Archive for January, 2015

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Victor Davis Hanson praises Sci Phi Journal

Posted January 16, 2015 By John C Wright

Craig Bernthal on the Victor Davis Hansen Private Papers website reviews the stories and essays in the Sci Phi journal, and gives high praise to the editor, writers and essayists, likening them to the greats from the golden age of science fiction.

I was please to see he liked my essay:

Finally, there is John C. Wright’s essay, “Prophetic and Atropaic Science Fiction.” Wright’s main goal in this essay is to distinguish science fiction from prophecy, and he does it by using a pagan source, Oedipus, and a biblical source, Jonah. Oedipus shows that no man escapes his fate and Jonah, the opposite, that man can use his free will to amend his life. They speak from two opposite moral perspectives. Science fiction is more on Jonah’s side. It is a very American art form, optimistic about our chances of living better, decent lives if we work at it. Science fiction writers believed we would have moon bases by now (2001: A Space Odyssey) or be exploring Mars; Wright notes that we have not done these things because they were out of reach, technologically, but because social engineers decided to spend the money otherwise, and here he becomes prophetic himself:

The problem, not to put too fine a point on the question, was that we had too many social engineers, that is socialists, here on Earth, and their promotion of a vision of the unworkable worker’s paradise composed of a collective they crave was at odds with the workable but imperfect free market democracy composed of individuals.

The collective requires doubtful, fearful and effeminate men. It requires men conditioned to think that asking for permission from the state before acting is normal. It requires men who think of licking the boot of a bureaucrat as an annoying but necessary trifle; men who think nothing wrong with disarming themselves upon request; going into infinities of debt upon request; surrendering their children to be educated by incompetent ideologues upon request. . .

If we are no longer pursuing the dreams of space exploration, it is perhaps because we are also no longer the kind of people who have the dreams that powered science fiction as a literary genre. You don’t find paragraphs like these in America’s Best Fiction or America’s Best Essays. Sci Phi promises a venue for marginalized conservative voices in at least one genre.

Read the whole thing: http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=8139

6 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Crowing, Only Posting a Link

Cravenness, Idiocy, Folly, or Devilry?

Posted January 16, 2015 By John C Wright

A reader with the leonine yet nautical name of HMSLion opines:

There is a nasty part of me that thinks the fastest way to counter this would be to burn a few Leftists at the stake. Get their attention.

My shoulder devil often tells me the same thing, but I do not ascribe the motive of the Leftists to cowardice.

kronk-shoulder-devil

They are not afraid of us, they merely talk that way to justify their hatred and their aggressive stance toward us in the name of self defense.

Their motive is hatred of Christ, is pride, is selfishness, is rebellion against the rule and authority of Heaven.

Read the remainder of this entry »

37 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

A Universal Apology (Table of Contents)

Posted January 16, 2015 By John C Wright

Here I have compiled the links to all parts of my massive master essay recounting my arduous spiritual and intellectual travail through the hills and mountains of the many reasons, both personal and impersonal, both subjective and objective, for accepting the remarkable and outrageous claims of the One, True, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church and the Bride of Christ to be precisely what she says she is.

Here is the Table of Contents:

 

 

67 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Apologetics

Blue Devils Embrace Dhimmi

Posted January 15, 2015 By John C Wright

Please note the following news stories, particularly the last one. All are recent. I am curious as to what deduction you, dear reader, deems should be drawn.

Below, I will tell you my deduction, which is think is unsurprising, even obvious.

Read the remainder of this entry »

22 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link

Vox Day on Troll Hunting

Posted January 15, 2015 By John C Wright

My publisher has a clear and succinct list on how to hunt down online trolls.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-to-hunt-trolls.html

The list is organized under 17 headings of short, pithy advice:

  1. Stay calm.
  2. Be patient.
  3. Directly inform the troll that he is banned: It is vital to put him on notice.
  4. Don’t delete the troll’s comments.
  5. Don’t permit the readers to engage with the troll.
  6. Look for the troll’s other identities.
  7. Identify his literary tics.
  8. Join forces with the troll’s other targets.
  9. Research the cyberstalking laws in the Troll’s legal jurisdiction.
  10. Don’t bother with threats and warnings.
  11. Don’t pay undue attention to the troll’s assertions.
  12. Don’t bother contacting his friends, employer, and family except to gather more information.
  13. Expect the troll to try to spin the situation as you harassing him as the net tightens. This is actually a very good sign of progress.
  14. Don’t contact the police until you have prepared a succinct summary of the troll’s activity on your site.
  15. Before you call the relevant police department, check the police website and see if they have an officer or a department specializing in online crimes.
  16. Be prepared to press charges, but be open to the possibility of other desirable outcomes.
  17. Above all, don’t be afraid.
Be the first to comment
Filed in Only Posting a Link

Reviewer Praise for AWAKE IN THE NIGHT

Posted January 14, 2015 By John C Wright

Best title of a book review ever:
Book Review: Awake in the Night Land, and Why I Was Late for Work This Morning

Mr Moore over at Yard Sale of the Mind is the exactly the type of reader most authors wish in vain to please: a man who ‘gets’ what your story is about on a fundamental level. God is gracious. Mr Moore’s review is so interesting, even moving, that it makes me want to get a copy of the book myself.

Read the remainder of this entry »

14 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Crowing

Sanctuary by Bill Whittle

Posted January 13, 2015 By John C Wright

Being from a military family and raised on post, as well as being an amateur student of history, I am unfortunately subject to the blind spot of assuming my readers know those things which, at one time, were common knowledge known to any literate schoolboy in America, such as the purpose of the rules and usages of war.

I assumed that the phrase would be recognized and the things to which the phrase referred were known.

At one time, everyone, or nearly so, served in the armed forces or knew someone who did. The jokes in GOMER PYLE U.S.M.C. or SERGEANT BILKO were all in-jokes; everyone in the audience had known someone like that in their unit. Likewise, everyone, or nearly so, understood the point of the Geneva Conventions.

Alas, this is not the case any longer. Rather than explain the point myself, I would like to link to Bill Whittle’s essay, perhaps one of his most famous, explaining the point.

Unfortunately, I cannot find this essay except in a version with stray marks and spelling errors anywhere on the Internet.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000126.html

At the risk of offending Internet notions of courtesy, I here reproduce the whole thing, corrected of typographic flaws, and also to preserve this bit of conservative history. This essay is a masterpiece.

All the words below are Mr Whittle’s, not mine.

Read the remainder of this entry »

25 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link, Reasonings

More Links to Moral Retardation

Posted January 13, 2015 By John C Wright

Let us be clear: the Left are bigots as vile as any man who ever donned a KKK hood or the uniform of the SS.

A bigot is one who judges a case before any evidence is in based on the group-identity, usually the race, of any man brought before him, and whose judgment always condemns the man on the grounds of a few over-broad and stereotyped condemnations, or, rather, slanders.

A bigot is one who repeats and amplifies his slanders whenever more and ever more evidence piles up showing the judgment is not merely premature but false to facts.

In this case, as the Nazis were about the Jews or the Klan about the Blacks, so are the Left about Christendom, also called Western Civilization, and any who support or defend her. If you think they are less violent than these two groups, look up the word ‘Democide.’ They are less violent where and only where they have not the power to carry out their bloodthirsty dreams.

In this case, just as the Nazis called the Jews grasping and unpatriotic, or the Klan called the Blacks lazy, lusty and shiftless, so too does the Left call civilized men dishonest and malign oppressors, possessed of a mental disease, straining at the frying leash which, the moment the leash parts, will fall upon the poor helpless (fill-in-the-blank) identity group, and tear them to bits in a backlash.

When the blank is filled in with the word Black, the mental disease is Racism; when the blank is filled in with Homosexual, the mental disease is Homophobia; when the blank is filled in with the word Female, the mental disease is Sexism.

In no case is any opposition to any Leftist claim allowed to be an honorable or respectable claim from an honorable opponent. All opposition the Left is defined by the Left as being an insanity.

In this case, with no sense of the absurdity of the claim, the moronic Left has decided to fill in the blank with the word Muslim, and the mental disease is Islamophobia.

If any doubt me, let us look at the latest of endless examples:

Read the remainder of this entry »

12 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link

Links on Moral Retardation

Posted January 12, 2015 By John C Wright

Some links. But remember, the Leftists do not defend Islam.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2015/01/06/boston-public-school-now-forcing-non-islamic-students-learn-muslim-prayer/

In Revere, Massachusetts, students at public schools are not only being forced to learn about the principles and core tenets of the religion of Islam, but they are also being forced to learn the Islam conversion prayer.

While some parents are completely outraged, most of these liberal parents are one hundred percent okay with it and do not mind it at all. They must not realize this key component of the Islam conversion prayer. By simply reciting the prayer, this means you are officially converted to Islam.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/uk-atheists-realize-islam-is-the-only-religion-they-cant-criticize/

In the UK, Richard Dawkins learned what Bill Maher learned in the US, that liberals love it when you make jokes about Judaism and Christianity, they’ll even sit politely for some cracks about Buddhism, but if you question Islam, then you’re a bigot.

Then Stephen Fry stepped in to defend Dawkins with a since-deleted tweet which said, “Oh, have a look around the world and see them slaughtering each other, let alone others. So charming to women too …”

The outcome was predictable.

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/11/colorado-public-school-girls-must-wear-hijab-on-field-trip-to-mosque/

The Douglas County School District has sent out notice to parents of girls participating that they need to comply with strict sharia dress codes to attend the local mosque. … The school notes that the field trip is not mandatory, just the dress code if they are attending.

I remember elementary school for my daughters during the early-mid 2000s. It was my first taste of “multiculturalism,” as required by public schools. Following the “winter program” which highlighted all of the popular religions’ winter celebrations (Hanukkah, Ramadan and Kwanzaa) except Christianity, I made my complaints to the principal. She told me that Christianity had been covered when the children sang “Here Comes Santa Claus,” because the mention of a baby in a manger would be “far too offensive.” I fought this with all I could muster until finally putting my children back into Christian school and homeschooling as needed. Mind you, this occurred very briefly following the 9/11 attacks. How quickly we surrender.

22 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Other

More on Moral Retardation

Posted January 12, 2015 By John C Wright

Another evidence of Moral Retardation, aside from an utter inability to distinguish between opposites, is an utter inability to distinguish between differences of magnitude, as when, for example, the Moral Retard equates an insulting act, such as throwing a harmless metal baseball called a practice grenade into a mosque, with an act of war, such as having trained commandos attack the offices of a satirical magazine and kill the civilians in a grisly mass murder.

The favorite game of the Moral Retards is the game of ‘Moral Equivalence’ where any criticism of any of the favored allies or mascots of the Moral Retards is answered by saying the crimes of the mascots are no worse than the crimes of whatever group the critic is (or can be said to be) a member of.

In logic, this is known as the informal fallacy of Ad Hominem, or, specifically, Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. It is not only the favorite, experience shows to the be the only verbal behavior of a Leftist seeking to rebut an argument. In rhetoric, this is known as changing the subject and attacking the messenger. In psychology, this is known as having a frantic squirrel racing in circles in your otherwise empty brainpan.

However, even if it were not a logical error, it is still an example of Moral Retardation. Whenever a sane person says anything unflattering about the Jihad, the Moral Retard gives his instinctive verbal behavior of Ad Hominem. This typically takes two forms: (1) accusing the sane man of bigotry, usually by asserting that the sane man failed to genuflect to the idol of the Mythical Moderate Muslim, as when he calls the Jihadists ‘Muslims’ (which they are) but not ‘Radical Muslims’ (which they are not) and ergo he is a racist or Islamophobe; and (2) claiming the Christian terrorists are just as bad as the Islamic terrorists.

The difference between the two kinds of terrorist, from a sane perspective, can be illustrated by comparing the Wikipedia pages for Christian terrorism in the US
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Christian_extremism)
versus Islamic terrorism in the US
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamist_terrorism_in_the_United_States).

The former is six bullet points in a small section of a single page; the latter is a category comprising 6 sub-categories and 67 pages.

Read the remainder of this entry »

9 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings, Only Posting a Link

On the Moral Retardation and the Islamophobic Backlash

Posted January 10, 2015 By John C Wright

Earlier in this space we were visited by two anti-Christian anti-civilization bigots and morally retarded persons who used the opportunity of the mass murders of French satirists by Jihadists to express their delight and love for all things anti-Christian and barbaric.

I use the phrase ‘morally retarded’ extensively here, so allow me to explain what is meant. We speak of a man being ‘mentally retarded’ when he is unable to perform commonplace or elementary mental functions as heeding, comprehending, processing, deducing, judging and expressing himself on matter requiring abstract or concrete mental skills. It is different from being illiterate in that the ability is to perform the skill is missing, not just practice in the skill.

Likewise, here, MORALLY retarded is when a man is unable to perform elementary moral functions, as comprehending or processing, deducing or judging any matter requiring abstract moral judgment or concrete moral conscience. It is different from being an innocent savage because the ability to make elementary moral judgments is absent.

For example, a morally retarded person might be able to function anywhere in society, or even in academia, in terms of the ability to grasp abstract concepts and read and write and deduce a logical conclusion from a syllogism. But he is unable to make the moral distinctions and judgments of probity or relevance that even a child or a savage could make, or, indeed, not even these.

For example, a normal grammar mavin might from time to time be annoyed at seeing an ungrammatical term or expression in causal conversation, and, when it was appropriate to do so, correct another person’s grammar and generally be a jackass about it, much to the annoyance of all concerned. But the annoyance is tolerable, and the jackass is tolerated, because the matter is insignificant.

However, a morally retarded person will select a day on which innocent people have been slaughtered by blood sopped troglodytes from hell in the name of Islam, as part of a millennial-long war between Christendom and Dar-al-Islam, to make his grammar corrections, sniffing imperiously and adjusting his horned rimmed glasses to tell all and sundry that, in theory, there are somewhere moderate Muslims who do not support Jihad, so that calling the terrorists ‘Muslims’ is as technically inaccurate as calling a whale a fish. Whales are mammals.

This is not because the person is a jackass. A normal grammar mavin is a jackass. This is because the person is a moral retard. He actually cannot tell the difference between the moral gravity and significance of the mass murder of twelve innocent civilians by a sneak attack and the the moral gravity and significance of using an imprecise term in a conversation. To him, indeed, the grammar error if MORE SIGNIFICANT than the mass murder.

Now, keep in mind that moral retardation is not caused by a brain defect nor by a childhood trauma. It is something as deliberately induced and embraced and self inflicted as the blindness of Oedipus. In this case, it is not the alleged grammatical imprecision of using the word ‘Muslim’ to mean those who follow the teachings of Muslimism, including the doctrine commanding Jihad, nor the alleged grammatical imprecision of using the word ‘Mohammedan’ to refer to those who follow the heretical teachings of the heretic Mohammed which provokes the ire of the morally retarded jackass.

No, the jackass is afraid of a backlash.

He is afraid of me, an overweight, overage and undercoiffured science fiction writer.

He is afraid that if I say the magic word ‘Muslim’ to refer to those who (as all orthodox Muslims do) support the Mohammedan teaching of Jihad, that holy war against the infidel is not just allowed but mandatory, that I and the other Christian peasants, because we are a vile, stupid, violent and bigoted lot of neanderthal-jawed knuckle-dragging yokels, will form a lynch mob and immediately attack the nearest Mosque, where frail Muslim grandmothers and innocent big-eyed waifs huddle, cowering and trembling, while we Christians prance our savage war dance about the pile of burning Korans, brandishing our torches and pitchforks.

Read the remainder of this entry »

134 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery, Musings

From the Pen of Jim Butcher

Posted January 9, 2015 By John C Wright

Here are the opening paragraphs of Jim Butcher’s column called Freedom v Fear. He is the author of the finest urban fantasy series, The Dresden Files, ever written.

I don’t make statements like this a lot, and I don’t really feel like engaging in a huge debate. But there’s something I need to say regarding Charlie Hebdo.

God knows I have little in common with the folks who died. I doubt we’d have agreed on very much. Looking over some of their work, I find myself rolling my eyes a lot.

But I do agree on at least one matter with them–they should be free to speak their minds without fear.

I saw this tweet attached to one of the cartoons responding to the massacre:

“Still mortified about our fallen cartoonist colleagues, but free speech will always win.”

No.

No it won’t.

The history of the human race demonstrates /very/ convincingly that free speech is the /exception/ to the human condition, not the rule. For millennia, those who spoke out were imprisoned or killed. Hell, you could say something that wasn’t even subversive, just inept and stupid, and be destroyed for committing the crime of lese majeste.

Make no mistake. What we have today is a level of freedom and self-determination on a scale unparalleled in the history of our species. We live in what is, in many ways, a golden age. So much so that we give tremendous credit to the adage, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

But everyone always forgets the first half of that quote:

“Under the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.”

I’m not sure I know of anyplace that’s ruled by anyone “entirely great.” That adage wasn’t a statement of philosophy, as it was originally used: it was a statement of irony.

Don’t believe me? Look around. Notice that everywhere you go in the world, whoever happens to be ruling seems to have a great many swords.

Still, the idea contained within the quote is a powerful one–that intangible ideas, thoughts, and beliefs can have tremendous power. And that’s why we should be paying close attention.

After all, intangible fear can be mightier than the sword, too. Hell, it has been for quite a while now. Don’t believe me? Try getting on an airplane without taking your shoes off in the security line. While you’re doing that, try cracking a joke about having a knife.

That’s the power of fear, guys.

We. Are. In. Danger.

The threat isn’t aimed at our government or our borders or our resources. It’s targeting something far more precious–our identity. It’s changing us, who we are, how we live, and not for the better.

Read the whole thing: http://jimbutcher.livejournal.com/4837.html

23 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Only Posting a Link

Klavan: The Debate is Over

Posted January 9, 2015 By John C Wright

A reader has informed me that, since Fox News is not reliable, the ‘no-go’ zones in France simply do not exist, that is, the banlieues or suburbs where Muslim immigrants in France have menaced and deterred police and fire services to the point where the writ of the Republic no longer runs — these are all imaginary. It never happened.

For those of you who do not trust American news, there is always Hungarian: http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/03/a-war-zone-in-the-banlieues-video/

This reminds me of my favorite bit of mockery from Andrew Klavan.

11 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery, Only Posting a Link

Do Your Part for Evil

Posted January 9, 2015 By John C Wright

Michael Z. Williamson, an esteemed member of the Evil League of Evil, and hated by all the right people, has a new book to consider purchasing for your postchristmas buying spree:

wfmi

Wisdom from My Internet

You learn some amazing things on the internet. The War of 1812 was just a dispute over labor and hiring practices. Pico de Gallo was not a conquistadore. Hugo Chavez is not a line of clothing. There was no medieval siege engine called the Battering Lamb. Americans apparently like debt–they keep voting for more of it.

Join SF writer and satirist Michael Z. Williamson for a collection of snark, comments, random typings and alcohol-fueled puns that is worth at least half the cover price.

 

5 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Announcement

Islam is Theopolitical

Posted January 9, 2015 By John C Wright

A friend of mine, and several other commentators and pundits have pondered and wondered why it is that Muslims seem to have so much trouble policing their own. Why is it that this peaceful religion of peace cannot control nor restrain the radical extremists in their midst who commit acts of terror and mass murder?

This question and questions like this are based on a false assumption, nay, an illusion. The acts of bloody murder we see in the newspapers every day committed by Mohammedans are simply not the acts of radicals. By definition, a radical is one who proposes far-ranging and absolute changes to a system, changes from root to crown, radical changes, and is willing to embrace radical and unheard-of means to do so. Again, by definition, and extremist is someone far from the mainstream, an outlier, an unlikely fringe example.

What the modern Muslims are doing is using modern tactics, perfected by the Communists and the Anarchists before them, committing of terror and mass murder in front of the press, to promote their most ancient strategy, and to continue the work their prophet, Mohammed, began in his lifetime. This is a strategy to spread their heretical religion by means of sword and terror.

Islam is Shariah Law. Shariah Law is Islam.

Read the remainder of this entry »

60 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »