Vox Day Thinks My Death Is Imminent

The occasionally-interesting bloggings of Vox Day attract my attention from time to time. This post caught my eye the other day and was so beyond the pale of biblical reasoning and human decency that engagement in the combox proved too attractive a proposition to resist.

Vox Day and his Alt-Right/Alt-White/Alt-Whight crowd let slip their racial superiority every so often in a clear and unambiguous way. It isn't just Black Redneck Culture they (rightly) despise. It's that they think that the white ETHNICITY is superior in ways that make segregation essential and wise and miscegenation a sin.

So... apparently a white couple rescuing brown babies from their frozen In Vitro Fertilisation incarceration or from perpetual orphanage is a good reason to mock and accuse of the made-up crime of "cuckery" anyone whose heart is moved by mercy. And my willingness to speak up in opposition to such mockery means this:

I'm thankful at least that anyone reviewing this thread will see who is full of hate and who is full of mercy. Y'all are making it easily visible.

As are you. You won't survive long once the killing season begins. There will be no mercy for your kind.

I paste here my response in particular, but the conversation throughout the combox was interesting and enlightening enough that it may indeed merit review.

1) You don't even know "my kind". All you know is that I take seriously the many biblical commands to love neighbor and to rescue the fatherless from death because we live in a culture of death.
While we're on the subject, though, you Alt-Whight folks keep focusing on one symptom of the problem (with dubious substantiation) rather than taking an axe to the root, which is our society's wholesale denial of Jesus' kingship. You're like "hey we don't want OUR (white) PEOPLE to die" and yet white people are doing a way better job at killing themselves off through child sacrifice than any Muslim invasion ever could.

2) I am well aware that followers of Jesus are promised that death is a very realistic consequence of their allegiance.
And while I'm on THAT topic, y'all are not followers of Jesus. You can mock "(((Judeo-Christ)))" all you want; you'd be smeared in a debate on the topic. It would be zero contest. But OTOH it would be fun and educational. Fun for me, destroying you on the topic of "Alt-Whight is essentially biblical", and educational for errbody else, to see a white-skinned, red-bearded, happily married (to a white woman, since y'all care so much about that) (LOL), monogamous, anti-big government, street preaching Christian abolitionist reconstructionist wipe the rhetorical floor with a proponent of the Alt-Whight position. Educational, because in the minds of many, we are of a kind. But we aren't. You are on the side of the Muslim invaders - you serve the Devil, and I serve the Risen Lord Jesus Christ.

3) I couldn't care less that you think I'd be among the first to be killed in some sort of societal overthrow. Maybe I would be; the Bible believer remembers that eternal treasure lasts a lot longer than the food, gold bullion, and ammo in your bunker. And my Lord and Savior is a lot closer a friend than your militia.

God have mercy on all of you. Do not mock God.

Such a debate would indeed by quite illuminating, yet for all their bravado, I don't expect any of the so-called "Dread Ilk" to show up for it. All their courage is illusory and based on imagined superiority.

This is how liberal, politically-correct hypocrisy works

A Facebook friend posted this vid on his Wall. 
I posted a comment with a link to this article from Vox Day, which I found politically and societally shrewd (though not particularly Christian).  He deleted it. 
I then sent him a brief message:  Why did you delete my comment?

Here's how it followed:

HIM:  Because that article is hateful and incendiary and has no place on my facebook page.|

ME: Boy, that's pretty judgmental on your part. Did you even read it? To whom is it expressing hate, and what is the quotation you think expresses that hate?

HIM:  I did read it. The entire thing is hateful toward the gay rights movement in that it doesn't understand the needs of this group.
and judgmental on my part? the article itself was judgmental to begin with!

ME:  Can you quote it?
And yes, judgmental on your part. It's strange to me that you are casting judgments...about the article's judgmentalism.
(The point being - saying "It's judgmental" or something similar is 100% self-defeating. So one should not say it.)

HIM:  I have no problem being judgmental about hate speech.

ME:  Then since you consider the article as hateful, presumably you have no problem with it. You hate haters. You're a hater yourself.
So, why did you delete the comment?

HIM: No... hate speech is hateful toward people for their differences. Hate of hate speech is hate of an action. We often say "God hates the sin not the sinner"... it's that kind of mentality.
And I deleted the comment for reasons I already stated - it's hate speech and has no place on my FB page. my FB page has no freedom of speech.

ME:  You are hateful towards Vox Day for the difference he has with you. You are judging him. And you judged me for posting his article.
Hating hate speech is an action. You yourself are committing an action of hate.
If your FB page has no freedom of speech, then why complain about being judgmental? You yourself are the Final Judge! Your hypocrisy is amazing.

HIM: You've got some bad logical falicies there. My FB page has no freedom of speech because *I* am the dictator of it. I get to decide what stays and what goes. Yes, I am the final judge, because it is *my* FB page. On your FB page, you are the final judge, and so on.
No, I am not hating Vox Day. I never wrote an article about him. I just refuse to give him a voice on my page.

ME:  And w/o a quote from Vox Day to the effect that he hates these people toward whom you claim he's expressing hatred, it is a pretty big injustice (ie, a hateful, unjustified action) toward him. You can't quote him, can you? All you can do is say "He disagrees with the gay rights agenda. Ergo, he's hateful". I was hoping to see more independent thinking from you, rather than such kind of knee-jerk politically correct talk.

It's pretty clear from your reaction to this situation that you have biased hatred toward those who do not agree with the progressive agenda. You don't allow free speech...why? Are you afraid of the marketplace of ideas?

HIM: I could quote him... I just don't feel like doing so... I don't feel like I need to argue with him, because I don't feel like giving credence to his viewpoint.

ME: You'll pardon me if I find it hard to believe that your not feeling like giving credence to his viewpoint is why you won't quote him. You won't quote him expressing hatred b/c you can't. I wish you would be honest enough to admit that, and to admit that your refusal to post my comment as a counterpoint is b/c of your prejudice.

We've seen that you judge and complain about judgment. That you hate and complain about haters. That you mock others with whom you disagree while complaining about those who disagree. It's sad to see, really.

HIM: No, I'm being honest when I say I don't feel like arguing with him. I am working on my Masters Thesis atm, which means I'm spending all day crafting an insanely large argument. To expect me to do so simply to satisfy your ego is... well... egotistical

ME:  More judgment, eh? You're the one who think yourself in the right position to suppress ideas, not I.
Nice talking to you.

HIM:  You've been judgmental from the start, but your self-righteousness blinds you from it. You can't even see your own hate, or how it conditions you to act in an un-Christian manner. I'm removing you from my FB, because I don't want to have this kind of unmitigated hateful argument again, but I will pray that some day God will soften your heart and you will return to Him.


As stated in the last comment, he removed me from his FB friends.  It's sad to see how modern liberal political correctness has wrecked this man's thinking. 

Blowing up atheism

Let me be the 17th or so to direct one and all to the new (and free of charge) ebook from the Triabloggers - The Infidel Delusion.
I expect it to be a more direct and more destructive critique of the new atheist arguments, coming against such men as Richard Carrier and Hector Avalos.  I actually personally regard some of these "lesser luminaries" of atheism like Carrier and Avalos, as well as Stephen Law and John Shook, as some of the best representatives of atheism in the world today, at least as far as I've seen.  They're not that great, don't get me wrong, but they're far better than Hitchens, Dick Dawk, or Sam Harris!  (Or John Loftus, who is also heavily represented in the book to which T.I.D. is responding, but no one ever said atheists were all that discerning.) So anyway, I expect this ebook to be quite good, and by page 8 it hasn't yet disappointed.

And if you're looking for a smackdown directed at the big-name New Atheists, don't forget to catch Steve Hays' devastating review of Dick Dawk's The God Delusion.  If you're looking for a less-than-optimal and heretical (ie, Open Theist-ic), but still quite serviceable, destruction of their position, check out Vox Day's (also free) ebook The Irrational Atheist (which I have read in its entirety).  Enjoy!

Update:  Speaking of John Loftus, he blunders his way through an initial refutation of T.I.D. here.  Notice also the dismissive comments from the (as yet unnamed) contributors to The Christian Delusion that he references.
"I have looked over their objections, and they are pretty superficial."
Really?  Questioning your basis for asserting moral value of any action whatsoever, questioning the justification for your epistemology, those are "superficial"?  Either this person invented a new meaning for the word "superficial" or they are dishonest or they didn't really look over the book (in which case...yeah, they're being dishonest).
I would imagine there'll be more coming from Loftus et al in response to T.I.D., and you have to give Loftus props for not running away like Romanists have run away from the Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith series.  Unfortunately, Loftus' objections are generally superficial and very emotionally-driven, and thus not particularly helpful for the seeker of truth.