Next for SJW’s to ruin: “A Wrinkle in Time”

Okay, if you don’t know “A Wrinkle in Time”, it’s all white people (here is my retrospective). The main characters have the last names of “Murry” and “O’keefe”. The protagonist, Margaret “Meg” Murry, is red-haired and freckled.

Now let’s see the casting of the movie. We have:

  • Oprah Winfrey, Mindy Kaling, and Reese Witherspoon as the witches. Black, brown, and white, when the characters described are obviously white. Also, the casting is terrible. None of the three are a remotely good fit.
  • Storm Reid as Meg Murry. Black.
  • Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Meg’s mother. Black.
  • Chris Pine as Meg’s father. White. Interracial marriage for the win! You know how common those white man/black woman dual scientist marriages are, so kudos for finally portraying one on screen! At least he’s actually a pretty good fit for the role.

If there was ever a movie to boycott, that would be it.

Why is this here and not on Superversive SF? Because frankly I really am not in the mood to spend time making the case and arguing about why this is obviously SJW stunt casting in order to virtue signal. I think most of my readers here can see it pretty clearly.

Though to be fair, the leftist and feminist L’Engle probably would have wanted it this way anyway. But it’s still bullshit.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Quick thoughts on the last debate

I’m avoiding any of the actual facts and sticking to my impressions, since at this point this is really all that matters: Who APPEARED better. Not to mention that everybody is lying through their teeth anyway, though from all appearances Clinton moreso than Trump.

It was a draw, which means that Hilary just about clinched her victory. Trump had a couple of moments where he looked brilliant – his attacks on the Clinton Foundation landed VERY hard – and Clinton had her moments of brilliance. I’m thinking particularly of her response when Trump said he’d have to wait to decide if he’d accept the election results as legitimate. She pounced on him for it, and from a rhetorical standpoint, it was a hard punch. She made Trump look bad there.

Otherwise there were a few back and forth exchanges where it looked as if one candidate was about to dominate, and then the other candidate counterattacked successfully.

Trump’s “What a nasty woman” at the end was a mistake. Even I had to laugh at the absurdity of Donald Trump, of all people, making that comment.

So what do I think? The Hillslide cometh.

But then, the whole debate – the whole ELECTION – was 150% worth everything for that wonderful moment where Trump asked Clinton to give all of her money back to Saudi Arabia.


…But a draw overall. See ya soon, President Clinton.

Posted in Uncategorized | 34 Comments

A Bit on Equality

Pieced from a few comments on John C. Wright’s post. All quotes I’m responding to are John’s.

So can a man with an IQ higher than yours simply take the fruits of your labor?

But that’s the point. Switching IQ with “general intelligence” (I have never done any research into IQ at all and am perfectly willing to concede that it’s junk science), whether we like it or not more intelligent people can, in various ways.

They shouldn’t. But they could. In the realm of intelligence – which has a great many important applications to everyday life, like it or not – they are inherently superior. This will manifest itself in a number of ways, some of which are at least morally neutral but will certainly provide benefits to the more intelligent person regardless.

The Leftist attacks the idea by conflating equality (all men being equal insofar that they are the image of God)…

This is true, but not very useful in the realm of politics. We need to deal with how real people are actually acting, not their spiritual standing before God. That is the realm of the Church.

Also possibly of note:

A priest may be higher than me in the Church hierarchy, but he is not more or less a sinning son of Adam as I am.

This is true, but there is in fact a whole group of people – roughly fifty percent of the population – that can never, in any circumstance whatsoever, become a Priest – that is, go higher in the Church hierarchy, or become any sort of leader.

That would be women. Women are not able to enter into the highest leadership positions in the Church.

Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Comments

Societal Suicide

I have great respect for Tom Simon, possibly more than anybody else I read except for Dr. Feser (with apologies to all you guys). In his best moments, which he manages to hit much more often than not, he has a depth of insight equal to that of the great G.K. Chesterton, and his fiction is almost as brilliant. I don’t try to go out of my way to antagonize him; quite the contrary. I push his writing wherever I can.

With that said, I’m just not buying his stance on immigration at all. He made a case to me not long ago in my comments section that sounded fairly sensible at the time, but the more I’ve thought about it the more I realized how dangerous it really was. His quote:

[My comment] To make this clear, you would be okay if the French only allowed ethnic Frenchmen to emigrate and settle in France?

No, I would not; because the French have made it very clear in their laws and constitution that the criterion for French citizenship is not French ancestry, but the choice and capacity to fully participate in French culture. There are millions of Frenchmen whose ancestors were Irish, German, Italian, Polish, or for that matter, Algerian or sub-Saharan African; and according to the criteria they have established, they are full Frenchmen. If the French suddenly decided that only those of pure French blood should be allowed citizenship, they would have two choices:

1. Revoke the citizenship of those French citizens who are not ethnically French. This would be a grave injustice to those who lost their citizenship, for they would become men without a country.
2. Not revoke the citizenship of such citizens. This would be clear hypocrisy, for it would retain millions of persons on the roll of citizens that were not entitled to such a status. If the basic principles of French law allow Monsieur So-and-So to be a citizen on Tuesday, it is a violation of those principles to deny that citizenship to his twin brother (like him in every respect, including culturally) on Thursday.

Now think about this for a moment. Really think about it. Think through the implications. Because a group of Frenchmen decided around the time of the French Revolution or thereabouts to change the criteria for French citizenship from something else it had been for, oh, roughly the entire history of Europe, to something different, France is now required – literally required – to allow anybody in, and provide citizenship to, anyone who decides they want to participate in French culture.

Are you worried about losing the French national identity? Do you see what’s happening in France and think “Gee, maybe we should stop letting anybody who claims they want to be French, be French”? Too bad.

I’m sorry, but I’m missing the problem in saying “Hey, people here who are ALREADY citizens, you’re grandfathered in. Now we’re changing the criteria for citizenship. Where on earth is the grave injustice there?

But let’s grant the point. Seeing what we see in essentially *every country that has attempted to be a proposition nation*…maybe the whole melting pot thing actually was a pretty bad idea?

I mean, is it so wrong to consider that possibility? Maybe? Because it doesn’t seem so crazy to me.

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments

It’s still not sexual assault

I have had this blog for long enough now, and trust my readers enough, to be able to get away with saying certain things without qualification or explanation, trusting that my readers will make the required background assumptions for a lot of my posts to work. It is with trust in my readers in mind that I make this claim: Nothing – absolutely nothing, interpreted in the worst possible way – that Trump said, or that anybody in the October Surprise reports has said about Trump, implicates him for sexual assault. None of it. “Grabbing by the pussy”, even if we take it to be non-consensual, is not sexual assault. Grabbing a woman’s ass is not sexual assault. Copping a feel is not sexual assault.

Use of the phrase “Sexual assault” is feminist created scare tactic. When you see the words “Trump is accused of sexual assault”, you immediately think “Trump is accused of rape”. This is because, like any normal human being, you see “assault” and think “oh, an attack”. You see “sexual” and think “Oh, a sexual attack”. And what is the only definition of “sexual attack” that really makes any sense? Rape. The phrase “sexual assault” understood outside of the various baggage associated with it by modern society (I know this is actually impossible, but humor me here) is basically just a synonym for rape.

This is what makes folks like Clinton the First and Trump sound remotely comparable. Clinton was accused of rape – actual rape. Juanita Brodderick accused Clinton of forcing her to have sex with him against her will. Forget whether or not the claim is credible; that is the claim. The worst thing so far claimed about Trump is that he maybe groped some women and maybe surprised one of them with a kiss.*

But saying “Clinton was accused of rape; Trump was accused of groping people” makes the moral difference between the two absurdly obvious. Even your most dyed-in-the-wool feminist is not stupid enough to really believe that “Grabbed my crotch” and “Held me down and fucked me” really deserve to be in the same moral class. The solution is simply to play pretend.

The theory goes something like this: If we call everything Bill Clinton has been accused of “sexual assault”, and everything Donald Trump has been accused of “sexual assault”, nobody can technically say we’re wrong since sexual assault is a legal term that means different things in different areas, some of which apply to the things Trump has been accused of doing. But they both sound almost as scary as actual rape, so it makes Trump look just as bad. It’s brilliant!

And Trump loses this battle for several reasons. First, the media is on Hilary’s side. I don’t think even the democrats are denying it now; it’s just turned into “Duh, why won’t Fox just get with the program already?”. Second, Trump is Trump. Hilary is not Bill. Yes, it is true that Hilary defended and sided with Bill – but she’s still not Bill. So these allegations don’t have the same weight with her. So in the “Whose sexual assault is worse?” battle between the Frog Casino King and Grandma Abortion Witch, Casino King loses.

But don’t get taken in. What Trump has been accused of doing is not the same as what Bill has been accused of doing. It is wrong, he shouldn’t have done any of those things just as nobody should, and if you want to make a case that they make him unfit for the presidency, go for it. But his actions are not sexual assault.

*To be fair, I do recall an old claim that he supposedly raped a 13 year old, but this is apparently so transparently ludicrous that not even the corrupt mainstream media has been pushing it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Also, SMBC again

This is both very funny and very sad. Probably more sad.

Original here:

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

“But it’s just martial arts!”

Okay, to be straight in advance – Yes, I am using this post to try to explain why the “Game is really just martial arts” explanation does not move me. By way of analogy:

You go to a martial arts class, curious. The class is the most popular your town has seen in years, maybe ever. The martial art is one you don’t recognize, called “mugging”; the name seems familiar to you, but you can’t quite place how.

When you walk in for the first time, the sensei gives his daily speech to new students:

“I learned and practice mugging daily – by going around, picking fights with, and beating the ever loving shit out of anybody and everybody who happens to get in my way, then robbing them. I managed to perfect a whole range of moves to mug a wide number and variety of opponents, and now I’m willing to relate my teachings back to you, for FREE (I won’t stop my mugging, of course – it’s fun!). Using my moves you’ll learn how to pick out the smallest and weakest targets, how to pinpoint the parts of the body that will cause the most pain, how to counterattack successfully even while protecting your vital organs, and how to pick the best prey to rob.

“Also, while it is totally free and all, if you really like my classes you can buy my book too, and show it to all of your friends. No, really, buy it.”

Disgusted, you start to leave the room when you spot your friend in the back, preparing for the lesson to officially begin. “What on EARTH are you doing here?” you ask, horrified. “Don’t you realize that this class is supposed to help you learn how to beat people up and ROB them? Don’t you know that’s evil?”

Your friend rolls his eyes. “Don’t be stupid. Of course I’m not actually going to seek people out to rob them. I’ll just learn the techniques and use them for self-defense. And, of course, if the very rare situation arises when I’ll actually have to mug somebody, like if he steals something from me first.

“But really, I’m disappointed. This is exactly the sort of shaming behavior I’d expect from an SJW. In fact, our very sensei was attacked by Amanda Marcotte for disproportionately targeting fat and retarded people. Do you stand with people like HER now? What do you want? For people to just go around defenseless, all because you aren’t smart enough to sift out legitimate self-defense from robbing and beating people? Don’t you know how cruel and unmerciful you’re being to defenseless men? Now be quiet, sensei is about to start his lesson on how to make it all look like the other guy started it in case you’re caught.”

With a roll of his eyes, your friend goes back to his lesson. And they fiddled louder as Rome burned.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment