The party of SJWs gets pwnd

This is from NZ’s Hansard, and is a public document of question time yesterday. The Greens are the party of SJW in NZ, and they hate the government.

For the non locals, Russel is the co head of the Green Party, and is advocating, as he did in the election, that the Right is practising Dirty Politics. John is the Prime Minister: Mr Eade was a member of his staff Mr Hager alleges gave information to Cameron Slater (Whaleoil) for him to use in his blog.


Dr Russel Norman : When did he or his chief of staff become aware that Jason Ede, while employed on the Prime Minister’s staff, in his office, had accessed the Labour Party’s private database without permission from the Labour Party?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : My chief of staff became aware of the fact that Mr Ede had gone into the part of the Labour website that it had failed to properly secure, that its members apologised to their supporters for this, and that the database was publicly available some time after that event occurred.

Dr Russel Norman : Is the Prime Minister now saying that it is acceptable behaviour for ministerial staff to go into private databases—which they have no right to go into; they have not gained permission to go into them—take the data from those databases, and share it with attack bloggers like Slater? Is that now acceptable, ethical behaviour for ministerial staff?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : What I am saying is that that part of the website was publicly available for people to go into. What I am also saying to the House is that, no, I do not agree with Nicky Hager being part of an action to steal emails. I do not agree with people coming to the National Party cocktail party and secretly taping our people. No, I do not agree with people secretly taping other activities undertaken by us. I think the member, actually, should pick up a mirror and have a bit of a look.

Take note.

John Key proceeded to say that:

  1. The Emails that Dr Norman was using were stolen,
  2. That the left had infiltrated private meetings to secretly tape conversations (which is not legal, to my knowledge, in NZ: I do know that when one tapes any interviews you need permission to do so).
  3. That the left are using illegal means to access information: his staffer looked at an open document.

In short, he confronted Russell and told him to take the beam out of his eye. An example for us all: when confronted by the offended, who go all threatening, call their tactics, call them out, and do not step back. The hurt of the SJW is huge.

Diddums. Harden up. And clean your own act up… because the Left as as much if not more dirt than the right. Dr Michael Bassett was in the Labour Government of Helen Clarke, a current saint to the left, and he notes poltics is always in the gutter.

Reading the New Zealand Herald and watching Parliament this week, one could be forgiven for thinking that the 2014 election hadn’t yet taken place. Left-leaning editorial writers and opposition parliamentarians have been busy re-hashing stories that grabbed them during the election campaign as though the voters hadn’t yet passed judgment. It’s worth reminding these people; an election occurred on 20 September, and they lost. The people have spoken. Voters told them that they had weighed up Nicky Hager’s “Dirty Politics” amongst other things and decided his book was either irrelevant to the current state of things, or was a pile of crap. “Dirty Politics” is a corpse, and there’s little sense now trying to resurrect it.

Why would these journalists and lefties, too many of whom are one and the same, want to revive Hager? A few, I guess, want something to keep bashing National with. They are angry at the election outcome. I keep being surprised at how many people believed until the numbers went up that a left coalition was still on the cards. Others possibly believe in St Nicky, and admire his chutzpah in using stolen emails for pecuniary gain. That, they seem to think, is “investigative journalism” at its finest.

There will be others again, many of them young or naïve in the extreme, who actually believe Hager’s story. They have so little understanding of political processes in New Zealand or anywhere else that they think there was something new and especially sordid about Jason Ede acting as a conduit to bloggers, passing information, and discussing tactics designed to put National in a good light. Some won’t know about the methods used by the Labour government while Helen Clark was in office 1999-2008, when press releases and exaggerated criticism of opponents were filtered to “The Standard”, Labour’s electronic broadsheet. Nor will they know about the priming done by cabinet minister Ruth Dyson each morning of her email tree with sleaze that the government wanted to be widely disseminated. The Prime Minister knew all about it. I found out about it: some of Dyson’s stuff was inadvertently sent to me! Some journalists won’t know that throughout her career Helen Clark had a list of journalists she’d ring to exchange gossip. Sometimes she would only hint, other times she’d tell the person on the other end of the phone about what she planned to do to some on her own side who had incurred her wrath. Occasionally she’d plant an idea that the journalist would be encouraged to follow up, hopefully with devastating consequences. A few people in today’s press gallery were involved and are currently keeping their heads down. If John Key rang Cameron Slater in any capacity, what’s the difference? The Herald’s editor might like to tell us?

All of this is called politics. Politics throughout time has been conducted in this manner. The telephone rather than emails used to be the chosen conduit. Earlier still, politicians and editors dined together, or went to country house parties at places like Cliveden to exchange gossip. I used the telephone myself to get my messages out to people.

If you swim in the sewer, you get dirty. Do not go around complaining about your opposition talking to people when you are stealing their information. For the worm can turn: and in politics, inevitably, it will.

The woman and the dragon

The woman and the dragon (not the blog, the passage)

The lectionary readings take us into Revelations, which is one of those parts of the Bible I avoid. I dislike allegory, and find the prophets, with their symbolism difficult. I prefer things to be straightforward: one may not like the teaching, but one can understand it.

So why am I blogging on this? Well it goes back to a post a couple of days ago. Satan is real: there is truly evil in this world.

And fighting evil is our duty. As the nations know their time is short, and become more fixed and adamant that their errors are correct when defeat and destruction are right in front of them, so it is here. Christ rose: that is the defeat of all that is evil, and evil rages while it can.

For it is not the last enemy that will be defeated.

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”

And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.

(Revelation 12:7-17 ESV)

The last enemy to be defeated is death.

But in the meantime, note that the opposition will rage. There has been a war against those who are of faith, from the time of Enoch, before the flood, until now.

For the interpretation of this passage is fairly plain. The offspring of the woman are those who hold to the testimony of Jesus: the woman is the Church (or the Christbearer[1], either work). And the war in the heavens mean that evil is contained: but it is contained where we are.

One should therefore pray for Christ to come. But I hesitate: for in this time of evil and when we are opposed souls are being lost. Let us pray that our witness will bring people to contrition, and from contrition to salvation.

I’m speculating, but I think the reason why God delays the endgame is because he is being merciful, and does not want us to damn ourselves: the spirit of this age, however, belongs to the Dragon, to that which is evil, and damn well wants to make sure we are lost.

1. If one of the Orthodox theologians can explain how this fits with the concept of theodokos I would appreciate it. I think it is not Mary, but instead the Church. But this is revelations: one is speculating.

2. Sunshine Mary (and no, the photo did not come from there) is back reblogging other people, so she is back on the blogroll.


Against the progressive Lawyer.

This is one of those mornings that the lectionary kind of acts as its own commentary, and as one considers the text, we need to ask who has understanding? Who are the Pharisees of this age? And who are the lawyers? And a rebuke against the prosperity gospel, for many who appear rich are standing on an unsteady pile of other people’s money, or got their seed cash by nefarious means.

Be not afraid when a man becomes rich, when the glory of his house increases. For when he dies he will carry nothing away; his glory will not go down after him. For though, while he lives, he counts himself blessed —and though you get praise when you do well for yourself— his soul will go to the generation of his fathers, who will never again see light.

Man in his pomp yet without understanding is like the beasts that perish.

(Psalm 49:16-20 ESV)

True wealth is not measured in the kilograms of gold or silver you have, or the number of your cattle, or the size of your toy chest. It is not measured by the number of letters after your name. It is instead a culture of righteousness, of connections. CKG_2218_NEF_embedded

Consider that the Pharisee is akin to the Puritan or Dominican — he wants people to live rightly. There is a truth within that: Jesus himself said that the Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses. They had their theology fairly together. And the lawyers made case-law, and case-law was binding the people in precedent, while the Pharisees made regulations (for the people’s’ “own good”) that equally enslaved.

While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you.

“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it.”

One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also.” And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”

(Luke 11:37-52 ESV)

How does this now work in this time? Well, our public religion is no longer Christian: I wish that it was. Instead it is a post modern syncretic blend of atheism and paganism. The modern activists, like the lawyers,, take away the key of knowledge. They do not want us to understand. They do not want us to love, to grieve, to feel shame, to repent, to fail (again) and (again) turn for salvation. They do not want to acknowledge a law: instead they want us to keep regulation upon regulation.

We may not tithe our herbs, but we are vegan and gluten-free.

We may not give to the poor, but we boycott and protest.

We may say there is no law, but we damn those who do not fit into the neat categories of our progressive plantation. For all must obey, all must be slaves.

I am speculating now, but I wonder if the Pharisees and Lawyers of Jesus time will damn us. If the cities Jesus said were under judgment in Galilee will say that they are more justified.

For this generation takes the words of Christ, and has decided that they are not to be spoken, not to be discussed, not to be proclaimed. They have proclaimed that all must be comfortable: we cannot confront, and instead we must remain under bondage in this life, with perdition to follow.

And this is within the church. For we have stopped preaching the law, we have stopped confronting, in the false hope that if we are therapeutic and understanding this will lead to salvation. This is not the case. Firstly, within therapy one organizes people to confront their own errors of thinking. Secondly, the law is needed for salvation: we need to understand, painfully and repeatedly, that we need the Spirit of God to do good, for if we listen to our own desires we will descend into a slothful decadence.

Which is very evident in this generation. If we love God, we will obey his commands. And in this time, that will make us stand out, and standing out, we will attract hatred.

So be it. There are more important things than the approval of those who want to enslave us.

Are the SJWs the Jacobins of this time.

I agree with Lenin. I am an intellectual and a property owner, which makes me middle class, in French Bourgeois, and as such I am hated by all good revolutionaries. And I see the Jacobin terror as an example of the tyranny of the mob: of arbitrary, mass murder. Lenin did not: he saw rivers of blood as part of a revolution. To quote Pravda, from 1917: it is worthwhile noting that you see the beginning of political correctness and Social Justice Revolutionary work here: for the correct historian is the revolutionary, that proletarian who has never got grease on his hands, and only has calluses on his soul.

Bourgeois historians see Jacobinism as a fall (“to stoop”). Proletarian historians see Jacobinism as one of the highest peaks in the emancipation struggle of an oppressed class. The Jacobins gave France the best models of a democratic revolution and of resistance to a coalition of monarchs against a republic. The Jacobins were not destined to win complete victory, chiefly because eighteenth-century France was surrounded on the continent by much too backward countries, and because France herself lacked the material basis for socialism, there being no banks, no capitalist syndicates, no machine industry and no railways.

“Jacobinism” in Europe or on the boundary line between Europe and Asia in the twentieth century would be the rule of the revolutionary class, of the proletariat, which, supported by the peasant poor and taking advantage of the existing material basis for advancing to socialism, could not only provide all the great, ineradicable, unforgettable things provided by the Jacobins in the eighteenth century, but bring about a lasting world-wide victory for the working people.

It is natural for the bourgeoisie to hate Jacobinism. It is natural for the petty bourgeoisie to dread it. The class-conscious workers and working people generally put their trust in the transfer of power to the revolutionary, oppressed class for that is the essence of Jacobinism, the only way out of the present crisis, and the only remedy for economic dislocation and the war.

Yeah, and the bastards made many saints and martyrs in their bloody attempt to make revolution continue, to the point of burn-out and failure.

Now the trouble is that Leninist logic remains one of the tools of the radical: if you cannot make a person agree with you, they must be silenced: they must be disempowered, they must not have the franchise.

Instead one must continue down the same path of revolution: it may no longer come out of the barrel of a gun, but instead is embedded within the state. The sufragettes now run league tables of feminist progress.

Now the tactics of the left are the same: to obtain power and then freeze out those who are seen as enemies. This is now being seen, not with mere words or threats, but with doxxing — publicising where people live — and making false calls to emergency services, often with the hope that the police will turn up, armed, and arrest the person (or he will be killed by the cop acting, unwittingly, as an agent of class justice, starting a terror. The parallels with the Jacobins are there, but the second aim of getting the general public to mistrust the state is also thought to be useful, as it may set the grounds for further revolution.

however. the cultural Marxists forget that the state is them, and the people who are being mistrusted are them.

The other error Lenin made which the SJW continue is that lenin lied. COntinually. As a revolutionary act. He relied on the Red Army — run by Trotsky, who his acolyte Stalin killed — to enforce this truth. That may work if you control all means of public discourse, but it does not work if there is a single place where people can speak honestly.

For then people will remember, share, and get angry.

NK Jemisin told precisely the same sort of lie, although she lied about me being a “a self-described misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole” rather than being “a self admitted white supremacist”. Again, I have never described myself as any of those things. Of course, if we know one thing about the pinkshirts, it is that they have a problematic relationship with the truth.

In any event, what Sparklepunter is trying to do is to “fix-and-freeze” the opposition, in order to DISQUALIFY me, and through me, #GamerGate. But not only is his attempt to do so inept, but the very fact that he made it at all demonstrates how the gamerhating pinkshirts are overmatched. It’s an intrinsically 2GW way of thinking, to make contact, then call in for fire support. But even if he did manage to somehow completely disqualify me – a dubious proposition in light of more than 10 years of failed attempts that have only seen my site numbers grow – it wouldn’t matter any more than a USAF drone strike killing yet another “al-Qaeda Number Two”.

In this regard, #GamerGate and the response to it has been a fascinating illustration of 2GW vs 4GW. And it is an illuminating lesson concerning the truth of William S. Lind’s statement, “almost always, the state is losing.” In this case, applied 4GW marks the end of the media’s ability to control the narrative.

Lenin thought the state could define truth. He was wrong. Truth is not a dialectic. Truth is what is on the ground. And no amount of intersectionality, post modern snark, and SJW temper tantrums can change that. Far better to name the problems we have, test solutions for them, and move on together. The irony that the state is falling away from our discourse as we move from a period of mass media and from mass production to a maker and hacker culture is lost on these people, stuck in the mindset of a Victorian revolutionary. we are moving to a time where there will be a series of commonwealth type groups, shared alliances, and smaller states. The imperial model (shared by the EU, the Soviets, Chinese, Indians and in the USA) carries too big a cost.

Far better we live quietly and care for our neighbours. Let the Jacobins return to the pages of history: let us not repeat their bloody errors. For in the end, the Jacobins who survived being killed by each other were destroyed by the society they tried to expunge.

Eve’s curse and Gamers

Let us start with a thesis. Most men don’t want to be women, or be feminine. We like the feminine, appreciate it, but don’t want to join it. We appreciate the effort women take into preparing things — from clothes to food to decorations — that we really do not care that much about.

We just want to be comfortable, and get on with our fun. We like gear. We like finding things: from taking photos of the aurora to wildlife to those who prefer to interact with nature using a rod or rifle, or those who tinker with their road bike or car, men enjoy playing with things. And we prefer to be left to do it with mates: women can join but on our terms.


This was the genesis of the RSA, the brotherhoods and secret societies, the pub, the cabin, shed. It was a place to go and do things. Where one did not have to watch one’s language, and where stuff got made. But there is an imperative, from ancient days, that the woman will rule, even though it generally makes them unhappy.

Feminism at its core is envy of men and a desire to usurp their position. It would be difficult to overstate just how deep this feeling is. This isn’t just about the apex fallacy, it is about a deep desire to “be one of the guys”. Any group of men getting together to create or enjoy anything will result in women wanting in. The only question is which category the women belong to. Some will want to try to experience the manly enjoyment/pride directly, and will take real steps to be (like) one of the guys. These are the ones who tend to defend the male space. They don’t want it ruined because they want to experience it. But others (a much larger group) will realize that they can’t actually experience this, and will then set out to stamp out what they can’t have. The first category inadvertently paves the way for the second, assuming they don’t themselves shift priorities mid stream.

This is Eve’s curse played out over and over again. If you don’t get this, you can’t really get what motivates feminists, nor why they will forever be miserable.

It’s staggeringly depressing to realize that there shall never be a safe sanctuary for a male-only space. Not a place where men “meet together to plan to subjugate women” (as if they honestly want to waste what little time they have on the mortal coil worrying about a bunch of self-entitled brats), but a place where they can breathe and express their innermost thoughts in a free marketplace of ideas without immediate shutdown. What was once a vibrant, diverse community where robust ideas, thoughts, values, and paradigms could be shared and exchanged in a marketplace free from feminine bigotry has now been mutated and corrupted. I’m afraid there isn’t enough resistance against this type of hegemonic malcontent. Major game studios love to kowtow to PC agenda. Of course they don’t realize that the grand majority of the consumer base that funds their businesses is OVERWHELMINGLY male.

I’m not so despairing. Most of the big spend in computers is driven by two groups of nerds: heavy users of large data (bioinformatics and particle physics being examples, where one experiment produces a few terabytes of data) and gamers. One group uses large clusters of parallel computers, using optimized versions of linux. The other spend as much on a graphics card as most consumers spend on their entire system. And both groups are overwhelmingly male: when it gets to hard math most women don’t want to go there or cannot go there (which explains why there are introductory statistics courses in Master’s programmes, and the existence of SPSS). I see this as a function of flatter distribution (bigger standard deviation) among men: there are a lot more men who are intellectually impaired, and somewhat more men who are 3 and 4 sd above the norm, particularly when it comes to mathematics.

GamerGate is clearly winning. Advertisers correctly understand that GamerGate is a broad-spectrum movement of gamers who do not trust the games media and oppose the interference of the SJWs attempting to, in LW1’s words, “make gaming more diverse and inclusive.” Intel’s reaction is particularly important because they are much more keenly attuned to the gaming market than most big corporations, because they depend upon it more heavily than most people realize. I worked closely with them on the release of their MMX chips in 1996 and 1997 – I was one of 12 CEOs (and with Ubisoft and Epic, one of three game dev CEOs) brought in to spend a day consulting with Andy Grove concerning Intel’s marketing of the MMX prior to its release – and they will never, ever blow off gamers. And they also understand that the games media is not to be confused with the gaming community itself.

Microsoft knows this in its bones. They have worked incredibly hard to make Windows 8.1 (and 10) not be awful for gamers. They are terrified of Steam OS and its alliance with Canonical making DirectX redundant, and OpenGL the interface of choice. The gaming press and the blogosphere are ephemeral: I’d wager that most SJWs are either using an Apple product or a generic laptop — not something optimised to frag at over 60 fps, and that costs a lot more — gaming laptops are around 2K on discount in NZ, while a generic consumer laptop goes for around 500 dollars.

And this is why I think the Gamers are winning this round of the culture wars. Firstly, most gamers want to play their game and they don’t want the rules changed so they cannot have a decent kill:death ratio. So if the publishers make games that do not appeal to the nerd hindbrain, they will not buy them. Secondly, there is serious money here, and it is not with the consoles in the big box stores but in optimized rice boxes and laptops made by Alienware. And the makers of these things, knowing that there is the profit in a time when CPU cycles are commoditized, will listen to the gamers.

The SJW have come up against the cyber equivalent of gravity. Note Linus and how he deals with the SJW.

At the hard end of tech, people are not going to play by ideological rules, but by what works. When SJW try to correct the uber-nerds who are at the cutting edge, they are ignored… so by way of Background, this is Linus’ boss.

For what it is worth, Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steve Jobs (Apple) were just as impatient, and just as abrasive. SJW please note: when reality intrudes, models break.

Oh, Canada.

My Daughter is married to a member of the Canadian Defence Force. As many will know, there have been two separate attacks on Canadian Defense Forces people in Ontario and Quebec: one at parliament. She posted this today: with her husband posted away from the Priaries where they live.

Our family is safe. But our Military family grieves. I know 6 years ago we sat down and decided to join a red and white family. We knew there would be stress and hard choices. But one thing we always thought was we would be helping far away lands it would not hit close to home. Well it has and I am proud of our CF Family and the fact that we banned together because it makes us stronger then we were. LOVE IS A CORD STRONGER THEN A CHAIN OF STEEL and can not be broken.

The Psalm tor today says.

Of David.

Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious of wrongdoers! For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb.

Trust in the LORD, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness. Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.

Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him, and he will act. He will bring forth your righteousness as the light, and your justice as the noonday.

Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way, over the man who carries out evil devices! Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath! Fret not yourself; it tends only to evil. For the evildoers shall be cut off, but those who wait for the LORD shall inherit the land.

In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there. But the meek shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace.

The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming. The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose way is upright; their sword shall enter their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.

Better is the little that the righteous has than the abundance of many wicked. For the arms of the wicked shall be broken, but the LORD upholds the righteous. The LORD knows the days of the blameless, and their heritage will remain forever;

(Psalm 37:1-18 ESV)

Our thoughts are with Canada today.

Update: Added Ontario, Ottawa is on that side of the border. As Will said, both attacks were by recent converts to Islam. By your fruits you will know them: this Islamic State has stoned a woman for adultery (consult your gospels: Christ dealt with that in his time by shaming every person who was going to stone the woman into leaving).

Islam is the dark mirror of the gospel. Where we preach the law as a gateway to mercy, they proclaim mercy while insisting on a law that has… not any mercy at all.

Bullshit and Compulsory Doxxing. [On the road to perdition #2]

I have always assumed that email is akin to writing postcards. The trouble is that email is how we talk. I email by boys, my Mum, the Photog… and last week when it was tough I sent a very snarky email to the Photog, the Mum, and my friends. Who I can trust to keep things private.

But not good enough. Doxxing must happen. Shaming must be public. The latest example in the Antipodes is New Matilda — who are publishing a partial list of emails to demonstrate that a professor does not think correctly.

I call this bullshit. I do not care of Professor Burr offends the SJW. So would Beethoven. Or Ezra Pound — a fascist, but he could write.

I have brought the great ball of crystal;

Who can lift it?

Can you enter the great acorn of light?
But the beauty is not the madness
Tho’ my errors and wrecks lie about me.
And I am not a demigod,
I cannot make it cohere.

But the SJW, akin to the Maoist Red Guard, must denounce. A previous generation locked Pound up in an asylum rather than executing him (for he was a traitor) this generation merely drums one out of tenure. Particularly if you are white, and male. Which is why I am now using a notebook to define ideas, and emails to publish them. As a commentator said:

To think that this has been going on for two years
, or has been recorded via email for two years, and his friends and colleagues think it is acceptable.

My son once told his teacher, during his HSC year a few years back, that he thought the curriculum was too ‘white’ and she said to him, ‘You’re just daydreaming.’ Yesterday (he now studies at Sydney Uni, but not English – he loathed English after enduring Advanced English) he told me the following: “Now that this has been exposed, I wonder what the same high school teachers think. There I was thinking I was an idiot for thinking the course was biased toward one culture – white.”

The only positive thing to come from this horrid revelation is that the university will need to address the issues, investigate the other members of staff that engaged with Spurr and participated in this sick ‘whimsical linguistic’ game. Hopefully the curriculum will be overhauled, with new individuals appointed to oversee it and add some balance.

But Spurr is not the only pompous boor in the English department at Sydney University. There are others who are just as ridiculous.

Yeah, freaking right. Spurr used words you should not use: Darkie, Fatso…. he is a chauvinist for the Aussie. He looks back to a monoculture, and he misses it: my main critique of what he has published is that he is too sentimental. But most artists are bastards: actively unpleasant. Many are drunk — in NZ that includes McCahon and Baxter, the two best modernists we have.

Please note that we all have to be re educated into this fresh hell.

This is standard shaming tactics. The best thing Spurr could do is write some poetry. And keep on teaching. Do not fold, do not apologize. Rejoice in the scabrous underbelly of our language.

For if the SJW cannot find anything to shame us with that is public, they will demand that we reveal all: that we name ourselves, that we Doxx ourselves.

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley regarding the city of Houston’s preliminary response Friday to an ADF motion to quash the city’s request for the sermons and communications of pastors in Woodfill v. Parker:

“The city of Houston still doesn’t get it. It thinks that by changing nothing in its subpoenas other than to remove the word ‘sermons’ that it has solved the problem. That solves nothing. Even though the pastors are not parties in this lawsuit, the subpoenas still demand from them 17 different categories of information – information that encompasses speeches made by the pastors and private communications with their church members. As we have stated many times, the problem is the subpoenas themselves; they must be rescinded entirely. The city must respect the First Amendment and abandon its illegitimate mission to invade the private communications of pastors for the purpose of strong-arming them into silence in a lawsuit that concerns nothing more than the authenticity of citizen petitions.”

It is time to work and love and produce. And completely ignore the regulators. Do not ask their permission. Do not beg their forgiveness. We need to form again the invisible college, and support those who think badly, but make beauty. Be they pastors, poets, or even academics.

Notes on the perditon of this time… first in a series.

The liberals in the USA have moved beyond their colleagues in the Commonwealth. The PCANZ — Kiwi Presbyterians — has just ruled that any minister of the church cannot marry a gay couple in any capacity, as many ministers are also registered as celebrants. But this has been made illegal… In Idaho?

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”

Homosexual marriage is legal in NZ: we do have human rights rules, and this has forced the church to teach more clearly. The PCANZ allows eldership in two conditions (a) the Godly Celibate and (b) faithful and loving marriage between a man and woman. That is it: the rest of us can sit in the pews, where we belong. Not all are called to leadership: there are qualifications, and managing your wife and family well is one of the requirements if you are married.

And if we are told we must allow our buildings or ministers to marry — we will refuse: the local elders will only allow our church buildings to be used for marriage by a bona fide minister of religion, and (although some congregations are overtly disobeying the assembly on this) we have not as much interference and restriction on our freedom as occurs in the fascist anarchy that the USA seems to be descending into.

The Wintry Knight comments.

I think that the type of Christianity taught by parents and pastors is also to blame
. They keep telling us that Christianity is about God helping you to feel good, and be nice to other people, so they like you. Everything is about feeling good here and now. Feelings. Compassion. Non-judgmentalism. Irrationality. Nothing is about truth, nothing is about facts, nothing is about conflict. We have witnessed the feminization of the church, and as a result, nobody has any response to the rhetoric of the gay rights people. If Christianity is about being nice, being liked and feeling good, then we have no resistance to the gay rights movement’s rhetoric which urges us to “be nice” so we can be liked, and feel good.

Declaring that morally wrong practices are actually morally good is only a virtue to those who want to be liked above all. And that’s what the church has become. We are more concerned about appearing nice to others that we are about finding ways to make what the Bible teaches make sense to non-Christians. We want to be liked more than we want to tell the truth, and debate it.

One of those inconvenient truths is that we are not liked by this world. We will not be liked by this world. The world is opposed to us: we have the truth, and the world does not want people to hear it or see it.

We can be Godly and truthful. We can be faithful. We can not afford to be nice: Christ was not nice, and neither should we be.

Removing liberal ideas from the meme pool.

I have both active blogs open at the moment, as I am downloading photos for the other. It appears that there are now 1480 posts here and 360 posts there. Everyone is getting ready in the USA for winter and All Saint’s day (Hallow’even) but over here the spring is coming in and the wild flowers are out:
Vox is one smart man: he quotes another very smart man (Tolkien) on the nature of chivalry, and its underlying faults: since that time, when the Lady decided to step down from her throne after she had shattered religion, she was left hurt, for the knights will not worship a fellow survivor of a shipwreck.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes ‘love’ — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, ‘service’, courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned ‘his divinity’ = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God’s way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly ‘theocentric’. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man’s eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars.

Within the faith, this is not a problem. We are fallen, yes, We are imperfect, yes. And the more we know about ourselves the more aware we are of our sins, and how they move beyond the sins that are so roundly condemned within and without the kirk. For if we are looking to Christ, we can love each other truly and fully: we are not making our spouse our God. That is part of the Hindu-ization of our society, that self esteem is all; and that we worship ourselves.

For that is at best make believe and at worst a grievious error that only those made enough to have delusions will be innocent of. We are not fit for worship, and we never will be. God is: for he created us: God is, for he redeemed us at great cost to himself: God is, for he is active and intervenes. And it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Which brings us to the issue of post modernism: that of nominalism: if we define it this way, so it is. Which only makes sense if there is no science, indeed no shamanism: the shaman is in error about many things, but he knows that there are things that are real, and that he must placate them: to him it is not myth or metaphor, but reality. But we have lost that basic wisdom.

The modern crisis all goes back to nominalism. The modern muddlings of clear definitions, confusions of really and essentially different things, and denials of essences or definitions in the first place are all outworkings of the nominalist turn. Once suppose that categories are merely conventional, that universals are merely nominal, that life is never simply black or white, but rather only shades of grey, and you find yourself on a steep and slippery slope to chaos.

We see this with marriage, lately. Once you budge from the idea that marriage is the permanently binding lifelong commitment of total loyalty between a man and a woman, you open the door to all sorts of insanity. Likewise with sex: once disagree that the only properly licit sex is the sort that married people can have with each other, and the whole social order begins to deliquesce.

Likewise also with abortion. The whole idea that abortion is not murder depends on the premise that the embryo is not a person. But this notion is wrong. Nature herself distinguishes quite clearly between a woman’s own cells and those of her children. Their chemistry, their proteins, are just different, and foreign to each other. The new and foreign person begins inside the mother when the new and foreign proteins of the child appear at conception, from the new and foreign combination of parental DNA. Immunologically, there is no confusion about this distinction on the part of nature. The cells of mother and child are cells of different animals. They apprehend each other quite clearly as foreigners, invaders, and potential threats, and elaborate mechanisms must be employed to stifle the immunological war that would otherwise pit them against each other, so that the pregnancy may proceed.

Once you decide that abortion is not murder, then other forms of murder become thinkable: infanticide, euthanasia, genocide (not so much, these days, of peoples inimical to one’s own, but certainly perhaps of the sort of “low men,” knuckle-walkers, and mouth breathers who love and honor her patrimony), eugenics, and so forth. It is but a step, then, to the thought that assassination is a proper tool of politics, business, or relations among families; to feud, vendetta, rapine, kidnapping, slavery.

Discriminations and discernments, limits and ordinations, laws and rules are the foundation and infrastructure, the skeleton and immune system of society. Without them, men have no way even to talk to each other. Society per se could be characterized as a set of agreements about what is what, and what is not. Muddle or vitiate the popular recognition of the real limits between things the least little bit, and lethal trouble must then soon follow. For, the limits are simple, clear, stark, and consequential. Depart from them, and all is muddied, and confused, and weakened. Nature abhors such weakness, and deletes it as quickly as may be; for nature herself is quite clear, and unconfused. It’s definitions, or death.

A sane society allows one to argue from nature, to test a policy by the results of it. But that is unacceptable, for the progressive policies have been tried of the last fifty years… and have failed about as completely as the Stalinist experiment did fifty years previously. And, like the latter Soviets, they are retreating to theory, for real life contradicts their ideas and policies.

And this is why I don’t particularly fear for the church. I do worry about those under attack from modernists — at the moment it is the Romans — but over time the liberal led branches of Christianity have died out and one is left with only believers. Who turn to the word of God, for in that teaching is life, and truth, and health. The current forae on the family the Romans are having is the last gasp of the liberals, who are seeing their time on this earth ending, and who want to cement a liberal polity in place.

The church needs to remain close to Christ, which sustains it: that is the lesson of the vine and vineyard. If we deviate from the gospel we die, as surely as if we walked through the Sahara without water. It is an ecclesiastical version of the Darwin award, removing your error from the meme pool.

For in the end, the church is not for us: it is for Christ. To do his work in this life, and to be his bride in the next.

The Rabbit’s hatery of Matt Forney.

This is what you get for writing some good advice to men. Which is what Matt did. TL:DR version would be.
1. Piercings and Tattoos are associated with at risk behaviour and being crazy.
2. Don’t let crazy mother your children
3. If you sleep with her, you are responsible for any progenation. So do not. Step away.
So Matt has another period of hatery from the SJWs and the Rabbits. You cannot give good advice today. You cannot speak your mind. You have to let the fools ruin your life, your self respect, and let them do whatever with no consequences.
Or hatery.

For all of you complaining how repetitive these conversations on sluts are and want to claim demonizing women is vile and not what the superior man should be doing, in today’s news, the Vatican released a statement saying they will be more lax on divorce and homosexual marriage. One of the biggest world authorities on morality just okayed easing up on slut shaming and said the destruction of family might be cool. While you decide to turn away from reality, these are the results. I get you want to be kind. Kindness is best suited for the advanced man who has built several walls to ensure his safety. Men aren’t safe in America. Therefore kindness isn’t an option

No, it is not.
Trust me, I’m a solo father. And my boys read Aurini, Vox… between acing tests. They did just enough English to matriculate, and then are heading for real content. The next generation will not be aborn of the liberals. It will come from believers, who marry, take the risk that their marriage will implode if their wife becomes apostate (which is what feminist “christian” theologians are) and Eat Pray Love all over them. It will not be the liberals… they will marry late, with nasty prenups and have but one designer child.
Watch the next generation of men. They have been informed from childhood that they have no place in the Cathedral. They are a generation that will either force our society to repent, or leave and form a new one.

Do people see why I don’t hang around liberals and tend to support people like Matt? Look, I think fornication is a sin, but if I say that to Matt he will take it like a man. He will disagree, and probably give me some respect for having the guts to say it to him. He may be snarky about my faith, but I’m a big boy, I can take it. But this rabbiting, these insults are simply incoherent.

Insults are not an argument
Your feelings are not an argument.
Most of life consists of doing things you do not like to do, or want to do.
Besides, dear rabbits, most of the right is simply amused.

Yep. By their actions you can judge them.