Prediction: Trump And Friends Will Crack Down On Voter Fraud; Christcucks Will Still Hate Him

Within a few days, Jeff Sessions is going to do a voter fraud investigation in Alabama, and the country is going to get a little more insane. Or a lot more.

And you know what? Even though Trump will have saved democracy, the moderate conservative Christians will still hate him. They’ll hate him even more, because kicking down the Bolsheviks’ voter fraud machine will enrage the liberals and bring us a step closer towards civil war. And what moderate conservative Christians value more than anything is the appearance of peace.

Moderate conservative Christians are moral cowards. They hate Trump because he’s a meanie on Twitter. They hate people like me who casually say racial stereotypes. They hate anything that is more honest than they can afford to be. Their Jesus sucks and I’d rather go to hell than have anything to do with him.

Moderate conservative Christians, go away. You are making America terrible again.


Orthodox and Catholic Views on Heaven: Essential Differences Express A Deeper Divide

This post is going to be a little different. I normally try not to make this blog too overtly religious, but I read something by Ann Barnhardt that caught my attention and got me thinking, even though very little of it was new information. But first this will require several paragraphs of prefacing.

The article she wrote is “Do Aborted Babies Go To Heaven?”, and what stuck out to me is how different the Catholic perception of the afterlife is from the Orthodox Christian, because the way they read Scripture is so different. This article of mine is not intended to exhaustively debunk Catholicism – though there is certainly value to that kind of article – but to use her writing to illustrate a key difference that no amount of tea and crumpets between Bart and Francis will ever resolve.

Also, I’ll say that I adore Barnhardt’s writing, even though I obviously don’t always agree with it. She truly believes in her beliefs, and that demands respect.

Before we get to what she’s written, I need to explain something about the nature of Orthodox Christian doctrine.

In Catholicism, they have an 800 page catechism that explains everything very tidily. Because the Church has a singular central administration, anything published by that central administration is automatically free from error (which is why I can’t understand how Catholics would try to de-legitimize Vatican I and Vatican II or the election of Francis). If you want to know what is Truth, you just look it up in the reference book and quote it.

Orthodox Christianity doesn’t work like that at all. I’ve been attending Orthodox Church for six years and did a semester of laity correspondence seminary, and I still don’t know what the Orthodox Church believes. Some clergy have written catechisms, but these all differ from each other to some extent and none claim to be divinely infallible.

Orthodox Christian theology is expressed more in patterns than in definitions. The only thing the Orthodox agree on is the Nicene Creed (though many would disagree with me that that’s the only thing we agree on, thus proving my point), and in some ways it’s easier to say what we don’t believe than what we do. But there are general tendencies of what we believe. Theology is more like a series of memes than a party position. But of course Truth is not determined by majority rule, and so perhaps at any given time a large number of Orthodox Christians may believe something wrong, and so someone has to write something to correct it.

In other words, Orthodox theology is really really difficult to pin down, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either drunk on hubris or totally ignorant (usually the former). Yes, this absolutely drives me insane. My mind works best with perfect logical categories I can swap around as necessary. The amorphousness of Orthodox theology – plus practice and then just mundane definitions of foreign words like “lavra” – is something I’ve learned to not think about.

Nietzsche said that the fallacy in a belief system is not a flaw but a condition. I’m not saying Orthodox Christianity is inherently fallacious, but it is definitely vague and supra-rational.

Even from a normal American perspective, try defining beauty or art or romantic infatuation. Can’t do it, can you? Now apply that to all of Christian theology.

But our beliefs don’t change. You can appeal to any century in Orthodox Christianity. Catholicism on the other hand changes constantly. They’ve even codified their word game theology with the term “development of doctrine”, which is a clever way to say “fallacy of equivocation”. So it you point out that Aquinas did not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, it’s totally irrelevant, even though the Catholic Church also teaches he was infallible as a Doctor of the Church.

The best textbook of Orthodox Christian theology is the Octoechos, a series of liturgical hymns on an eight-week cycle. Originally it was written for monastics, but it came to be used as a means of educating illiterate peasants. However, most of it is self-referential and the whole thing goes back to the 800s, and so protestants and Catholics would agree with most of it. So you can’t really use it as an apologetic (though it criticizes the Jews).

American convert priests Fr Andrew Damick and Fr Josiah Trenham have both written and spoken extensively on the topic of how Orthodox Christianity varies with other belief systems, and a lot of it they have made available free online. (I’m a big Trenham admirer, even though he has some California values I don’t like.)

Free apologetic materials for those who are interested: Trenham’s apologetics are here and here, and Damick’s apologetics are here.


The basics of what Barnhardt has said is that babies who are aborted go to hell but are not condemned. Hell is the place without Christ, and some parts of hell are horrible agony and others are just lovely resting places where you are stuck forever but otherwise enjoy your stay. This is because heaven is a participation in the Trinity, which absolutely can only happen after baptism. This participation is called the beatific vision.

What about the thief on the cross or catechumens (people who are waiting to be received into the Church)? Augustine and Ambrose resolved this issue with “baptism by desire”, meaning that they receive a kind of baptism by credit because they intended to be baptized. Barnhardt doesn’t touch on this, but I’m trying to fill in some gaps.

So for Catholicism, it is very clear how the mechanics of heaven and hell work. To get to heaven, you must be baptized (which she says can be performed by a non-Christian) and you must die in a “state of grace”. I think by grace she means in a good standing with God, but she doesn’t define this term.

Okay, now we have to make a slight side quest. What does grace mean? The Greek word originally meant gratitude or favor, and “favor” seems to be how the Bible uses it. In the next few centuries, the definition of the word became more specific to mean the energy of God. “Energy” means how God works in the world – it’s a part of Who God is but isn’t His essence, which means it’s kind of an extension of Him but not His most self-ness.

That is to say, grace is the manifestation in which God works. So the sacraments are said to have grace. The Orthodox Church teaches correctly because it has grace. Protestants and Catholics do not have grace (or perhaps they might have some measure of it – again, near impossible to say exactly), because they are outside the Church.

In Protestantism, grace is almost synonymous with mercy. Except in Orthodox Christianity, mercy means something different than it does in Western Christianity. Mercy is, much like grace, God’s intervention for your benefit. So the glass of water you had this morning is mercy, because you could be dying in a desert.

I’ve never heard the term “state of grace” used in Orthodox Christianity. Nor have I heard the term “beatific vision.”

So in Catholicism, things are very cut and dry, except that we may not know how much of a state of grace someone is in and how long purgatory lasts. In Orthodox Christianity, nothing is cut and dry.

Take a deep breath, and here we go. Here’s what the Orthodox Church teaches about heaven and hell:


First, there’s no purgatory. Perhaps heaven is a kind of purgatory, but that’s just my theory. The protestants are right that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient. Except that Christ was more of a victorious conqueror than a benevolent loan shark. So there’s no purgatory. If you love God, you go to heaven. If you don’t love God, you go to hell. There’s no in-between. Perhaps someone who is falling into hell could shout out “Save me Lord” and be saved, but that’s just speculation. We don’t know how the mechanics of the afterlife work except that those who love God go to heaven and those who don’t love God go to hell. In some sense, everyone gets what they want.

There is however a kind of waiting place. You don’t just die and go straight to heaven or straight to hell. That happens at the Last Judgment. I think. Maybe it varies by person, because how else could the saints hear our prayers? Anyway, you pray for the dead because after you die things are in a weird flux and only God knows where you go. Except that Chrysostom said your prayers could convince God to change His mind about where someone ends up (it’s God’s kingdom and He can let in Whomever He likes). Ultimately, it’s best to not think too much about heaven and hell, or at least focus more on living a righteous life here and now. If you don’t like God in this world, you wouldn’t like heaven anyway, so hell is probably where you’ll be most satisfied.

You choose between heaven and hell every day. This isn’t something that happens at the end of your life or even in the Final Judgment. It happens here and now with every choice you make about anything.

The difference between heaven and hell is often described as the same Fire emanating from God. To those who are saved (though I don’t mean that word in the evangelical protestant sense), it is warm and nurturing. To those who are damned, it is painful and destructive. Though there’s no soul annihilation. And all of this is more of a place in the soul than an actual physical place.

What about baptism? Well yes, baptism is salvific and you must be baptized to be saved. Except if you aren’t baptized, God can work around that. God can do whatever He likes. He prefers using baptism because He likes to take ordinary things and make them extra-ordinary, but He is perfectly capable of crediting you a baptism. I realize that sounds like a total contradiction.

Nor does one necessarily have to be a Christian to be saved (though St Ignatius Brianchaninov seems to disagree, and he’s right about everything ever). Ultimately, only God knows who goes where and it’s none of your business. So do aborted babies go to heaven or hell? I don’t know. God only told us so much. I think it’s possible for an infant to have some level of consciousness of God. Psalm 8:2 (ESV) says, “Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy of the avenger.” So perhaps babies and even the pre-born can have some level of love or disdain for God. There are saint stories (such as Bogolep the child schemamonk) about infants who refuse to nurse on fast days, but not everyone believes those.

Side note for those who clicked that last link: You’re probably thinking that was the craziest thing you’ve ever read and how could the Church allow that? Well saint stories are special because they are the exception, not the rule. It’s not like there’s a special central administration that has to approve every abberancy. If the local bishop in the  middle of nowhere believes God is telling him to bend some rules for what is already a weird semi-miraculous situation without doing anything immoral or sacrilegious, then so be it. Again, Orthodox theology and practice is expressed more in patterns than in definitions. Unlike Catholic bishops, Orthodox bishops have some measure of actual authority and weight, because they are more than just the pope’s messenger boy.

Back on topic. The same with confession. Yes, the priest has the ability to bind and loose sins and the Prayer of Absolution has a supernatural salvific element to it, and to refuse to confess a sin probably shows a lack of humility and repentance. But also, God can do what He wants and will work it all out.

If any of that sounds coherent, then you’re wrong. I’m far better than average at explaining things to outsiders, but I can assure you that somewhere in there is something some notable theological writer (because “theologian” has a different definition than how you use it) would strongly disagree with. I’ve learned to not over-think it (which is entirely counter to my personality) and just try to live a life of integrity.

Put it this way. A Presbyterian pastor I deeply respect told me that when he tried asking questions to an Orthodox priest, it was like asking about the paint on the walls and getting an answer about the engine in the car.

Basically, for the Catholic, the afterlife is primarily a place of pleasure or pain, even if on a very spiritual level. For the Orthodox Christian, the afterlife is a place where you become the most manifestation of your life choices. I think. I’ve never really understood Catholic theology, but I think that’s what Barnhardt is saying. And I don’t really understand Orthodox Christian theology either.


Now for how Barnhardt gets to her conclusion. This is another thing that really jumps out at me. Like the Baptists I grew up around, she reads a lot into verses that they might not be saying. And I realize this isn’t unique to her at all – she’s just repeating what she’s read elsewhere. None of us are original thinkers.

Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (I’m assuming she’s using the DR translation.)

As I understand this, she constructs a kind of grid based on two categories: believing and baptism. If you both believe and are baptized, then you go to heaven. If you dis-believe and are not baptized, then you go to hell and are condemned. But what if you believe – or are too young to understand belief – and are not baptized? Then you go to the Limbo of the Innocents, where you get the maximum happiness but do not experience God.

That’s a lot to read into one verse. And she claims this is totally clear from it (though admits it requires some thought) and it can’t possibly mean something else. This is equivalent to how the Baptists take Romans 10:13, “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” and use it to create their entire theology of “getting saved” at the altar call in one defined moment of time.

A lot of this goes back to defining things differently. In Orthodox Christianity, salvation is not merely going to heaven but the process in this life of becoming righteous and culling off your sinful nature (hence why there is no purgatory – because purging is for this life and anything you lack, God is able to resolve). And since baptism is a supernatural event, baptism is a part of participating in God’s work of sanctifying you (ie, grace and mercy). In Catholicism, to my understanding, salvation is just like that in Protestantism – going to heaven. So it makes sense that baptism is only an admission ticket to heaven and that prayers for the dead are just to avoid purgatory.

To explain her concept of heaven and the beatific vision, she uses John 17:21, “That they all may be one…that they also may be one in Us.”

I mean, yeah, Christianity is about knowing God on a relational level. But that is perhaps more important to happen down here than up there (but don’t quote me on that, because I realize that’s a very strong statement to make and I’m not totally comfortable with it). The verse could very well be about culling away your narcissism and being totally divested of your own desires so that you can do the will of God here on earth. It’s not specific. It’s a general principal about sanctification, and it seems to equally apply to this life as to the next. Especially because the next phrase is “that the world may believe that Thou has sent Me.”

Then she has a really interesting point that religion isn’t about man reaching to God but about God reaching to man. Very Calvinist, which I suppose comes from Augustine (I’ve never read “Grace and Freewill”, but I know that it wasn’t the norm during his time and that he later expressed some uncertainty about what he had written). But, you know, it can be both. Orthodox Christianity teaches synergy – that salvation requires the cooperation of man in what God is doing. Does it have to be an either-or?

But I definitely agree with her that this modernist idea of man finding God makes man into God and God into just a philosophical proposition. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44) But also, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” (Matthew 7:7) So you do the knocking. But God also does the knocking. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:20) So both man and God do the knocking. God reaches out to man and man has the responsibility to respond with an inquiry, which God will answer if it’s given with a sincere heart, and that is why the hypothetical “good man on the Ganges River who has never heard the name of Jesus” may be saved.

Then Barnhardt defends the notion of Limbo as Abraham’s Bosom (Luke 16). And of course 1 Peter 3:19 talks about Christ entering the underworld to free the souls. But that’s not necessarily hell. In fact, Luke 16:22, which she quotes, says “And it came to pass, that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.” Which seems to say that Abraham’s’ bosom is a separate place from hell, and therefore Christ did not “harrow hell” but just broke open the amorphous waiting place. (Though where did Enoch and Elijah ascend to? I don’t know, but it certainly wasn’t hell.)

Again, this is all a mystery. Especially when we are dealing with Jesus’s parables, which were usually cryptic to some degree. Catholics take a phrase, isolate it, and then read a lot of theology into it. Protestants do the same, because they are just Catholics minus the church. Protestant theology is Catholic theology with high fructose corn syrup instead of refined sugar. And both are terrible for your health.

All of this is rooted in the medieval Catholic hubris to figure out the world in its every detail. The Catholics brag about inventing modern science? Yeah of course; Dawkins atheism is a by-product of Thomistic rationalism. The Catholics can’t stand the thought of not knowing something. That’s why they have an 800 page catechism.


Because the Bible says some very hardline things about baptism, Catholics assumed that baptism was absolutely necessary. And that seems to imply the thief on the cross goes to hell while the lukewarm Catholic can just repent at the end of his life and go to heaven (that’s what Karl Keating seemed to say, though he said it wasn’t worth the gamble). I realize that may not be what all Catholics actually believe, but that is a logical extension of it. And so the protestants burned it all down and said baptism is irrelevant. What matters is faith, which is manifested in good works, and so if you don’t have good works then you don’t have faith. And so the protestants gained the merit-mentality of works-based Catholicism, while all along Catholics had a faith-only apathy.

In reality, faith and works are the same thing. You have faith in God, which implies a certain ideology. This ideology manifests itself in works. If you don’t have works, then you don’t have faith. If you truly believe something, then you act on it. Catholic and protestant screeching about this for 500 years is just autistically obsessing over defining words different ways.

Except the Catholics kind of do believe in merit salvation, because of indulgences. Today they don’t sell indulgences anymore, but they still exist. If you do such-and-such, you get a credit from the merit bank of the saints. The saints did extra good works, and so they have too much stored up. They’ll give it to you! And the treasury is infinite.

But it’s the Church who decides how indulgences are distributed. Does that mean the pope gets to control God? If purgatory is about purifying yourself in preparation for heaven, then why does someone else’s merit accelerate that process? Doesn’t God judge your heart and demand personal responsibility?

I’ll accept that the bishopric of Rome in the first several centuries had a lot more influence than we often give the position credit for, but in no way did it ever have the power to unilaterally change how sacred things are handled or how God gets to choose who gets what afterlife. And it certainly couldn’t declare a doctrine that had previously not been agreed on by the whole Church.

Today the rough equivalent of the ancient Roman patriarch would be the Moscow patriarch, mainly because they have 85% of the world’s Orthodox Christians. If Moscow doesn’t sign off on your council, it didn’t happen. Without Moscow’s approval, you don’t have the Church’s approval. But of course, Moscow alone cannot “develop doctrine” or determine the liturgics of other jurisdictions. I’ll never understand why the pope gets to serve communion in plastic cups and dispense it to open homosexuals like it’s a public water fountain, but Catholicism never made sense to me anyway.


Anyway, that seems to highlight a key difference between Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. Catholics have very clear definitions of doctrines and very specific interpretations of Bible verses. We are more comfortable saying that we don’t know and can’t know and that ultimately it’s our responsibility to just live a righteous life and encourage others to do the same.

The same could apply to Barnhardt’s post on how the Eucharist is a kind of sexual union between the priest and God. And she makes a good case for it, but she seems to say that it requires a celibate priesthood even though the Western Church had a married priesthood for the first millennium. The Orthodox ordination sacrament resembles that of a wedding and that because he is in a sense “marrying God,” a priest can only be married before his ordination. And while the Eucharist is certainly an initiator-receptor ritual, that seems to be only a small part of it and not something immediately apparent. But if sexual union is two flesh becoming one, then I suppose it makes sense in how God incarnates in the bread and wine. I’m not sure it makes sense that God and the priest become one.

I really like Ann Barnhardt. Even if I don’t always agree with her, she always makes me think. She presents Catholicism in the best light possible with the most integrity possible, and that’s the kind of Catholicism I want to debate. It’s too easy to dismiss generic supermom “Kathy” Catholicism as being silly, lazy, and vapid. If I’m going to dismiss an ideology altogether, I want to be able to dismiss the best form of it possible.

Lessons From The Video Game “Bully”

Lately I replayed the video game Bully. The basic plot is that you go to boarding school and beat up kids. Probably the most clever game I have ever come across.

And it’s got me thinking about some life lessons.

1. Bullying goes both ways. Our society — at least how we view childhood — had a kind of Marxist conflict between the bullies and the bullied. In reality, most kids do a fair amount of bullying and are bullied themselves. This idea that the nerds are the noble martyrs of high school has created a culture where everyone now claims to be a nerd. But really, the nerds deeply despise the jocks and constantly look down on them (this applies to my high school self).

2. Nerds are manipulative. Gavin McInnes had a video about this. We like the idea that jocks are shallow and nerds are good and noble and true, but the reality is that being on the weakling side of society just makes one more likely to use loopholes to get what they want.

And so in the game, the nerds are porn addicts who manipulate the main character into getting illegal photos of the head cheerleader. Yeah, the jocks in the game may be bullies and have an IQ of 80, but at least they aren’t two-faced.

The nerds project their own self-hatred onto others. This extends well into adulthood. Dorks assume most people are out to get them, when in reality most people don’t care.

3. School doesn’t matter. In the game, one boy talks about pre pre pre medical exams. A girl says if she loses her chemistry notes, cancer with never be cured. But most of what is taught in the classes is totally irrelevant to life (and the creators made it worthless on purpose). Especially biology, just like in real school.

Even if you know this is false, the idea that your grade percentage to the decimal point will determine your life path is so pervasive that it is very hard to shake it off until you have been out of school for a few years (and college isn’t much better).

Whether you made straight As or straight Ds means nothing to most employers. Every day I regret college — not just because of the money, but because I could have spent those years learning carpentry or something.

Beyond fifth grade, you’ll learn very little of use. Spanish or Algebra would be useful for how they retrain your brain, except the teachers are idiots and you gain nothing from it except how to pass the test. Really, every student should be required to take basic logic and home economics, but if kids learned to think independently then administers wouldn’t be able to keep the kind of control they need on these biological adults that the law says are children.

4. (((Psychiatric))) health is bullshit. And maybe I’m biased because I’ve been institutionalised against my will before and stuck with the bill because my borderline personality mother lied, but if there’s a right way to do mental health recovery, America isn’t interested in it.

And are these institutions interested in your well being? Of course not! Just that they have you stable (ie, submissive) enough to avoid legal culpability.

In the game there’s a psychiatric hospital where the patients are locked up on trumped up charges. Not too far from real life. It doesn’t take much to get thrown in the slammer “for health reasons”. And the vast majority of psychiatric drug prescriptions are a money racket, which just does a disservice to people who truly suffer from ADHD and autism by killing the diagnoses’ credibility.

For all the neurologists and therapists I saw as a child, they totally missed my severe OCD.

The liberals say people with mental health disorders shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. LOLercoaster! When (((they))) quit over-diagnosing people for insurance payoffs, I’ll maybe consider this point.

5. There is an intangible beauty to old America. The story take place in a kind of northeastern Atlantic town. And despite the vapidity of people, there’s a certain charm to the area. Even among the griminess, povertiness, and every offer undesirableness, things have a purpose. Regardless of your social status, you had a community. There’s no internet or cell phones.

6. America is unfair. Look, I hate to sound leftist, but it’s a valid point (though fairness isn’t quite a virtue in and of itself). Rich whites and poor whites have very little in common, going back far beyond the founding of this country (Jim Goad’s Redneck Manifesto is an amazing document of this). The wealthy have their side of town and their families, and the poor have their own ghettos. While social mobility is possible, you have to at least act the part (as evidenced by the new rich kid in the game with the fake high English accent).

Inversely, my father is fairly well off, but I’m blue collar trash. Greg wears pink and purple plaid shorts, and I fist fight black people. Sometimes social mobility works in reverse. My father is an elected Republican politician with a fake Southern accent*, and I think Donald Trump is our glorious Caesar. Greg was a six-digit cemetery salesman when I was earning a plumbing license. Greg Martin has always made money by talking, and I’ve done every low-skilled work you can name. Greg drinks Smirnoff Ice; I drink Bud Ice. Greg hold all the correct moderate Republican beliefs; I wrote for ROK.

* The southern accent is more of a rural thing. People from the cities or even the suburbs don’t have it aside from a few vowels almost unobservable to someone not trained in linguistics. If I had been raised five miles away, I would talk very differently. Oddly enough, I’ve gained a natural accent in the last few years from all the manual labor jobs I’ve done. Also, each county has a slightly different twang.

But don’t think I’m some whiny millennial blaming my parents for everything. After 22-ish you have to take ownership of your life.

7. An institution’s reputation isn’t necessarily deserved. Bullworth Academy has a lot of old money invested in it, and it’s clear that it used to be something worth attending. Today the buildings are falling apart, and many classes teach very little.

I would argue that Harvard and Yale and the Ivy League schools were always thought-controlled institutions of indoctrination, going back past the unitarian days of the American Revolution and back to the Puritans. They’ve never been good schools; they are just well-reputed. They are great places to make connections with people and not much else.

8. Kids never grow up. Is bullying just a high school thing? Of course not. The school faculty does their share of bullying too. There’s not a huge difference between childhood and adulthood.

9. Society rewards losers. The best way to succeed is to lose all integrity. The main character Jimmy may be a bully and a scumbag, but he stands up to bullies and defends the weak, and for that he suffers all kinds of consequences. The teachers and students who are the true bullies, liars, manipulators, empty moralizers, hypocrites, and psychopaths, however, are awarded the most trust.

10. Divorce and remarriage harms kids. You’re at boarding school because your mother is on “her 58th honeymoon”, which seems to be a cruise that lasts the whole year. Jimmy is very hurt by how his mother doesn’t care about him, and this turns him into a thug.

HuffPo Graciously Enlightens Us On Just How Awesome Trump Is Being

Huffington Post recently put out an article called “Sadly, Trump is Winning.” Frankly, this is the closest I ever get to pornography.

“This is one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to write and admit: Trump is winning.”

Ha! Haha! Ha haha!

“His SCOTUS pick, Neil Gorsuch, eagerly cast a vote to impose the Muslim travel ban. His EPA head, Scott Pruitt, delivered a couple million acres of public monument land in the West to oil, gas, and coal industry developers. Trump busily continues to pack the federal judiciary with a parade of ultra-conservative, strict, constructionist Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia clones.”

It’s weird having a president who actually cares about the country he’s running. It’s almost like having a monarch. Maybe when the left calls him a fascist, what they really mean is that he isn’t trying to sell out his own countrymen.

“He…brought his long-held dream of dumping the Affordable Care Act closer to reality when the Senate tacked on a provision to the bill wiping out the mandate requirement.”

Anyone who thinks the ACA doesn’t need a major revision is willfully blind. There are far too many stories of people either losing their insurance or having to pay so much that it’s like it never existed in the first place. At one job I had, my hours were cut so that they wouldn’t have to provide insurance. Yeah, tell me more about how the Democrats care about the working class.

The mandate requirement is a bachelor tax. Young men don’t want to pay for middle aged divorced women’s frivolous medical expenses. Let people purchase health insurance on the free market or drop out altogether, and you can keep the rest of the ACA for all I care.

“Trump’s biggest win, though, has come on three fronts. One is the GOP. It can rail and curse at him publicly and privately, but it needs Trump. He is more than the titular head of the GOP. He is the point man for GOP policy and issues and, in a perverse way, the spur to get action on them.”

Yeah it must suck for the Democrats to not have the GOP as their Menshevik whipping boy anymore. Controlled opposition is so convenient.

“The second front he’s winning on is the continuing love fest that his devout base has with him. While polls show that his overall approval ratings consistently wallow under forty percent, buried in the polling fine print is the numbers that mean the most to him and the GOP. That’s Republican voters. The overwhelming majority of whom back him. Even though his approval rating has dropped among white males without a college degree and Christian evangelicals, polls show that he still gets majority approval from them. These are the voters that the GOP will need Trump to rev up in the key swing districts in 2018. They’ll look to him to do just that. This is the voter loyalty that buys a lot of support from the GOP establishment even as they flail him or shake their head in disgust at his antics.”

Trump is nothing without his core supporters, perhaps some 10-20% of the country. This core is his bedrock, without whom he could do nothing. As long as he keeps that group starry-eyed and inspired, he will have a greater loyalty than even Reagan. And you only need 20% of the country to worship at your altar to win an extra 35%.

Maybe the Republican establishment hates him because they are used to losing and it feels weird to be in power for once.

“The third winning front for Trump is his perennial ace in the hole: the media. He remains a ratings cash cow for the networks and makes stunning copy for the print media. He knew that from day one of his presidential bid and he knows it even more now. He will continue to suck the media air out of everything that the Democrats do and try to do.”

I can understand how someone may think he is evil or incompetent. I cannot possibly imagine how anyone could say he’s an idiot. The man plays the media like they are a gullible 14 year old girl.

Normally the media controls the politician. Trump has reversed that. They are at his beck and call. Friends are useful, but enemies even more so.

“This has been his patent ploy, distract and deflect. The public and networks take the bait every time.”

Yeah it’s awesome. And you can almost hear the admiration in the writer’s voice.

“Other than in the New York Times and other liberal print publications, there is no real sobering, in-depth discussion of the dangerous and destructive consequences of his administration’s policies. But those publications are anathema to Trump devotees in the heartland and the south anyway. So the withering criticism of Trump in these publications is tantamount to a wolf howling in the wind.”

It must suck to have your moral authority suddenly stripped away, only to realize you never really had it to begin with.

I can’t wait for academia’s credibility to be totally demolished. I’ll give it another two years.

“During the campaign, Trump loved to shout to his adoring throngs that, with him in the Oval Office, they’d win so much they’d get tired of winning. The giveaways to the rich, the gutting of Obamacare and the coming whittling away of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security is hardly winning for many of his backers. They benefit from these programs and won’t get a dime’s more relief in their tax bill. But for Trump so far this has been a win-win, and a sad one to admit.”

I don’t care about how wealthy the rich are as long as I can afford to live. Really goes to show how petty the leftwing is to get caught up in that kind of jealousy.

The other programs he mentioned need to die anyway. It’s almost like she thinks Trump has betrayed the Democratic Party or that working class people expect the government to pay for anything. When really, most working class people are fairly libertarian. It’s the losers of society that benefit from those programs.

“Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His latest book is, The Trump Challenge to Black America (Middle Passage Press) will be released in August. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on Radio One. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KPFK 90.7 FM Los Angeles and the Pacifica Network.”

Oh of course! Like a professional race-baiter has anything of value to say to the working class. I bet this Democrat really hates how Trump used the tree-lighting ceremony to talk about the incarnation and the importance of families.

Trump stands for objective Truth. Race-baiters and activists stand for exploiting anger, greed, and jealousy for profit.

The Four Temperaments And Emotional Immaturity — Gas The Sanguines!

Back in the ROK days, I always meant to write an article about the four temperaments, because it seemed like an important thing the Manosphere totally glossed over. But I never got around to it. Then I later learned that Davis Aurini did a video series about it already.

It seems that this concept is almost entirely forgotten today despite a quarter of an eon’s worth of credibility. I minored in philosophy and had to take a class on Greco-Roman philosophy, and this was never covered. My brother never learned it in all of his psychology major classes. Once in a while Christians will rehash it out, but it is usually done in a way that is clumsy and unhelpful. It’s also the basis for Meyers-Briggs, but I feel like that’s too complex.

So I’ll explain the concept in brief. This is one of the most useful filters for interacting with the world.


There are two spectra (plural of “spectrum”, since we’re doing ancient philosophy) for personality. The first one is extroverted or introverted. Extroverts gain energy from being around others, and that enables them to be alone. Introverts gain energy from being alone, and that enables them to be around others. Introvert does not mean shy, though introverts tend to be shy and prefer for others to suggest what to do. Extroverts, on the other hand, tend to be opinionated and combatitive.

The second spectrum is more difficult to explain, but it’s the most important one. It’s sometimes described as task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Aurini described it as stabile personality or labile personality, but I don’t think that’s a good way of putting it. One could view it Freudianly, as being more super ego oriented (not sure how the punctuation works on a hyphenated double word) or more id-oriented. I generally describe it as being Apollonian or Dionysian.

The Apollonian personality is more concerned about accomplishing the task. The Dionysian personality is more concerned about how the result affects others. This is a matter of internal rhythm and not values. It’s not like one is right-wing and the other is left-wing.

So we have two spectra with two categories each, creating four personalities. Each line up with an element.

The first is the choleric, which is the extroverted Apollonian. It is associated with fire. This is what I am (obviously). So is Trump. Cholerics are leadership personalities. A world without cholerics would be a society where nothing gets accomplished, but a world of only cholerics would be a fascist hell. We cholerics thrive on conflict, and we don’t care about your emotions. Give us an actual argument for your position, and we’ll respect you. Tell us that what we are saying is offensive or that no one thinks that way, and we will call you a beta cuck.

Fire? I’m more like napalm. I’m a choleric supremacist. You may think religion is just an opiate, but if I were an atheist, I would probably be in prison for being a total psychopath. Athys claim religion is just artificial morality to keep people in line, but I don’t see that as a bad thing.

The next is the melancholic, which is the introverted Apollonian. It is associated with earth. Nixon is your textbook melancholic. Melancholics aren’t necessarily depressed, but they tend to be kind of gloomy. They are quiet and thoughtful, and they usually aren’t impulsive. These are the kinds of people who can spend ten hours at a time reading or practicing an instrument.

Most of my best friends ever have been melancholics. They like me because I give them a voice and bring out their inner extrovert, and I like them because they let me talk.

The third is the sanguine, which is the extroverted Dionysian. It is associated with air, because they are vapid people who never mature emotionally. These people need everyone to like them and will lash out at you if you don’t. They have boundless energy in no direction.

The sanguine is the sworn enemy of the choleric. Keith Richards constantly derailed Mick Jagger. John Lennon always resented Paul McCartney trying to make him stay on task. Aside from some decent pop music, sanguines never accomplish anything. I’m ready for Trump to bring the final solution.

The final personality is the phlegmatic. This is the introverted Dionysian, and it is usually associated with water. I don’t really understand these people, but I don’t mind them. They just want to get along with everyone and are deathly afraid of conflict. They tend to just agree with you and let you do what you want. After a while they get sick of me though. Brian Wilson is a perfect example.

So we have four personalities or temperaments, each with a very different internal rhythm. This is a natural law. You cannot change it anymore than you can change gravity or patriarchy.

And these four quadrants are super necessary for society. A society wouldn’t accomplish anything if everyone was the same or if everyone was radically different. You need four templates and roles for people to play.

Consider the apostles. John was a phlegmatic, Peter was a sanguine, and Paul was probably a melancholic or perhaps a choleric. And they each had a little different take on the same message. A New Testament written by just one apostle would feel narrow and one-sided. You need Paul to hammer out dogma and Peter to talk about its practical effect and John to explain how you should have internalized it. Same message, each with a very different feel.


But we are no longer aware of this in our society. We are constantly told to suppress our internal rhythm and adapt to others’. Meanwhile, we expect other people to adapt to our own rhythm and grow enraged when someone falls in a different place on the Apollonian-Dionysian spectrum.

I think this is where a lot of liberal outrage comes from. And really, it’s not just a liberal thing. You write something on Facebook about how women who can’t cook at a basic feed-yourself-like-an-adult level are failures as women and should be referred to as female humanoids. Instead of providing evidence contrary to your claim or even just an alternative way to view humanity, the sanguines of your friends list unite to tell you that no one thinks like this and you’ll never find a wife and more people would agree with you if you moderated your tone and no they aren’t arguing because you’re just wrong. Because access to sex is totally what your worldview should be based on.

This is why people hate ROK. “It’s mean and cynical and has a low view of women.” Okay, but is it wrong? No, it just gives you bad feelings. “They think women should just be bang-slaves.” That’s not true at all; you just got that idea because the website is blunt and calloused. (There are definitely some writers on ROK who are idiots – but that’s to be expected, because the concept of ROK is to collect together a wide variety of voices, positions and experiences based around a central theme.)

And really, this isn’t just a Dionysian thing. Our society doesn’t value emotional maturity, nor do we have a model for what it looks like. So whichever personality you are, you are likely to take that personality to its fullest extent.

This is also why people are excessively mean in Facebook comments sections. It’s the cholerics with a free range to build the utopia and no real consequences. Are you disagreeing with me and won’t listen to the reasons I so carefully laid out? Off to the chambers with you, cuck! Helicopter rides are an extremely efficient way to reduce the number of communist swine in the world. I’ll gladly destroy your sense of self-worth if it makes you less confident in your opinions.

A lot of these arguments over ideology stem from a difference in internal rhythm. The sanguines and the phlegmatics don’t know how to respond to us uebermenschen who do whatever we like, so they just say that we aren’t keeping good social order and that’s the end of that. And we tell them that their emotions are stupid and worthless and they should be more sociopathic like us because we’re trying to make America great again and that can’t happen if we’re worried about breaking a few eggs.

“Nobody thinks like you do!” Is that supposed to be an insult? How is that possibly relevant? Especially if we are talking about Christianity, which, almost by definition, is supposed to be a minority perspective.

And no, it doesn’t do any good to explain any of the above, because it requires emotional maturity to understand how everyone has a different rhythm, and in our air-conditioned Babylon we can’t be bothered with emotional maturity because we’re too focused on our own feelings and desires. Consider how other people feel and be patient with different opinions, realizing that we all have fallible logic and lack of experience? That doesn’t sound fun at all. Maybe there’s a reason I’m trying to break the spirit of some jackass on your Facebook wall beyond just having fun trolling.

This is one reason why people hate on Trump. “He has no social tact! What an idiot!” No, he is just playing a different game. He’s the lunatic genius. But people don’t want to consider other opinions, even if just to know why you disagree with someone. I can understand why someone may dislike or feel extremely ambivalent towards Trump or ROK or racially aware sentiments – but anyone who truly hates Trump or ROK or white identitarians will stab you in the back. Maybe it won’t be over politics or religion, but they’ll shiv you at the first convenience, because they are intimidated by the idea of objective reality.

And don’t think the cholerics are pure logic. Schools and colleges don’t teach logic anymore. I’m 27, and people just three years younger than me seem to be from an entirely different generation, whether conservative or liberal. They don’t know how to make an argument, much less analyze the one you’re making. Instead they just emote. Or if they try to have an argument, the define words wrong and use all manner of fallacies and then claim you just lack information. And yeah, I get that’s part of being young, but these 20 year olds seem to have a different quality about their self-righteousness than when I was that age. They assume everything you say is a personal attack on them, because that’s what they’re doing to you.

Yeah, like you’re the first teenage atheist I’ve ever met. You’re telling me I am only repeating what my church has taught me because I disagree that the whites slaughtered the Indians in the name of Jesus? How innovative of you. The first person to ever discover that God is dead. I’m just in awe of your brilliance.
And while it is worse among the young, they by no means have a monopoly on it. I left protestantism because I couldn’t win their stupid game. They told me to read the Bible for myself and to come up with my own conclusions. And when my conclusion was somewhat different than the standard Lifeway position, they claimed I was just looking for attention or being provocative. Fuckin’ sanguines, man.


This is the society we live in. We cancel cable and subscribe to Netflix. Instead of a communal punch bowl, we go to a bar and get the exact cocktail we want. We find dates by scrolling through a catalog online and filtering searches by preferences about smoking and hobbies.

The Marxists have accomplished their dream of creating the atomized individual. We blame the corporations or the government or the ever-vaguely defined “elites” for turning mankind into a monetary value, but we do it ourselves.

Who gives the media their moral authority? Who makes Christmas a materialistic holiday of token gestures of goodwill? Who enables McDonald’s to thrive while the local diner that tastes a million times better goes out of business? Why, you do, dear consumer! You are the heartbeat of the American economy.

I try to be aware of others’ temperaments. The sanguines and phlegmatics will always accuse me of being provocative, because they assume it’s inherently wrong. And so I don’t argue with them at length. I’ll state my position and perhaps explain it a few different ways, and if they don’t understand, then I move on. There’s no point in bantering at length with these people. They will either understand what you are saying or they won’t.

Things need to be stated simply to those with a Dionysian personality, because they just don’t have the intellectual depth to care about why or how you believe something. All words should have three syllables at the very most, and they should be words that convey the general idea and not specific shades within the range of synonyms. It’s important to tell them how these ideas affect others and don’t exist in a vacuum. Phlegmatics and sanguines see the forest, not the trees, and that’s why they miss so many details.

The melancholics and cholerics, I’ll go into much more detail with. They’ll appreciate all the small nuances of what I’m trying to defend. They won’t get offended if I point out a fallacy. They like having twenty words with slightly different meanings to convey the same idea. They won’t rush to agree or disagree but will let it marinate. These are my friends.

The phlegmatics seem to know their place and allow their betters to lead. It’s the sanguines who are always trying to usurp the natural order of society. Sanguines think they are cholerics. Whatever emotion they are feeling at the time is their absolute truth and should be acted on to its fullest extent. And there’s nothing you can do to argue against someone with logic whom God has designed to be fully emotional.

And perhaps here is the fabled gender equality of feminist lore. Because plenty of men are sanguines and phlegmatics, and plenty of women are cholerics and melancholics. I’ve written before that men argue the issue and women argue the person, and I still agree with that, but layered over that is another layer in which some men argue the person and some women argue the issue. But in a different way. I’m not sure it’s possible to really describe. Perhaps it’s that choleric women will argue the person in order to get the task accomplished, and sanguine men will argue the issue in order to support the person.


But we have to balanced and fair. Choleric people can be nightmares if they don’t keep a check on themselves. I want to write a complete treatment on temperaments and emotional immaturity, so I have to criticize my own tribe.

Halfway through my senior year in high school, I joined a Baptist church where I spent the next year and a half. This was one of the seminal events in my life, but I’m not going to go into all the detail. What I want to focus on is the youth pastor Jeff, who embodied the worst of choleric tendencies.

He was one of those youth pastors that seems to genuinely hate teenagers. Or at least, he didn’t have any patience for teenagers to act like punk ass teenagers, and he gave us no benefit of the doubt when we would act glib or arrogant. 40 years old. Former high school band director. No seminary education but claimed that God called him directly into church service (which I am neither believing nor disbelieving). On the whole, an amazing specimen of wasted talent and a great proverb in how hubris will destroy the best of intentions.

Jeff would divy the church up into “good people” and “bad people”, and there’s nothing you could do to switch sides once he decided. Like most evangelicals, this had a lot to do with the charisma and speaking power of the individual. Like many teenagers from broken homes, I had the social skills and emotional maturity of an autistic trying to be a stand up comedian, so you can guess which of the teams Jeff put me into.

In his quest to purify the church, he would turn against people who otherwise were supportive of him. For the first six months, we had a great fatherly relationship, and then I spent the next year trying to put back the failing relationship, only to watch it fall apart faster. He waged a vendetta against me (and others) as best as he was able, and nothing I could do or say could convince him that I was on his side. I finally left the church on the brink of atheism.

So cholerics, learn to chill a bit. You’re not always right. Your mission may be noble, but the ends do not justify the means. After all, this is the same personality trait that led the Soviets to putting minor dissidents into labor camps.

It’s okay for the world to be a little imperfect. I checked the forecast, and as it turns out, the sun will come up tomorrow. Justice is a fairy tale. I know it’s hard, but it’s usually best to maintain good relationships with people if possible, especially in a church setting.

Why Liberals Hated Wonder Woman

Finally got around to watching Wonder Woman. Yeah, old news. Whatever. I’m not paying $11 to see a superhero movie in theaters unless it’s made by Christopher Nolan.

What I liked the most is that there is not one arch-villain. I can’t stress enough how much this trope in our society bothers me. There’s so many movies about killing Hitler (or Magneto or Emporer Palpatine or whatever) to end the war, when in reality if Hitler hadn’t done it then someone else would have.

Wonder Woman (a name never said in the film) kills the evil German commander employing the chemist who creates the gas bombs, and absolutely nothing changes. She thought the war would end, but it continues on.

Ares is not the god of war but the god of truth. He shows man as they really are.  Even “the good guys” do their fair share of bad (and I use the term “fair” on purpose). Steve admits towards the end that he’s part of the problem, even if he isn’t sure how. And many of the German commanders are searching for an armistice. But Ares knows that peace is only temporary, because humans like to kill.

As our society is heading towards civil war, this is all the more timely. All the optimism and one-world-holding-hands of the last century has not rewired human nature. It’s no coincidence that the world peace century was also the most bloody.

And that’s why this takes place in World War I. The second World War is about Captain America taking out the Nazis. It’s too simple. The first World War is about all of Europe crouching in trenches and killing each other solely so that you aren’t killed yourself. It was a war that could not pretend to have a higher meaning. Though we Americans had the rationale that Germany promised to help Mexico take back the southwest, as though that were remotely possible, the real reason America went is because someone blackmailed Woodrow Wilson for cheating on his wife.

A lot of feminists hated this movie. They said Diana was too beautiful, but I think they don’t understand why exactly they hated it, because they don’t have the emotional depth to vocalize what they really believe. Liberals believe in the perfect utopia. They believe bad people (like the Russian royal class or the Third Reich or the Trump family) should be murdered and disposed of.

But Diana makes a point to not kill the chemist who made the gas that took out an innocent village, because she learns that the chemist is one replaceable cog in the machine. Even though Dr Maura deserves death more than anyone, Diana lets her live, because killing her would only perpetuate the killing. The movie is anti-revolution, and liberals can’t understand how there could ever be more meaning to life than making sure everything is fair.

Justice, fairness, and equality. These are the values liberals hold up, and they claim they are Christian values, but they are all amorphous, subjective, and only perpetuate more evil. Even in the Bible, justice is set aside for mercy whenever possible. If God were truly just, He would send us all to Hell. The Bible never mentions equality, fairness, or tolerance, but it speaks a lot about patience and forgiveness.

The ultimate lesson in the movie is that you don’t do the right thing because of justice or glory or some other stupid Hollywood trope. You do the right thing because it’s right, regardless of consequences. Steve sacrifices himself and dies as an unknown hero. Only a handful of people know what he did.

This inspires Diana to spare the chemist, and thus enabling her to defeat Ares. If Diana had perpetuated the killing and done what was just and fair, Ares would have made her into an ally. Ares is very interested in justice, because he knows humanity deserves to kill each other off. Only the forgiveness shown by Diana was able to defeat war.

This forgiveness was inspired by the sacrifice Steve made. Reflecting on this, Diana says she believes in love. But this is not the shallow love of our modern culture of endless pleasure. It is the love of quiet suffering. It’s the anti Happily Ever After. “No greater love has a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

Whereas today the young people desperately want a noble martyr’s death and have the world mourn them like new orphans. John Lennon wouldn’t be John Lennon without the early death in the middle of a creative spark. Kurt Cobain idolized him so much that he had to kill himself during his own prime.

Today love is a team you’re on. Liberals say they are all about love and tolerance while also doing their best to demonize whites and men and anyone who disagrees with them. After Hurricane Harvey, they said Texas got what it deserves for electing Trump. Is that love? Only if you define love as justice, and only if you define justice as “the bad guys I disagree with.”

“It’s not about what you deserve,” they say several times in the movie. Liberals can’t stand the thought. They don’t understand how anyone could possibly filter morality without making the end goal that everyone gets their fair share. “It’s about what you believe.” Liberals don’t see the difference. When Diana understands this difference, she finally moves from a childlike innocence into a mature adulthood. Progressivist morality is the morality of kindergarten.

Blair’s Thoughts On Milo

Old news, but whatever. Slightly edited from my Facebook.


My thoughts on the Milo scandal. TL;DR: Milo’s comments on pedophilia were immoral, but they shouldn’t surprise you or change how you feel about him, whether you love him or hate him or both. I’ve listened to good arguments from both sides.

In the video, Milo both bemoans the strictness of age of consent but also says that the age of consent laws should stay where they are. This causes some people to denounce him and others to defend him.

This is, frankly, normal gay behavior. Milo is just the first honest homosexual. In a subculture where getting laid is as easy as grabbing a sandwich on your lunch break, there is not going to be a clear drawing of the lines at the perfect ethical limit. If they can get past the revulsion at having sex with another man, then having sex with someone barely pubescent shouldn’t be hard. Most gays talk worse than sailors and only ever think about sex. In the Greco-Roman world, most homosexuality was pedophilic. The one leads to the other, if not on an individual basis, then on a societal basis. I don’t know why people are so surprised at this. Did you really think Milo was just like you and me? Like he’s just some hard-working suburban dad in a completely monogamous marriage who happens to be gay?

A man who brags about his willingness to joke about anything is willing to do almost anything. People are never “just joking”, especially when it comes to sex. I read somewhere that one of the most popular gay porn themes is boy scouts, but the detailed Google search to find out is sure to bring a lot of results I would wish I had never found.

Age of consent laws vary widely. It’s not like on your 18th birthday there’s a magical transformation. We drew that line at 18 because that’s how old you usually are when you graduate high school. It seems like a pretty good line for our society, especially since most sex at that age is fornication and not within marriage. But even within our country, most states draw the line at 16 or 17. In Germany it’s 14. In most societies it’s shortly after puberty, because those childbearing years are super important if you need ten children to work a farm and at least half of them will die.

Milo is also doing the classic gay tactic of denouncing some law but also saying it doesn’t affect him. “They” (not including Milo, actually) did this over gay marriage, which they demanded the right to even though most of them had no interest in it. So Milo says that a sexually mentoring relationship can be hugely beneficial to someone teenage-ish but also that the law shouldn’t be changed. It sounds like he’s saying a lot of nothing. Or perhaps he’s saying just enough to cover himself. It’s almost as if young men turn to homosexuality to find a substitute for their absent father, but that’s not an acceptable opinion in society, so we’ll just all pretend that we are genuinely shocked that Milo didn’t turn out like we would have wanted.

Notice the lack of people accusing Milo of having molested them. You’d think there’d be some lawsuit by a vengeful ex-mentee. At no point did he claim to have been in a relationship with an underage male. He seemed to not quite either endorse the practice or condemn it.

Frankly, I think the age should be lower than 18 and that it shouldn’t be a felony that destroys your life because a young woman in the bloom of fertility lied about her age. Some 15 year old tart takes off her shirt and comes onto her English teacher or her drunk stepdad, and she’s the victim? The 12 year old girls of the nation idolize Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry, and parents think it’s cute when their five year old does a sexy hip hop dance. We both rapidly sexualize our children and also demand they stay innocent and childlike forever. Either marry your 14 year old daughter off to a 17 year old boy with a good job (currently almost non-existent), or cancel your cable subscription and don’t give your kids a smartphone, or allow your middle school princess to be a whore and run free. There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground.

Back on topic, this was definitely a tactical hit job on Milo, but really, CPAC should have never had him speak in the first place. Milo is anti-feminist and anti-Muslim, but that doesn’t make him a conservative. Once they did invite him though, they should have stuck to it and kept him on the schedule. Convicting someone without so much as a trial or even accusers is being more Soviet and less constitutional conservative. Cancelling Milo’s speech is giving the liberals a win.

And no, I’m definitely not condoning what Milo said. Using sex as a substitute for your father is not a healthy thing at all, and using sex as a basis for what could be a nurturing mentorship relationship is exploitation. But I think teenagers have more agency than we give them credit for.

Do I think Milo has had sex with someone underage? I don’t know, and I don’t think it matters. On some level, you knew Milo was a hedonist when he dyed his hair and would walk around in drag and bragged about his love of black genitalia. Either accept your god for who he is or throw your idols into the sea.

And don’t give me this “Milo has the right to his opinion” defense. When you put yourself out on the internet and say controversial things and sign your name to it, you accept that society may reject your freewheeling philosophy. Not all ideas are created equal. You conservatives rightly rejected Salon’s pro-pedophilia article (which admittedly was much more explicit than what Milo said) and National Review’s endorsement of it. You rejected all the anti-white and anti-male propaganda that comes from Hollywood. You even threw your Kellogg’s cereal into the trash.

The media, of course, are acting as they always do and aren’t worth commenting on.