Posts Tagged ‘the kurgan’

Tim of Wait but Why disgusts me

I was over reading this guy a while ago, but had forgotten to unsubscribe until today.

He posted this vile thing, about his own baby.

I’m not going to comment on it at length right now, and yes, yes, I am aware it’s supposed to be “funny”. Well, I don’t find it funny at all. I certainly do find it abhorrent and disgusting and think only some sub-species of subhuman could write such stuff (and I am fairly sure he actually believes most of the crap he writes) about their own baby daughter.

Notice the whole “babies are foetuses even after birth” thing, and thus, by implication, subject to murder, which I have no doubt this guy “supports” as a “right” of women everywhere.

There are a bunch of absolute sociopathic points throughout, which I think highlight the zeitgeist of people like Tim.

And personally, I don’t think people like Tim should ever reproduce.

It’s not even funny. It’s that same sort of “funny” that actually really doesn’t work without a laugh track to convince you it’s funny instead of sociopathic. So screw Tim.

Fisking Liars

From the Urban Dictionary:

Fisking:

The word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies.

And it is now time to do that to the inveterate liar (and coward) JMSmith of the communal blog of idiots at the “orthosphere”.

First, a point of intellectual rigour: sometimes, when dealing with people that are essentially functional retards, it is difficult to immediately know if the cause of their errors is mainly due to their obvious mental deficiencies, rather than intentional wish to deceive, but there is an easy method for being certain: check how many outright lies they state in their version of events.

And while in this case, it is absolutely clear that JMSmith is very stupid too, we can be certain he is mainly a flat out liar and deceiver.

I will be fisking his whole post, (archived, because liars tend to… well… change stories) as is reserved for intentional liars.

His lies with grey background, my facts in normal type.

First his title:

Bruce Charlton is not a “Gatekeeper” Nor a “Shill” Nor a “Glowie” Nor a “Fed”

He is referring to this post of mine, and, well sunshine, the only word I attributed to Bruce was gatekeeper, and that, it is clear from my post, only in terms of the effect he is having on people who subscribe to his nonsense. I made this obvious when I specifically wrote:

“I am not yet convinced he is an intentional gatekeeper, like say, Milo Yankmypolus, but he is undoubtedly adding to the level of blackpilling despair. I am more liable to put this down to his being the intellectual coward he is, as well as being a gnostic heretic, which, intentional deceiver or not, can only lead to Hellish effects, results, conclusions and beliefs.”

And that point was repeated. I certainly never accused Bruce of being a “Fed”, a “Glowie” or a “Shill”, these are fantasies (lies) attributed to me by the liar JMSmith. He lies a lot. Let us continue to fisk his lies.

I had not read Giuseppe Filotto until Kristor linked to his denunciation of Bruce Charlton. I have since read nothing but that denunciation and Filotto’s appended comment that the Orthosphere is a nest of “cretins.”

I never used the word cretins, with respect to these fake “orthos”,

UPDATE: A commenter pointed out I did in fact do this, and called them cretins, though in a comment, not on the actual post. Fair enough. Mea Culpa. The rest remains correct though.

so he is lying when he pretends to quote me. What I have done is pointed out that their are dishonest, that is, that they lie. Here. I will grant however that they are also stupid, but I reserve the word “cretin” for foes actually worthy of at least an insult. These morons hardly rise to that level, they are common, garden-variety, lying, retards.

Filitto accuses Charlton of being a “gatekeeper,” possibly by intention and certainly in effect.

This is the only sentence he got mostly right, except for spelling my name wrong, but stupid is as stupid does.

He means what is more properly called a “shill,” since the accusation is that Charlton is aiding the side that he ostensibly opposes.

Ummm… no. You disgusting liar. If I meant to call Bruce a shill, I would have said so. I never used the word shill, nor in any way hinted he was anything of the sort. I specifically stated Bruce is most likely a quasi-incel infatuated with his own sub-standard (and cowardly) intellect. I certainly never remotely assumed Bruce was a shill. And for who would he be a shill anyway? But JMSmith, being a retard, probably doesn’t even know what the word “shill” means. And it’s gonna be really hard to try to retroactively make that accusation against me stick; once he googles up the meaning.

In culture theory, a “gatekeeper” is a person who can admit or exclude aspirants to some coveted inner ring of the chosen few. Like St. Peter at the gates of Heaven, a “gatekeeper” can say “welcome to the elect” or “be damned and to Hell with you.”

Again. No, you miserable retard and borderline illiterate. Gatekeeper in common parlance is someone that prevents large numbers of people from discovering or acting upon the truth, by feeding them partial truths and deceptions mixed in such proportions as to steer them towards some other effort that will sap their energies instead of have them expended on the real issue.

Charlton is as far as possible from being a “gatekeeper” because he is not himself part of a clique, club, cabal or inner ring.

And I never hinted or said he ever was. So stick your strawman were the sun don’t shine.

No one has ever improved his prospects, or advanced his career, by oiling up to Charlton. And I don’t believe Charlton is accepting applicants to his idiosyncratic church of one.

And where did I say he did? I didn’t. Shove this second strawman too.

The truth is that Filotto is “gatekeeping” when he denounces Charlton for acting as a “shill.” I should perhaps say “insidious fear monger,” since a “shill” fosters false hope. In its pure sense, a “shill” is a covert salesman who pretends to be a disinterested bystander in order to boost consumer confidence and thereby sell some dubious product. An “insidious fear monger” is a secret agent of the thing that is feared. He demoralizes, discourages, and fosters despair. In the guise of a friend, he spreads despondency and alarm.

Once again, this is literally 100% the opposite of the truth, as can be gleaned by the original post on Bruce, my very point was that Bruce is the one causing despair. And I have made numerous posts stating precisely the opposite, that despair is the very thing to avoid as it is a lie. Here is one blatant example, and here another. In fact pretty much my entire existence is geared against despair, indeed the very article criticising Charlton does so because he’s spreading despair, as this moron later proves too. So as an accusation, the entirety of the above is not just an obvious lie, but also projection and mental retardation of the highest order. And again, I never, ever, said Charlton was, or was acting as, or represented a “shill” so in every way and form, the accusation is simply an outright lie.

I seldom close Bruce Charlton’s Notions with the feeling that that God will very shortly be returned to his Heaven, and that all will very shortly be set right in the world. This of course proves that he is not a “shill.”

So, you admit he makes you despair, but… this means he’s not a “shill” (which only YOU have ever accused him of being, never me) because… wait for it…

A “shill” would have tricked me into purchasing one of the opiate nostrums that are peddled by the charlatans, mountebanks, and carnival barkers of the Right.

…because he didn’t SELL you something and hence “steal” your money. Let me guess, this fucking moron is an American. They are the most materialistic of cultures, and the dumber they are, the more so.

And I don’t think he is an “insidious fear monger” since our danger is really much greater than many good people suppose.

Again, you utter liar, I have never used the words “insidious fear monger”, especially not against Bruce. So why the fuck are you pretending to quote me? Are you so desperately stupid you don’t understand that people can verify what I wrote for themselves? Clearly, the answer to that question is yes. Yes you really are.

Filotto is grossly unfair when he says Charlton is an “intellectual coward.” A fair critic could say that Charlton is overly bold, or even rash; that he rushes in where angels fear to tread, bites off more than he can chew, gets in over his head. I do not say these things myself, but I would not laugh out loud at someone who did. I do laugh out loud at anyone who says that Charlton is an “intellectual coward.”

Given that JMSmith has now amply demonstrated he’s a complete idiot that barely knows the meaning of common words, I will put the above paragraph down to his being too stupid to understand what “intellectual coward” means. And no, I am not unfair, at all, I am merely making observations, since Bruce has flat-out avoided addressing the absolute nonsense that is Mormonism.

In fact JMSmith makes it clear he has no idea, when he lists attributes that say nothing of intellectual cowardice or bravery, but rather highlight the fact that Bruce is just dumb, and believes dumb things that are literally so stupid a normal child would laugh at them, such as believing Mormonism in any guise can be true. Do you even know the story of Mormonism? Look it up. It makes the Xemu of Dianetics (scientology) sound logical and likely! Seriously, go see the musical Book of Mormon, it’s hilarious and not too far off historically speaking from the actual facts.

The man sacrificed his reputation as a scientist when he came out as “religious,” and then sacrificed his reputation as “religious” when he did not settle comfortably into some collective creed.

Which only evidences that my take of him that he is enamoured with his own “iconic” intellect (which in reality is mostly specious nonsense written as if it were deep thoughts) while really not having much there at all, is very close to the bullseye.

Charlton may be a nut, but he most certainly is not a “intellectual coward.”

Again, JM, invest in a good dictionary. You clearly need one.

Towards the end of his post Filotto tells us that Charlton is actually a physical coward because all his wild speculation just excuses  shirking “battles in meatspace.”  Filotto particularly accuses Charlton of the quietist conviction that God’s people should not fight spiritual battles with the weapons of this world because those who handle the weapons of this world will become worldly.  He says,

“Bruce is obviously of the opinion that the Spartans should have just gone quietly into the night, and so too the knights of Malta and everyone who ever picked up a weapon and fought the tyrants and won.  Pathetic, disgusting, black-pilling coward.”

I am not sure that a man as ornery and pugnacious as Charlton should be accused of quietist convictions, but his fear of fighting with the weapons of this world is hardly naïve.

Ah, the lies, they multiply eh? Let’s see what I actually accused Bruce of, eh? The full quote of my writing:

One [of Bruce’s posts] on the doom and gloom idea that even if we try to fight back against the forces of evil we are only contributing to the overall evil and destruction of all, and his completely nihilistic nonsense ends with the panacea that we must only rely on the “spirit” since all battles in meatspace are only adding to the evil. It is possibly his most cowardly post yet and the one I despise most of the ones I have read. Bruce is obviously of the opinion that the Spartans should have just gone quietly into the night, and so too the knights of Malta and everyone who ever picked up a weapon and fought the tyrants and won. Pathetic, disgusting, black-pilling coward. It is enough to make me believe he is a gatekeeper and intentionally so, but I know enough to realise that the probability is more on the side of him being your typical, nihilistic British geek. All theory and no balls.

It is obviously clear I am referring to the intent of his message, and that intent is nihilistic, cowardly, black-pilling lies. And I again specifically point out his “gatekeeping” is the result of his own misery and despair, and not an actual intentional wish to be a gatekeeper.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a very long book that illustrates the reality and hazards of earthly power, and Charlton has brooded more than most on the lessons contained in Tolkien’s book. Spartan “freedom” is, I would add, a very ambiguous sort of freedom.

It is obvious I never even considered Charlton’s bravery or lack thereof from a physical perspective, frankly the thought never even entered my mind because I simply do not rate him, as I do not rate most people, as even significant in any physical confrontation.

But that aside, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, ambiguous about Spartan freedom. The difference was either continue being Spartans, free to live as Spartans chose to do, or be slaves and servants of Xerxes and his Persians.

How this fucking intellectual pustule on the ass of a gnat can not understand that very simple point is precisely because he is an intellectual pustule on the ass of a gnat, while pretending to have an idea worth sharing with the world. He doesn’t. He’s just a virtue-signalling-machine, pretending to know what JRR Tolkien meant with respect to fighting evil in the flesh.

It is obvious that whatever JRR intended, JMSmith is literally to stupid to ever possibly even guess at it, much less get it right.

And yes, this is the usual , Kurgan sledgehammer to a crippled flea, but how else will these morons learn, other than by purifying fire?

And lastly, let’s look at my actual final take on Bruce, shall we?

Do I think Bruce Charlton is evil incarnate? No. I assume he’s your typically pedestrian Brit, unsatisfied with life and going about it in his quiet desperation, while sharing it with others in an effort to make himself feel more relevant as a whole, but instead, just spreading despair, nihilism, and heresy. I don’t care about Bruce. I am far more concerned with the people he might influence into taking his gnostic nonsense on board in any way.

So, yeah, it’s the usual moron, wanting to insinuate himself into concepts, ideas and online discussions far above his station, probably in the misguided hope of getting more clicks to his site in order to seem more relevant than he is to… someone. Anyone. And instead, just proving to anyone reading this that he is an idiot.

UPDATE 2: JMSmith responds with what, in Roman Law, goes for general agreement, since he remains silent on the factual accusations of deception I level at him:

Filotto Strikes Back

Ok, I admit it, I kinda like the title, as it’s a distant recall to Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back. And as we all know, Darth Vader, and the Empire are the good guys. Just like the Kurgan they nicknamed me after is too. Obviously. I mean who wants that whiny, depressed Frenchman as an immortal?

Readers who like to consider both sides of an argument may peruse Giuseppe Filotto’s blistering rejoinder to my apology for Bruce Charlton.  Filotto argues that I am stupid, a liar, and at times even a stupid liar who lies stupidly.   I also once misspelled Filotto’s name, for which I apologize. 

I didn’t lose sleep over it, but the apology is accepted though it wasn’t required at all as far as I am concerned.

Filotto is a vigorous vituperator, although his stock of insults is limited to deprecation of the intelligence and veracity of those who disagree with Filotto. 

Nope. This is another lie. A factual observation is not an insult, even if done in a rhetorically insulting manner. The Rhetoric is just to make sure the sting drives the point home. If you don’t want to be called an idiot, don’t behave like one. And if you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t lie. Simple.

In my experience, disagreement has less obvious origins. 

But we are not discussing disagreement. In fact, honestly, you never even entered the arena with regard to discussing the points. You lied about me and what I did and said and I pointed out you lied. That’s pretty much it. You also made some comments about Bruce which, if anything, supported my take on Bruce, not yours, whatever that might be, other than he’s a great guy apparently, as far as you’re concerned, despite the fact he spreads misery and despair with very little in the way of solutions.

I will say that I agree with Filotto that despair is self-fulfilling prophesy, and that we should all do what we can to keep our peckers up.

Well, I never suffered from erectile dysfunction, so I can’t agree with your implication that taking viagra is the answer to life’s problems, but then, as I said, I never suffered from that particular affliction, so who am I to judge!

And as a final point, since you agree with me on despair, I fail to see how you can defend Bruce on his general zeitgeist.

And in case you STILL needed more proof…

It turns out, to the surprise of no pureblood, but I imagine the utter shock of people like Scott Adams, that the covid “vaccines” had a few things in them that are rather nasty.

But DNA contamination and SV40 in the covid injections are not the only problems.  The bacteria Escherichia coli, or E. coli for short, is used to replicate the DNA so there’s always the potential for lipopolysaccharide contamination. Lipopolysaccharides are bacterial toxins that can cause inflammation and health issues if they reach the bloodstream. “That can cause sepsis, toxic shock syndrome and anaphylaxis,” Dr. Rose explained.

So, aside from:

  • Changing your DNA (a permanent effect that is passed down to any offspring you might have)
  • giving you cancer (that’s what the SV40 does)
  • create bloodclots that are resistant to blood thinners because formed in a different protein chain event
  • have various nano-technologies that have now been observed under the microscope
  • contain graphite
  • contain HIV virus elements that cause immune-deficiencies
  • have been proven for 30 years to cause Antibody Dependent Enhancement, which invariably kills you

you also get to experience some sepsis, toxic shock, and anaphylaxis.

This is why I will now be referring to the toxic genetic serum, in the vernacular, as: murder-juice.

This is not hard

To all the squealing of those hurt and offended by my zealotry, all I have for you, is the silence of assent.

Of course their squeals are silent too, because they go directly to the permanent spam grave and I will never see one of their idiotic comments again, nor will anyone else, but the point is really not difficult.

There are only two kinds of people:

Those who love the truth, and those who do not.

While people can be in error and indeed we all are at some point on many things, those who are intellectually honest can and do correct their error when presented with objective facts that disprove their theories, beliefs and ideas. Of course, in areas where personal opinions of individuals, can sway large sections of the uneducated population, errors abound and many of these are fostered on the less knowing by those wishing to control them.

And wishing to control others for personal gain, makes you fall into the side of those people who do not love the truth.

There really is no other more meaningful distinction between human beings than this. Either you love the truth and prefer it to any lie, or you do not. And if you do not, I don’t really care about you, your feelings, and frankly, whether you continue to breathe oxygen or not.

I am not talking about people in error here, we all are to some degree or other. I am talking about people who knowingly chose a falsehood for personal gain over a truth that will benefit others but not gain them any advantage. Those people are my enemy. Directly, indirectly and perennially. There is no middle ground. I do not care for liars and their hatred for truth. I do not want them near me. I do not want to work with them, for them or have them work for me.

In fact, I don’t even understand how anyone can have anything to do with a knowing deceiver. Why would you even want that anywhere near you?

So, while I can stomach the deceived protestant that simply states that Church history, the patristic fathers and all the other evidence against protestantism being valid is not important to him and he just believes in a generic good God that loves us and the important thing is to do good and be good and treat people well, I will have nothing to do with a liar that states flatly that Popes did not exist in the year 900 AD and/or that the whole of Christendom was in fact Catholic up until 1050 or so.

One can be thought of as a simpleton, but a friend, the other as a flat out, knowing liar and deceiver and as such, nothing but an enemy.

With respect to people such as Bruce Charlton, as I explained, I do not think he is necessarily an intentional deceiver per se, in the sense that he’s financed by Soros to spread lies, or anything analogous to that. I think he is simply someone so invested in his own intellectual ego that he comes up with fancy —and perhaps superficially attractive to some— heresy.

Charitably, I do not ascribe to him the intent of wanting to lead souls to Hell, only the effect of it. He’s more drunk driver than intentional van-into-a-crowd driver.

And as such he requires calling out and exposing. Especially since quiet correction did not work and in these dire times, clarity of faith is the most important aspect of our existence, whether you realise it or not.

So yes.

I am an absolute zealot for truth. I will go to the wall for two plus two being four, now and forever. There has never been any question of that in my entire life. The real question here is:

Are you?

A bunch of ecumenical heretics dislikes me. Oh dear…

As I have explained before, I dislike cowards perhaps even more than outright evil doers.

I mean, the evil doers at least could be said to have some kind of “principles” even if it is just to serve Satan and cause harm. But cowards, well, cowards have none, they are the squishy molluscs of humanity, willing to fit in any crevice and mould themselves to any lie. And in all honesty, I apologise to molluscs for the comparison.

Intellectual cowards are no exception. They perform twists of strawman-logic that would make a crack addled prostitute blush for shame.

My post on the intellectual cowardice and general incompetent nihilism of Bruce Charlton brought yet another bunch of intellectual heretics and cowards out of the woodwork to “defend” him. They show themselves up as intellectually dishonest right in their about page of course:

Who We Are and What We Believe

Ortho:  Right, correct, straight. As in orthodoxy (right teaching), orthogonal (literally, right-sided; thus, right angled; so, perpendicular, independent) and orthognomon (right knowledge, right indicator (as of a carpenter’s square or a sundial)).

Sphere:  A domain, especially of influence. Thus,

Orthosphere: A domain of Christian orthodoxy independent of conventional conservatism.

We are Christians: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. We believe our religion is true, and we take the Bible and the Church Fathers as our guides to the faith. We do not innovate religiously, for that is folly.

We affirm our respective traditions where they disagree with the other branches of Christianity, but we do so respectfully, for we have much in common (catholic or mere Christianity) and our enterprise has as much to do with society as with religion.

 

Let us count the ways in which they lie:

1. We are Christians: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.

Yeah… so you are not Christian at all. You’re LARPing at it by being actually completely Protestant. Actual Catholics don’t recognise the schismatic Orthobros as validly Christians, much less the absurd 40,000 denominations and counting Protestants. Actual Orthobros also don’t see Catholics and certainly not Protestants as being valid Christians, and only the Protestants can hold the nonsensical position that anyone who says Jesus is Lord is a Christian. I mean, demons acknowledge that too… so yeah, they are just a bunch of happy clappy, kumbaya pretend “christians”. The correct word (at best) for these types is Churchians.

2. We believe our religion is true.

No, you don’t. You can’t say you believe X is true when you also assert Y and Z, neither of which is X and in fact are specifically NOT X are also true. Especially when Y has several competing versions of Y and Z has 40,000 competing versions. So you’re outright lying. What you really should say is that you will pretend to believe all sorts of conflicting and mutually exclusive nonsense in order to appear “tolerant” of the world and its lies. Because apparently, being tolerant of lies is a virtue. For you. Not for anyone intellectually honest, of course.

3. and we take the Bible and the Church Fathers as our guides

No, you don’t. If you did you would be actual Catholics.

4. We do not innovate religiously, for that is folly.

Ahahahhahahaha seriously, these people… I shake my head… how can anyone even remotely honest write this? Well they can’t. Because how can you, with a straight face, say you do not innovate religiously when you literally accept as “true” over 40,000 versions of your “truth”? And directly go completely against the Bible, tradition and the Church fathers all of which tell you to not deviate from the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church? Well you can’t. You have to be an absolutely shameless liar to do so, or a complete and utter drooling retard, and usually both.

5. We affirm our respective traditions where they disagree with the other branches of Christianity, but we do so respectfully, for we have much in common

Translation: We “respect” each other’s lies because being liars ourselves we can hardly point fingers. It has been and will always be a fact that actual Catholics affirm and believe, dogmatically, infallibly and forever that: There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Because Jesus, the Bible, the patristic fathers. So… if one actually was Catholic, one certainly cannot accept any other “branch” of “christianity” as being in any way valid. The same goes for the Orthobros schismatics. The only Churchians who could come up with this nonsense are the protestants, which is what this bunch of heretics are, regardless of what they pretend to be.

6. Mere Christianity

I have explained before my dissatisfaction with CS Lewis, which goes back to before I became a Christian, precisely because it is a mealy-mouthed “defence” of Churchianity and in typical British fashion, he skirts the main points, never actually facing them on, unlike, say, G.K. Chesterton.

7. and our enterprise has as much to do with society as with religion.

Translation: We are of the world as much as we are of “religion”. That’s really it.

That’s all we really need to know about them. And their incoherent squealing defence of Bruce is even worse. Yes that’s quite the achievement but it is. Honestly, I think “unhinged” is probably a better descriptor for them given the utter word salad they come up with.

They lament that one should simply “tell the truth” and support anyone who does, ever, when they do, even if they are demonic. Yes they literally say that.

Just speak the truth, then, and support all others who do … whether or not they do so consistently. Do this, even when they be demons; for, even, and perhaps especially, the demons cannot but testify to that truth which founds their very being.

So demons testify to the truth. That’s a novel one on me. But hey, I always said it: Protestants have the same method of measure for being a “christian” that demons do. At least these guys admit it, I suppose. And that’s literally the only truth they tell about themselves or anything else. Unwittingly, no doubt.

Oh and according to them, I criticised Bruce because of envy. Heh. That actually did get me to chuckle for real, as, I am sure, it would anyone that knows me in real life.

So yeah, thanks for confirming my points, that you gnostic, non-christian, heretic Churchians are a scourge on truth, and serve only to do the equivalent of adding large scoops of sewage to the ice cream of truth and then expect everyone to pretend it’s ice-cream.

No. It’s not. It’s sewage.

 

All content of this web-site is copyrighted by G. Filotto 2009 to present day.
Website maintained by IT monks