Domain Query: A Vile Faceless Minion's response
|There are few problems that cannot be solved through liberal application of duct tape... except liberal stupidity|
GunSmithKitten: True, at the same time, those moderate folks are not impressed by the ragings on the right either, especially when their veneer of "for freedom!" get's scraped a bit and you find an equally authoritarian bent from people like Theodore Beale...
Didact: you find an equally authoritarian bent from people like Theodore Beale...Are you being serious or just trolling for giggles?
GunSmithKitten: Not at all.
Didact: If you are being serious, then your understanding of Vox's personal views on politics are about as accurate as the notion that the Moon is made of green cheese.If not, then I can't say this was particularly amusing. At the very least, you'd need to Photoshop a picture of Vox in a Hitler Jugend uniform.
GunSmithKitten: I am. Do tell how my assessment of Vox Day is incorrect, considering I base it off of his own statements.
Didact: Evidently you need to read what the man actually writes. I'll give you three simple pieces of evidence, you can surely go find the rest.1. He not only supports #Gamergate- an avowedly anti-authoritarian, anti-fascist movement- but is one of its most important and eloquent defenders.2. He is against universal suffrage and believes that government has no right whatsoever to tell anyone who and what to marry. The first is an anti-fascist position, given traditional fascist support for giving women the right to vote; the second is in direct opposition to one of the religious right's core ideas.3. He is completely opposed to free trade, which is intellectually unsupportable and practically unworkable. This is the exact opposite of an authoritarian position; in fact, it is free-traders, who insist on ramming massive regional and global trade agreements down the throats of an unwilling people, that are the authoritarians.That should be enough to get you started. If you go and read his writing, and are then foolish enough to continue to call him an authoritarian, then there really isn't much I can do for you- you're beyond help.
GunSmithKitten: Then how do you reconcile his desire for a return of the criminalization of homosexuality and by-law segregation of the races with his supposedly anti-authoritarian stances?
Also, how is depriving people of the right to vote who otherwise did not have that right indicative of anti-facism?
- He supports the criminalisation of homosexuality;
- He supports legal re-segregation;
- He supports actively depriving those without access to the sovereign franchise of the right to vote
On Gay "Marriage" and Outlawing Homosexuality
These changes began with the 19th Amendment and women’s suffrage in the early 20th century. Now, less than 100 years later, they have reached a critical point with the transformation of marriage from a private, religious ceremony recognizing the union of a man with a woman into a licensed, government-approved relationship between two or more individuals of either sex. Neither homogamy nor polygamy have yet been fully enshrined in what presently passes for law throughout the country, but the historical trend is perfectly clear. The only serious question is whether homogamy or polygamy will be the first anti-Western form of relationship to become broadly accepted throughout American society.
Advocates of homogamy often ask how government recognition of homosexual relationships will have any impact on normal marriages. Setting aside the specific answer, which is that the recognition of homogamy has already led to the elimination of the legal terms “husband,” “wife,” “father” and “mother” in some jurisdictions, the more problematic aspect is the way a modified form of Gresham’s law can be observed to apply to modern society.Call it Dalrock’s law. When a government officially overvalues one type of relationship and undervalues another, the undervalued relationship will decline and become less societally influential, while the overvalued relationship will become more common and more influential.
What we are witnessing here in the Supreme Court's cowardly decision to permit the widespread implementation of sodogamy through inaction is precisely what Wright describes, the abandonment of law and logic. I'm not even remotely surprised by the Court's decision to punt; the reason they did so was expressly because they did NOT wish to set a precedent, any precedent, in either direction. On the one hand, they did not wish to "turn the clock back" in favor of traditional, actual marriage because they wish to curry favor with the global elite that are actively seeking to destroy marriage. On the other, they did not wish to set an actual legal precedent because there are no solid legal or logical grounds that would permit them to demolish the concept of marriage consisting of the union of one man with one woman that would be limited to only changing the "man/woman" element; every argument that can be made for sodogamy can also be made every bit as effectively for polygamy and for unions with non-human entities. Regardless of whether you are anti-sodogamy or pro-marriage equality, this abandonment of jurisprudence should not be celebrated.
The continued abandonment of law and morality is inevitable at this point, to the extent it hasn't already happened. It is part and parcel of a civilization in the latter stages of decline, and our responsibility is not to try to prevent its fall, but rather, to continue to uphold each petty traditional schwerkpunkt represented by the families and institutions that have not succumbed to the cultural rot. Human societies are cyclical entities, and one can no more fight the cycle than gravity. This is not, however, a counsel of despair, but rather, one of hope. "Progress" is neither linear nor inevitable. What we are seeing has happened before, and will happen again. Our fathers and grandfathers may have failed to sustain the civilization they inherited, but we cannot be held responsible for that. What we can, and will be responsible, is if we fail to keep the seeds of that civilization alive to pass on to future generations.
a federal ban on state laws criminalizing sodomyagainst it
On Legal Re-Segregation
|Because forced integration has worked out SO well|
Just as the depression of the 1930s set the stage for large-scale military conflict, the even larger global depression that began in 2008 is likely to build upon the dreadful foundation that was foolishly imposed upon the West by the multiculturalists. What the eventual outcome will be is uncertain. It may be the global government of progressive dreams, but based on the pendulum principle of history, it will more likely mark a return to the pre-World War I state of balanced and ethnically homogenous powers.
On Saturday, Matt Drudge reported a shooting in Seattle that was rather less covered than the Utoya one. Ten people were shot, none fatally, and no one was arrested. But the gunfire at the La Raza car show was every bit as significant as the more lethal shots fired in Norway, because it represents the other side of the coming immigration conflict. According to the statistics, more Americans will die in the next eight days at the hands of immigrants than were murdered in Oslo and Utoya.
Thus far, Americans have proven to be more tolerant of the ethnic vibrancy in their midst, despite the Sept. 11 attacks and 4,380 annual murders by immigrants. But, as the Norway attacks show, apathy and tolerance will not last forever. And when the separatist conflict comes to America, as history tends to suggests it eventually will, it should not be forgotten that primary responsibility for the bloodshed will lie with short-sighted immigration advocates such as Rep. Emanuel Cellar, Sen. Philip Hart, Sen. Edward Kennedy and former President Lyndon Johnson.
First of all, I would absolutely voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which is an egregious violation against property rights as well as the Constitutional Right of Free Association. That being said, it is remarkably stupid for any politician, of any party, to comment upon what he would or would not have done had he been voting on a bill 46 years ago.
The correct response would have been to say: "Rachel, I have no more intention of speculating about how I would have voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than I have of speculating how I would have voted on the Declaration of War against Spain of 1898 or the Proclamation of Imperial Divinity of 14 AD. I was not a Senator in either Washington DC or Rome at the time of those previous votes, and while hypothetical speculation is always interesting, it's simply not relevant to a Kentucky Senate campaign in 2010."
On Universal Suffrage and Fascism
Very well, let's list your supposedly unalienable rights. There is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are the Constitutionally enumerated Bill of Rights, including the rights to free speech, to a free press, to bear arms, to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right of trial by jury, the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the right to not have private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
How have those rights fared since women received the "right" to vote.
1. The right to life is under siege, for unborn children, disabled children and the elderly.
2. The right to liberty is all but destroyed already.
3. You still have the right to pursue happiness.
4. The right to free speech has been eliminated by sexual harassment laws, hate crime laws, the FEC and campaign reform laws.
5. The right to a free press has been limited by campaign reform laws and the establishment of the FCC.
6. The right to bear arms has been significantly reduced by gun control laws.
7. The right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects has been eliminated by the drug laws, the airport laws, the IRS, etc.
8. The right to a public and speedy trial has been eliminated by the Patriot Act. Once declared an "enemy combatant" by a government official you can be held indefinitely.
9. The right to trial by jury has been eliminated by the family "courts", the tax "courts" and the immigration "courts", none of which even belong to the judicial branch but are simply executive-branch bureaucrats dressed up as judges.
10. The right to due process of law has been eliminated. See 9.
11. The right to not have your property taken except for justly compensated public use has been eliminated under Kelo.
Straightening Out the Tangle