Friday, February 5, 2016

Status update...

I'd actually completely forgotten about this.  I've been busy with making a game and this completely slipped my mind.

Haven't had the need to rant about much lately I suppose.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

"Toxic Masculinity"

A feminism favorite, Toxic Masculinity is one of those big bad evils that everyone needs to be on the lookout for.

What exactly is it?  Besides a buzzword full of noise and no content, that is.

Whenever men do evil, it is chalked up to "Toxic Masculinity".  It's not chalked up to humanity, it's linked to men, because only men fight, abuse, rape in the feminist's mind.  Women are always the victim, so thus men are always the perpetrator.

And if it's a lesbian couple?  Well, one of them was acting too much like a man then.  Easy-peasy.

Of course, you saw the shift in language that happened in that last sentence, correct?  It changed from "evil that men do, from too much machismo" to being "evil because of being like a man".  The former is what sane people think when they hear of the term Toxic Masculinity for the first time, but the latter is what it is in effect.
Machismo is, by effect, too much masculinity in the first place.  The latter effect is different in that it's not excess, but any trace of Masculinity is Toxic. 

Of course, there's the argument of "What does too much masculinity look like in effect anyway?  Just assuming it's bad and there's too much is dumb, like assuming that too much femininity is bad in the first place."  In this argument we can see the essence of Feminism distilled - pure femininity doesn't commit acts of terrible things, but pure masculinity does, thus we should do away with the masculine.  This completely misses the point of femininity being reactive, and masculine being active.  By shifting from masculine to feminine, nothing gets done, and as evidence just simply look around you at any beta schlub -- they're always waiting for something to just happen to them, whether it's the Love Of Their Life, their next promotion at work, or anything else that carries a modicum of risk.

So in the end, it's really about men supplicating themselves, as anything masculine IS toxic, and to make it more confusing, feminine traits get rebranded as masculine.  Subservience, not action in face of risk, is suddenly masculine.  Saying yes dear constantly like a whipped dog is suddenly masculine.

It's a running gag with false ideologies, the constant inversion of reality in order to preserve their core conceits.  It's perverting reality because reality is distasteful to them.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Who Is My Neighbor?

The story of the Good Samaritan is one used very often to encourage immigration, by pointing out that the outsider Samaritan was a neighbor when Jews who should have been merciful were not.

In the book co-authored by Vox Day and John Red Eagle, Cuckservative, the authors tackle this by pointing out the Samaritan did not move the man into his home, force the government into paying for everything, and allow the man to move in his entire family as well.

While an excellent point, this rebuttal misses the point of the verse which already proves the immigrationists wrong.

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Luke 10:25-37

Everyone, without fail, places themselves in the feet of the Samaritan, and so intuit that the point of the story is to be like the Samaritan and help foreigners even if they hate you.

No, Jesus was answering the question of "who is my neighbor?", so that the believers may keep the Law which says "Love your neighbor as yourself."  As Jesus was very likely addressing a crowd of Jews, they were expected to put themselves in the place of the man, not the foreigner.

Jesus is telling them, the person you must love is the one who shows mercy to you, for they are your neighbor.  The priest and the Levite did not, so they were not the man's neighbor!  It's absolutely clear the only one the expert of the law was commanded to show love to was the one who had shown mercy to him, even if it was a Samaritan.

In nowhere is it commanded to give love to those who do not show mercy.  Why then, are we giving love to those who have shown no mercy to our Christian brethren in the Middle East, burning, raping, killing them?

At the very least, the Parable of the Good Samaritan in no way endorses mass immigration from people who are not neighbors, who show no mercy.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

The Case for Syrian Refugees

There is none.


The only reason why we should do it is "feels".  Logically, there are no pros, there are only cons.

At best, the 'refugees' which are invariably a very solid majority young men are deserters, fleeing their homeland when it got tough.  With that amount of morals and convictions, would you really want them as citizens in your nation, when they'd flee again when times got hard instead of working harder to fix it?

And at worst, they're active combatants, whether it's ISIS, one of the other various Islamic terrorist cells, or just waging cultural war by making America into West Pakistan.

Monday, November 23, 2015


There's something about those people who pick out a small unimportant detail of something and obsess over it.  Colloquially they're known as spergs, or sperglords, because their obsession over trivialities completely misses basic social principles, very much like Asperger's Syndrome.

While I'm not entirely sure if those with Asperger's are naturally sperglords, it does appear to me that not all spergs have Asperger's.  Seemingly a pointless triviality, sure, but there are enough differences to make the remark worthwhile.

Practically by definition those with Asperger's (Asperger's sufferers?  Natural Spergs?) just simply do not instinctively understand social situations and social behaviors.  For them to improve in social ability they have to train themselves in the minutiae - it's not so much a simple "Oh I get it now" that normal people get when they connect the dots. 

Meanwhile, sperglords can be an otherwise adjusted person who can make friends, but there's something off or untrue in their understanding of reality.  In many ways, their amygdalae are underdeveloped (re: r/K selection theory) and they are oversensitive to things that are "suggested" if they notice it or think it's there.  If they don't notice it, it takes an extremely large amount of effort to do so.

Sperglords aren't so much completely unknowing of social situations, they're just extremely focused on things.  And in many cases those things are very unimportant, so their priorities get completely screwed up.  They keep on a topic and stay sensitive to said topic for a long time.

What's common between the two is a lot of rationalizing that happens.  Spergs aren't the hyperlogical rationale-robots they'd like you to believe, they're people who make decisions based on their emotions and rationalize it away after the fact.  Asperger Drones also completely misunderstand something, take offense, and then start rationalizing after-the-fact.

It kills me how many of them sit there thinking they're completely rational... when they aren't.  It makes conversing with them completely impossible if you attempt to do it via pure logic, which is what you'd think would be the correct method in dealing with autistics.  No, you have to hammer them with hatefacts, facts laden with triggering rhetoric so that they are persuaded even as their rationalized mind attempts to grapple with the dialectically true facts.

My current working theory is that the current bumpercrop of spergs come from having a naturally logically-bent mind built on faulty concepts of life and relationships, with the number one problem amongst spergs (universally men, sperglike women are just... women) is a faulty understanding of the masculine and the feminine.  So many lies have been spread about what women find attractive, what masculinity is, what femininity is, all because of a poisonous ideology that thinks if only we could have men and women acting like each other everything will be just grand.

Yes, I'm blaming the current surplus of spergs on feminism.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Thought Experiment: Great Literature

As I grow older, I realize that a number of the great literature really are great.  Not altogether sure if it's due to a maturing mind, or if it's simply that when I was younger I was still mired in the falsehoods being taught. 

If the latter, great literature is still useful for teenagers as long as they aren't wallowing in a false reality (re: Feminism).  If the former, then English classes would be greatly improved by not trying to trudge through dreary poetry with "important" ideas, but rather something more akin to fables - entertaining stories that still have important concepts to discuss and swallow.

Literature classes might better be mixed with philosophy classes, anyway.

What Makes an SJW?

SJWs are the current pathology du jour, and Vox Day has written an excellent book on how to fight them.

Unfortunately, it is only for how to identify and fight them, not so much as why there are SJWs.

In the early days of Gamergate, there was an interesting dig/testimonial done by someone who had hung around SomethingAwful for a really long time, and witnessed its transformation from a site and forums that poked fun at anything, to a safespace hugbox that has an essentially protected class not allowed to be made a mockery of.

The term SJWs comes more immediately from Tumblr, where they self-identified as warriors for social justice and Jim, known then as Internet Aristocrat, now as Mister Metokur, devoted a numerous amount of videos making fun of them and almost singlehandedly spread the term of SJW and associated it with mockery.  Then Gamergate happened, and the rest of the world found out about how pointless SJWs are.

Tumblr was always a stronghold for special snowflakes however, which is why it's more interesting to look at the SomethingAwful case.  In many cases, the very same people who were for mocking everything were now ardent Social Justice Warriors.  It wasn't even a clear-cut instance of entryism, but rather conversion.

To cut right to the point, I've determined that SJWs exhibit their symptoms because they are constantly denying reality.  They always lie to themselves and others because the truth completely upends their religion and worldview.  They always double down because it is their religion and worldview.  It is also the only concept with which almost all of them are familiar with: they are basted in Social Juices since preschool, taught that equality is uber alles, while constantly avoiding the critical thinking that would show that equality is impossible.  They're taught that women and men are essentially the same, just with different fiddly bits, taught that war is never ever ever ever the answer, and taught that competition is bad.  And by extension, SJWs always project because A) they very often don't know anything else (whether modes of attack, other forms of ideology, or just that other people actually ARE different), and B) are reacting emotionally because SJWism can't be maintained logically.

They're so stressed and triggered and unhappy because they're constantly fighting reality.  If something happens that contradict their view, their entire world is rocked.

Now, back to SomethingAwful... there was still a strong undercurrent of feminist modes of thinking from public school in the forums and site.  They'd "wrongly" make fun of things that were taboo, like 9/11 a couple of days after it happened, but they still had that sense that it was 'wrong' and making jokes about women being in the kitchen was 'wrong'.  It's really why they found it hilarious.

After raiding Tumblr a couple of times because they were a bunch of crybabies, said SJW concepts infested the feminist mindset that SomethingAwful had.  There was nothing incompatible with it, in fact it was an outgrowth of sorts.  Everything SJW was what feminists had taught, just taken to a slightly higher degree and being applied to everyone.  It was radicalized, and it appealed to the guilty conscious of SomethingAwful (because yeah they made fun of taboo stuff, and they knew it was wrong).  In short,

SJWism is radical feminism.