AM  

"Thou shalt not kill."

Are you a killer, Log?

Blogger Anthony Gillis, the Hydra-Headed Mockery September 07, 2015 12:47 AM  

@140

That is the kind of fight we're in. Honor is given to those who have it, and what honor do the SJWs have? I chose my nickname above because mockery, sarcasm, schadenfreude are weapons they love to use - are they nice, are they reasonable or in good debate form? No, but they work. Unfortunately for our little rabbit friends, they aren't the only ones who like to use them. Oh no indeed...

Blogger Harsh September 07, 2015 12:49 AM  

The real war is to follow the teachings of Christ against the voices of all who would dissuade one from that path. If they can decoy you into fighting some other war, well, they beat you, because you joined them.

Bullshit

Blogger Sjonnar September 07, 2015 12:52 AM  

"As I have noted on several occasions, for reasons unbeknownst to me, moderates are always more focused on firing on their own side than on the enemy."

As someone who used to be a moderate (and who will revert to moderate once the cultural war is over), I may be able to make that reason known.

It's fear. Fear that they will become their enemy. You can insert the hoary old Nietzsche quote about fighting monsters here, but I prefer Buckminster Fuller's "Those who play with the devil's toys will by degrees be brought to wield his sword."

They worry that those on their side who adopt the enemy's tactics will grow to enjoy those tactics and continue to use them after the fighting is done. They haven't yet realized that you have to defeat the enemy first and then you can focus on purging your own organization of those who have grown too fond of playing with the devil's toys, otherwise your enemy will simply wipe you out and there will be no one left to care.

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 07, 2015 12:56 AM  

@Log, I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. Even here you jumped to several conclusions and conflated issues such that you may think you're speaking in dialectic all the time, but it's probably just psuedo-dialectic at best.

I speak to my children straightforwardly, unless they're not getting it and it's something they need to understand ASAP. Then I switch as needed to help them understand the gravity of certain situations. E.g. a child goes running across a park strip towards a busy street. That's no time for dialectic. You physically grab the child and tell him "you almost got yourself killed!" even if a car wasn't amazingly close, because you have to get the point across and make sure it doesn't happen again. Emotionally manipulative? Perhaps, but for a righteous cause. Lying? Since you're a robot you might argue it is, but it really isn't. A sin? No, and frankly any parent who doesn't get in the kid's face and instill some clarity at that point is a bad parent.

A rhetorical statement, Prov. 13:24 "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

That ain't no dialectic.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales September 07, 2015 12:56 AM  

For the record, it's Thou Shalt Not Murder.

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 1:06 AM  

@154 - You're free to make whatever value judgements you see fit. If it passes the Golden Rule test, then you're golden. Anything short of that is, in fact, sin.

Matthew 7:12
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

1 John 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 1:14 AM  

@154, in your opinion, was Proverbs 13:24 God speaking? If it isn't, in your opinion, why did you cite it? If it is, what makes you think so?

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 1:21 AM  

Lastly, here's the point. We recognize certain tactics / principles as being abusive. Abuse means, implicitly, violating the golden rule.

You are an abuser if you abuse. That's what you are.

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

If you keep Jesus's sayings, you will not resist evil, but do good to them that hate you, and not abuse them. This means that, like Jesus himself, your enemies may indeed wipe you out.

Jesus, remember, had power to win and did not use it.

Anonymous JB September 07, 2015 1:24 AM  

I wonder if it's a viable strategy to do something similar to RP on a broader scale - reverse-entryism. That is, join SJW organizations for the purpose of subverting them. (Obviously, on the QT.)

If so, what would be the strategic/tactical approach?


Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 07, 2015 1:37 AM  

@157 And there's the "disqualify". It was subtle, but it was there.

Log, you have pretty much ignored every point I've made. I hope you open your eyes soon and see that these people here are fighting the same age-old war we've fought since the beginning. Stop sniping at your own allies. For example, I'd trust Harsh to have my back if we were in the same foxhole. You have a ways to go to earn that trust now, since you can't even see the (rhetorical) bullets flying overhead from the enemy. And make no mistake, the fight and the enemy are very real.

Good day, sir.

Blogger Groot September 07, 2015 1:37 AM  

@2. Markku:
"a reasonable fellow who follows his principles"

Their principle is a jealous principle, Thou Shalt Lie The One True Lie, the Narrative, so adhering to other principles is heresy.

@92. zen0 the Ephemeral:
"FDR thought Stalin was a essentially a democrat. Seriously."

He was right, if you capitalize "democrat."

@100. Markku:

Did they fight to the Finnish? Were they Slavs to their passions?

@119. Stg58 / Animal Mother #225:
"Our crazies (If they even are ours) hold signs outside of funerals. Yours slaughter women and children, fuck their cousins, murder their own daughters and fuck goats."

That there is some pretty good insulting. I award you the "Your father smelt of elderberries" award.

Now, I, Sir Groot of the High Heart, will White Knight the damsel in distress of the moment, Tommy Hass. He has said sensible things in the past. I can't immediately recall what or when, but my gin assures it, and I have top men -- top men! -- searching the warehouses of my memory even as we speak. Solid assurances about small government and the dangers of over-regulation. I will take on any foe.

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 1:47 AM  

@160

Being more plain, I am asking why you quoted someone other than God when I asked you directly if you suppose God emotionally manipulates, or even lies to, his children to get the results he wants.

He cannot lie, says the scripture, and manipulation seems to violate the Golden Rule. At least, I don't like being manipulated, do you?

You say I had ought to stop sniping at my allies, thus aping Vox. If liars are not allies of the truth, then these are not my allies. If thought police are not friends to freedom of speech and thought, then these are not my allies.

You do not defeat liars by becoming liars; indeed, Team Liars wins when you do that. They have co-opted you.

You do not defeat thought police by punishing badthink or badspeech. Team Though Police wins when you do that. They have coop-ted you.

The cause of truth, liberty, and love is not served by lies, punishment, and fear, excepting when people have had their fill of the latter, they might try the former. Maybe.

Anonymous JB September 07, 2015 1:58 AM  

"He cannot lie, says the scripture, and manipulation seems to violate the Golden Rule."

That doesn't make sense to me, since you and God are not equals. He knows and wants what's best for you - the same can hardly be said for any mortal, unless the highest of holy men.

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 2:06 AM  

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Seems Jesus is saying men are Gods, unless the scripture he's citing, Psalm 82, can be broken. And what is the point of Christian discipleship?

Luke 6:40
40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

Equality, and unity.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one[.]

And if God is not a liar, can he break his own law, which is the Golden Rule?

I wonder if God likes it when people attempt to manipulate him (even agreeing they cannot succeed). If not, then can he manipulate and remain consistent with his own law?

Blogger Log September 07, 2015 2:21 AM  

More directly: 1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Blogger Russell (106) September 07, 2015 2:28 AM  

Tommy and Log in the same thread?

We just need Wheeler to complete the trifecta.

Blogger IM2L844 September 07, 2015 2:30 AM  

For the record, it's Thou Shalt Not Murder.

Yes, of course is it in most translations and certainly the sentiment in all of them. That, however, further illustrates the point that biblical literalism, taken out of context, can be dangerous and stupid.

I remember something about Jesus lovingly asking the money changers if they would be so kind as to restrain themselves while in the temple. And what was going on in John 18:6. I guess it was important to tell us that they all just accidentally fell down at the same time. Yeah, that was funny...kinda like a Benny Hill sketch. Then there's that Matthew 10:34 deal. What's up with that?

Blogger ScuzzaMan September 07, 2015 2:30 AM  

There is a distinction, in the Word, between lying to kill - as the Devil did in Eden - and lying to save life, which is the highest principle. This is not an endorsement of lying as a practice, nor a blank cheque to be a liar as a matter of habit. Simply a recognition that this eorld is a messy place.

And for the purists ( yes Log, that is you ), consider that according to God the priests profaned the Sabbath evry week, for centuries, "yet without sin".

Blogger Mike Farnsworth September 07, 2015 2:35 AM  

I hereby nominate Log's mass dumping of random scripture quotes (which only tenuously have to do with the discussion) to be called: Log Vomit

Trust me Markku, he is an anomaly. He's probably one of those guys that argues endlessly in Sunday school and wrecks the lessons.

Anonymous Giuseppe The Kurgan September 07, 2015 2:52 AM  

ZenO,
No wonder you're ephemeral. With principles that run lukewarm and change with the wind....

Blogger ScuzzaMan September 07, 2015 3:01 AM  

JB,

I subscribe tk MoveOn, Common Dreams, etc, as many lefty SJW cause-mongers as I can. Every one that soams me after buying my email address from one of their fellows, is rewarded with a subscription.

Because bandwidth and server capacity cost money, but the incremental cost to me of spam-filtering every kne of them, is near zero. They have ndver received a singke cent from me, for all their portuning, and never will.

I encourage everyone to do likewise.

Anonymous Anonymous Something September 07, 2015 3:24 AM  

Holy prooftexting, Batman!

Blogger maniacprovost September 07, 2015 3:36 AM  

We cannot comprehend the mid of God, even if he were to explain his intentions to us in great detail. Any communication, act or lack thereof on his part will be imperfectly understood by us, and he must take that into account and dumb it down. Granted that he probably has information compression capabilities infinitely beyond ours, the gap between us is far greater than that between an adult and a child. We cannot understand or consent to his plans in any meaningful way, except by blind faith and obedience.

Anything God does is "manipulating" us.

Anonymous Anonymous Something September 07, 2015 3:39 AM  

I fear Vox's side. I am an Objectivist, a Moldbugger, and a Yudkowsky fan; the long-term future I want to see is Heinlein's; and I don't want to see you replace the SJW regime with Scudder's Prophets. I live in a liberal town and have many friends from the liberal college I went to, and I don't want to see them burning at the stake twenty years from now anymore than I want to see my conservative ones sent to the gulag.

I actually support many of the SJW's alleged aims--I want to see people morally judged for their voluntary actions and economically "judged" for their abilities. In a perfect world, I would happily hire a disabled black lesbian transsexual as a computer programmer if I had evidence she could code. (In this world, unfortunately, I'd only do it if she were also a gamergater.)

That said, the other side is looking more and more like the Khmer Rouge, and to avoid that, I'll happily ally with you, and hope we end up with nothing worse than Franco's Spain.

Anonymous Nxx September 07, 2015 3:54 AM  

OT: The SJW infested sportscaster ESPN is suffering viewership collapse due to SJW infestation:

"ESPN (like a few notable others such as NBC™) has seemingly transformed at near hyper-speed from sports reporting – to political sports reporting. The political edge now rampant throughout the shows, games, interviews, et al is overbearing, overburdening, and overdone."

ESPN: Cutting The Cord Or Political Turn Off?

Anonymous VD September 07, 2015 3:55 AM  

I fear Vox's side.... I actually support many of the SJW's alleged aims

These two facts are not unrelated.

That said, the other side is looking more and more like the Khmer Rouge, and to avoid that, I'll happily ally with you, and hope we end up with nothing worse than Franco's Spain.

Yep. We'll only burn the responsible parties at the stake. They'll burn everyone because they're a) evil and b) crazy.

Anonymous Wyrd September 07, 2015 3:56 AM  

...a Moldbugger...

Nate needs a trigger warning.

Anonymous Fp September 07, 2015 4:02 AM  

A different take - Father forgive them not, for they do know what they are doing.

Blogger James Jones September 07, 2015 4:10 AM  

If Hitler has consolidated his position on mainland Europe, how long before they came after Britain? Churchill was wise enough to realise that you can beat a fledgling Third Reich, but not an established Third Reich.

Blogger ScuzzaMan September 07, 2015 4:21 AM  

Yep. Thre might be sympathy for the Devil but there's no redemption.

Or if you prefer: because you say you see, your sin remains.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey September 07, 2015 5:28 AM  

There is no middle ground.

Pick a side, White man.

Anonymous Dikaios Rik September 07, 2015 5:38 AM  

Log reminds of some of the handwringers I see over at 8ch's /christian/ board. All the Scripture and criticism of supposed sin, none of the awareness of the real dangers and evils that are threatening other Christians.

Blogger James Dixon September 07, 2015 6:22 AM  

> I believe an argument could be made that it is just appropriating some imagery from the pagan past of the culture, and that Christendom has done the same.

Agreed.

> Not every person in Finland participated in the Civil War though.

Not everyone in the US participated in our Civil War either. Just enough to kill over half a million people. And, as in Markku's case, that was our own people.

> When I was a kid, the wounds were still sore.

You all give up a grudge faster than we do Markku. They're still sore here.

> Since all liars go to hell, without reference to what they are lying in the service of, well, it seems that the tactics, or principles, *are* the issue.

They do? Well then, I guess I'll be greeting St. Peter in hell then.

> Before you idiots get baited, _again_, you should know that Log is Mormon.

Yeah, I do have a faint memory of that.

> If you don't care, the discussion is a non-starter.

Oh, good. I don't have to worry about it any more then.

> Bullshit

Well, duh. We've had this discussion lots of times, many of them with people who will argue in good faith. Log isn't one of them. The best tool for him is mockery.

> Jesus, remember, had power to win and did not use it.

He didn't. Well, i guess he didn't rise from the dead and all Christians are misguided morons who have fallen for a tall tale. We should just throw away our Bibles and all convert to Judaism.

Blogger The Original Hermit September 07, 2015 6:50 AM  

I recall a post several years back entitled "Lie to your children", or something like that. Google didn't turn up anything useful. I don't believe it used the word "rhetoric" specifically, it was before Vox began talking about rhetoric vs dialectic. But the gist of the post was that using well-constructed, appropriately-timed lies were beneficial in training your children to recognize lies "in the wild", and to teach them critical thinking.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 07, 2015 7:57 AM  

Log, what the freaking hell are you talking about?

He's a troll. Good Lord, go back and read his first comment in the thread. It might as well be wearing a sign that says, "I will now (lazily) troll you." It's "Picard rules" in a Kirk fan thread. He's not trying to make an argument or convince you of anything; he's only trying to keep you chasing him down his rabbit hole.

Blogger Markku September 07, 2015 8:36 AM  

"Embrace your extremists"

I just realized what this means. Vox wants hugs. Remember that, folks, if there's another #GamerGateInParis or something.

Anonymous conservabro September 07, 2015 8:38 AM  

The twitlonger is from Mytheos Holt not from Nero.

Mytheos wrote some good stuff on GamerGate. He is one of the few conservative allies who can tolerate the constant attacks from the liberals and moderates and not just walks away.

Blogger Dad29 September 07, 2015 9:08 AM  

Certainly, taking on allies who alienate the vast majority of people you're trying to persuade is tactically stupid. But purging people when they have done nothing to damage your cause, but happen to have made you uncomfortable because of something unrelated, is simply cowardly.

I'm sure you noted the parallel with the Kathy Davis case, where Dreher (and others--like Walker, Trump, and Bush) are perfectly content to let her rot in the slammer.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop VFM #0167 September 07, 2015 9:22 AM  

@188. Markku

"Embrace your extremists"

I just realized what this means. Vox wants hugs.

It's a trap. He's used the phrase before. It only dawned on me today that he was referring to himself.

Blogger Markku September 07, 2015 9:24 AM  

I'm going to go tweet Nero, I'm sure he can arrange it.

Anonymous Rusty Fife September 07, 2015 9:26 AM  

@190 Dad29,
Kathy Davis is doing a great job of firing at the SJWs all on her own. Why should anyone try to run into her lane?

One of the elements that the GLBT (thanks BGS!) lobby had in their program was that "no Christian would go to jail for oposing it". Every day she spends in jail proves it wrong.

What additional supporting fires would you suggest for someone who is a 'prisoner of conciense'?

I suppose they could visit her in jail to demonstrate support. No one that I'm aware of has told her to stop what she is doing or said it was wrong; only that she's breaking the law.

Blogger collisioncat67 September 07, 2015 10:19 AM  

"I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot. I will spew you out of My mouth." Rev 3;16

Holy Sh!t...if truth is confined to only the literal definition of words and phrases then you had better encourage you children to sit outside under a blazing sun;...or in an oven;...or a freezer:... and then do it yourself.

Blogger collisioncat67 September 07, 2015 10:25 AM  

...and on a more serious note, the above verse is pretty clear on what God thinks of moderates.

Blogger bornagainpenguin September 07, 2015 11:15 AM  

@169 IM2L844
And what was going on in John 18:6. I guess it was important to tell us that they all just accidentally fell down at the same time. Yeah, that was funny...kinda like a Benny Hill sketch.

Do you honestly not understand what was going on in that passage or just making a "funny" comment? Because there was serious meaning in that passage and it had nothing to do with humor. Jesus at that moment was declaring his identity as God by saying I am. and they reacted just as men have always reacted to revelations of glory and fell down. An interesting word study would be to check out the instances of 'fell down as if were dead" (or some variation of that text for various versions) to see this is how people react when in the presence of the divine. Our flesh can't take it.

John is a good book to read and study but it's always important to understand the filter John is working with as that gospel was intended to refute some of the beginnings of Gnosticism that had begun to crop up. The book focuses heavily on the actual physical reality of Jesus being God in human flesh at the time he was on the Earth.

Anonymous Serephina September 07, 2015 11:22 AM  

"This is one of the reasons why moderates never accomplish anything"

Can anyone back up this claim with anything resembling evidence?

Blogger Markku September 07, 2015 11:23 AM  

John 18:6

If you need to visualize it in a crude way, imagine a Jedi mind trick, done just to show who's boss. Only, this is not a trick, this is power that Jesus has by nature.

Blogger Lovekraft September 07, 2015 11:25 AM  

A useful moderate is one who toiled for years knowing the system was rigged and corruption was spreading, in order to do his part to maintain some semblance of middle-class order.

A useless moderate was that same person WITHOUT the awareness that his comfortable lifestyle was not his to squander. This person is a complete douchetard who should be pushed to the front of the line as soon as expedient.

Blogger Markku September 07, 2015 11:25 AM  

Matthew 10:34 deal. What's up with that?

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Jesus came to set in motion a chain of events that would end in a war where the overwhelming majority of mankind die. Read Revelation.

1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts