2019/04/09

I'm Not Saying It's Demons...

In all the years I've run this blog, nothing I've written has triggered the Leftist death cult more than my observation that their heretical religion is demonically informed and motivated.

Here's a comment that recently showed up out of the blue on a post I wrote almost four years ago.


Note the result of my little demonic activity check. The anon who went to the trouble of digging up a post from 2015 just to leave a mocking comment suddenly falls silent when I ask him to make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. This wasn't the last instance of that phenomenon.

A reference to the same post from 2015 appears in a 2017 post by a blogger and Hugo nominee who calls himself Camestros Felapton.

16th Century

Camestros wants everyone to know that he had a hearty laugh over my warning that Leftists show signs of demonic obsession. I clearly don't know that it's Current Year. Anyway, he isn't bothered by superstitious hocus pocus.

But then, just four days after the drive-by comment on my old demonic activity post, Camestros himself showed up to troll the comments.

Camestros Felapton1

Camestros Felapton2

That's him performing Exorcist style contortions to deny me the satisfaction of hearing him admit that  this shape is a triangle:

blue triangle
And note that he specifically won't admit it to me. He has no problem calling the triangle by its right name in his first comment in the second image, which was a reply to someone else in the same thread.

I went ahead and applied the test.

2 choices

Suddenly the trolling stops. It's like flipping a switch! A pattern is starting to emerge here.

SJWs may always lie, but even though they have no problem running their mouths when it comes to snarky sniping at normal people, they can't bring themselves to profess faith in You Know Who, not even in jest.

Guess what an aversion to holy things is a sign of.

By the way, the name of the tipster who alerted Camestros to my post rings a bell. Why does the name Doris V. Sutherland sound familiar?

Oh, yeah. "Doris" is a six-foot-tall cyberstalking tranny.

Drag Queen Story Time

Can't imagine why an actually mentally ill cyberstalker would take issue with me pointing out the rampant demonic influence on the Left.

By now everyone knows that the slippery slope is real. What the death cult vehemently denies one day, they violently enforce the next. Just as with butt marriage and child trannyfreakism, your celebration of and participation in open satanism will soon be legally mandated.

Free market worship and the NAP are no match for the twisted religion of conquest that is the current Left. Wake up, repent, and believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has authority over demons.

46 comments:

  1. I wonder why silence rather than a denial?

    Or if anything can be read into it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was no way to turn it into a Gotcha comment. Gammas live for those.

      Delete
    2. Well I know it.

      Ah. My original thought was that Camestros would issue a denial, which would at least be saying something he believes to be true. But Brian said that the only way any more commenting would be allowed is if he admitted it. So that's why there will be no public denial.

      Delete
    3. Correct. I gave him the choice of confessing faith in Jesus Christ or shutting up. His kind can't go on record endorsing Christianity, even in jest, or lose their standing in the death cult.

      It's an object lesson showing that, underneath their blather about social justice, diversity, and equality, the Left's one driving principle is irrational hatred of the Christ.

      Note also that this is why basic Conservatives who accept the Liberal frame can't deal effectively with these people.

      Delete
    4. @DJ Cowan

      Yes, Cameltoe is a perfect textbook example of gamma. Just reading his goal post moving is embarrassing. He reeks of "chicks be gone."

      Delete
  2. Excellent follow up. Interesting to catalog the behavior of these freaks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The old adage, "Don't listen to what they say, pay attention to what they do," applies here.

      Putting aside the issue of God's existence, our enemy undeniably hates Him. It's not grudging resentment, either. It's frothing, genocidal rage.

      Of course, the question then arises, what in the world could instill that kind of hate? The material realm is at a loss to provide an answer.

      Delete
  3. I just don't know how anyone can deny the existence of demons at this point in history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By not thinking through or not being willing to accept the implications of what they believe.

      Delete
    2. Researching freemasonry and the great world conspiracy actually converted me, by first proving to me Satan's existence, which leads directly to Christ being God.

      Delete
    3. Praise God for the grace of conversion!

      Delete
  4. "The mob went along with the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the philosophers and the moralists. It went along with the imperial magistrates and the sacred priests, the scribes and the soldiers, that the one universal human spirit might suffer a universal condemnation; that there might be one deep, unanimous chorus of approval and harmony when Man was rejected of men."
    -G.K. Chesterton

    ReplyDelete
  5. @JD,
    That was my first thought. Pure gamma in its distilled form. He's arguing semantics instead of answering the question. Either it's a triangle or it isn't. This isn't Schrodinger's geometric shape.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The left so habitually projects their faults onto others that they project the fact that their projecting onto to others.

    That's meta.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When you are able to argue truth and argue it well, the liars have to come along to cast aspersions. They come out of the woodwork because you are a threat to them, which means you're doing something right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Atheists tell us that we are backwards and dumb for our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but when we talk about demons and those in league with Satan (witches) they switch from smirking to shrieking. They know that many who profess faith with their mouths are themselves deceived. Many have taken the spiritual equipment list as symbolism rather than as a checklist. To some the Tempter is merely their own personal failings.

    The Satan want you to deny Christ, but he will settle for the denial of Satan. “One of the most striking proofs of the personal existence of Satan, which our times afford us, is found in the fact, that he has so influenced the minds of multitudes in reference to his existence and doings, as to make them believe that he does not exist”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist."

      Delete
    2. Getting them to deny his existence while doing his bidding is the clearest sign that we strive not with flesh and blood.

      Delete
  9. There is a difference between a perfect, Platonic triangle and a good-enough-for-our-purposes triangle, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Different or not, they're both triangles. Word games do not change the truth of the matter.

      Delete
    2. Jared,
      there's a hoary Latin aphorism facit nomen rem

      The name makes the thing.
      So names essential define/name the object.
      xavier

      Delete
    3. Nothing in the physical world takes on a perfect form... so it's a representation of a triangle, not a triangle. In everyday speech it doesn't matter, but he had a point. If he was maneuvering for a gotcha, well, screw that, but that's seperate thing.

      Am I the only person who sees the difference?

      Delete
    4. Define your terms, oh perspicacious one. What do you mean by representation? Regarding matter and form, a two legged dog is still a dog. Losing two of its legs doesn’t change said dog into a representation of a dog.

      Delete
    5. I don't deserve the sarcasm. Would you rather I lie to you and say I understood when I don't?

      I suppose representation means mental model.

      A triangle is a mathematical construct. It's a two dimensional shape and we live in a three dimensional world. Like I said, in everyday speech it doesn't matter. But properly speaking this particular type of mental model by it's very nature can never exist in the physical world.

      A dog can.

      If you've got better categories, just tell me what to read. Right now, only one person has recommended anything to investigate.

      Delete
    6. Oops. That definition is no good. Maybe this: a representation is an sensory object which points to a mental model.

      Delete
    7. There are a few things here.

      First if you're arguing that forms only exist in our minds and we project them onto the things we see and those things we see do not have any connection to their own forms in a real way this will lead you into solipsism. If you apply this reasoning consistently then you have to view letters and words the same way you view that triangle. Indeed everything around you would be a meaningless menagerie of color signifying nothing. Sticking to letters though you'd have to say that an A is a representation of an A and not an actual A.

      Let's go further. Is any human body the perfect Platonic body? No and therefor from your reasoning no one has an actual body people only have representations of body. I could go further but it should be clear the goofy places your line of reasoning will take you.

      Delete
    8. "First if you're arguing that forms only exist in our minds and we project them onto the things we see and those things we see do not have any connection to their own forms in a real way."

      I'm not saying that at all.

      "If you apply this reasoning consistently then you have to view letters and words the same way you view that triangle. Indeed everything around you would be a meaningless menagerie of color signifying nothing."

      Of course not. Symbols signify.

      Have you ever heard the phrase "the map is not the territory" ? No one who says that means that maps are useless.

      I can't really go any further if you can't agree with that.

      "Is any human body the perfect Platonic body?"

      A photograph or a description of a human body is not a human body. A human body is a human body.

      A triangle is a first and foremost an abstraction that we bring into form because the forces it represents (embodies?) are very useful and beautiful to us. A human or dog body is a physical object that we try to describe and categorize because doing so makes life livable.

      It's a lot easier to start with something which is first and foremost an abstraction and understand how it is perfect. Starting with something which is first and foremost physical and trying to work out it's perfect form is a lot harder and something I've never spent any time doing.

      Delete
  10. My major interaction with Camestros came after I wrote an srticle on Superversive SF where I wondered why so many modern movies that I liked so much the first time I watched them seemed so much worse the more I thought about them. I used as an example The Force Awakens. I originally liked it; now I can tell it's actually terrible.

    Felapton's response was that it was clearly all in my head; that nostalgia was blinding me to faults in older movies and that my conservative biases were making me make out modern films to be worse than they are.

    But there was a problem with this. I had watched A New Hope only a year or so before TFA. I had enjoyed it, not loved it. Then I rewatched it and realized it was better than I had remembered. So there was obviously no nostalgia going on.

    And then there's the mind reading involved. I actually had never mentioned politics or social issues in my post. It was specifically about quality. But Felapton knew, could read my mind and tell, that it was really because of my secret unconscious hatred of all things progressive that made me think those movies were bad, not objective qualities.

    It was, however, a perfect SJW response. Disagree with me? Well, I can't actually argue with you. I'll just call you a bigot instead!

    Wheeeeeeeeeeeee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does that mean that the prequels were all timeless classics and I'm just too stupid/bigoted to see it?

      Delete
    2. "I used as an example The Force Awakens. I originally liked it; now I can tell it's actually terrible."

      It really is. Abrams filled the dumpster with gasoline. Johnson just lit the match.

      Delete
    3. The more you think about it the worse it gets.

      This is true of a lot of modern films.

      Delete
    4. The Force Awakens benefited from not being the prequels. I think Abrams tried to make a good faith effort but was trapped by the current SJW mentality in Hollywood. The Last Jedi on the other hand, was a deliberate dumpster fire.

      Delete
    5. I disagree. TFA was less of a good faith effort than the prequels. It was a nostalgic cash-in.

      TFA took the laziest way out possible every single time options were open to them. The reason the movie "works" for people on a first viewing is that he ripped off all of the same plot beats as ANH. Those plot beats are effective, so it's enjoyable on a base level.

      It fails on a rewatch because you realize that that is *all* he did. There was no effort put into making something new, no passion. Just a beat by beat rehash but without even a pretense of having it make sense.

      Ultimately TFA was lazy. It did exactly what it had to but no more - unless you want to count Abrams shoehorning in lame, weakfisted feminism as "more".

      He didn't care about making a good movie and didn't try. He cared about making a profit - so he did what he had to to do it. That's it. It was bad faith and turtles, all the way down.

      Delete
    6. Link to the article?

      Delete
    7. http://www.superversivesf.com/2017/12/15/the-wall-of-cards/

      Delete
    8. Thank you kindly.

      Delete
  11. "The reason the movie "works" for people on a first viewing is that he ripped off all of the same plot beats as ANH."

    That I can't argue with.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And Camestros has shown up to JCW, not making comments that I can see, but tossing likes to the trolls.

    And all I can think is, "I was unimpressed with the argument. The immediate pile-on liking and congratulations looks awfully staged."

    But this isn't about trying to convince any honest man, or about having any honest conversation.

    It's all about status among the SJWs, and especially the gammas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >An atheist anon shows up here out of the blue to troll a four year-old post. Gets BTFO'd.
      >Days later, Camestros does the same thing on a recent post. Gets BTFO'd and banned.
      >Shortly after, an unknown reader asks John C. Wright to do a post on the same topic we were discussing here when Camestros got BTFO'd.
      >An unfamiliar commenter immediately shows up to spam the comments with basi bitch nu-atheist boilerplate.
      >Multiple other nu-atheist accounts, which Wright's regulars instantly suspect of being sock puppets, show up to cheerlead for the first, including Camestros.

      A man who acknowledged an intelligible universe of cause and effect might suspect that a butthurt internet atheist rounded up a posse of fellow fedora-tippers and sock puppet accounts to vent his frustration on the friend and coreligionist of a theologian who'd humiliated him.

      But we have it on good authority that there is no underlying cause for the universe or anything that happens here, so all of these must be isolated freak events.

      Delete
  13. Not sure if I entirely agree on the aspect of it being "demonic" as in most cases the only wretched thing present in these people's lives is themselves. In most cases its more akin to a extreme mental illness or personality disorders, often the result of fatherlessness, Godlessness, and childhood abuse in their lives. I posit this based on the fact that, if these types are demonically obsessed the activity would over time spill over into one of the various other areas, or multiple areas, rather than progress along defined lines of a mental illness or being a child never having been held accountable for their actions. Not to mention that with some light medication or threat of consequences to things they *care* about their behavior immediately clears up.

    This isn't to say that some of them aren't being demonically effected, its just far more likely that they are extremely sick individuals who, if we lived in a sane world, would have been committed and cured by now rather than being free to extreme detriment of everything.

    I will consider your position however, as it does explain some things but comes off as far too optimistic imo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And of course I didn't check that this is from April, lfmao

      Delete
    2. Only 20-25% are demonically obsessed. About 2% are full-on possessed.

      Delete