Answering John C. Wright's lies

John C. Wright lied about me before banning me from his comments section, so I will reply here.

**** first insult

in reply to:
Disqus - In Small and in Large | https://disqus.com/home/discussion/scifiwright/in_small_and_in_large/?utm_source=reply&utm_medium=email&utm_content=comment_date#comment-3360237954

> You mean 'explain' not 'expand' Mr. Glossolalia.

No, I meant expand. I condense great meaning into few words, which I would expect an author to be able to unpack. (I guess we are running into your weird cognitive lopsidedness.)

Had you any specific question, I might explain that point. But since you merely signalled incomprehension of the whole, you were in effect requesting a rewriting of the whole, ie an expansion.

You are not qualified to tell me what I mean.

> Because that would require verbal and cognitive skills your stay in the Happy Acres Asylum for the Criminally Stupid let atrophy.

You're lying, gamma.

**** second insult

in reply to:
Disqus - In Small and in Large | https://disqus.com/home/discussion/scifiwright/in_small_and_in_large/?utm_source=reply&utm_medium=email&utm_content=comment_date#comment-3360249624

> Aha! An atheist who is 10 to 20 years old who is mad at his father.

I am a Christian. That is not my age; you cannot add. I am not angry at my father. You're lying again, gamma.

My father is, I suspect, a better man than you. He was able to learn and change in response to new information. He is Alt-Right now. You are Alt-Lite.

The basic theme of my original post was that there are multiple possible paths the relationship between you and your son can take, as your smarmy Boomer Alt-Lite lies work their destruction on his formative years, of which this Boy Scouts expulsion is perhaps the firstfruits.

> You decided that instead of taking your medications and going to therapy, to take out your hatred and anger on some random science fiction writer?

You're not random. You're a pompously anti-racist Boomer member of the Voxosphere who recently screwed over his son and then made a humblebragging blog post about his Boomer nobility therein.

Since I know from personal experience the evil you preach and practice, it falls to me to rebuke you. Else your son's future betrayals by you would also be on my head. Your proud and wilful sin deserves public rebuke, as the Bible says.

> And your hatred is because you think I should be a racist, and hate people I don't know for reasons I cannot put into words, like you?

No, you lying Boomer gamma. That is not my position.

And I didn't answer any questions about racism for the obvious reason that you didn't ask any.

 

Scott Adams talks a lot about cognitive dissonance. Someone can't mentally process information that contradicts their self-conception, so they hallucinate a different argument and "defeat" the strawman instead.

Example, media types think they're smart and savvy. Trump wins a semi-rigged game despite resistance from his own party, using methods no one though could work.

Do media talking heads (or DNC for that matter) take a single second to go "Shit, that actually worked. Maybe he's smarter than we thought?" No, that would be like admitting they are dumb. Obviously it's THE RUSSIANS/Sabotage/BernieBros/LITERALLY HITLER.


Likewise, Wright is doing the classic "You disemboweled my child but I forgive you, so at least I'm not racist." Calling him a Boomer pussy patting himself on the back for abandoning his son to evil... Well that conflicts with how he sees himself.

Watching your son get shanked by everyone he was told to trust... and explaining how you're too holy to fight back... is actually a principled moral stance. "They're not attacking you, son, they're attacking Christ. Besides, if you kill your enemies, they win."



I'd say Koanic already understood all this, going by his comments. It's funny that Wright apparently couldn't understand Koanic's comments at all.

"You're betraying your son with this moralizing surrender. It's gonna bite when your kid's either a racist or paying jizya." Right? I dunno, maybe I've just been here too long.

He's managed to avoid disavowing Vox Day, and only tut-tutted at the prospect of those racist kids creating identity groups of their own... hopefully one day things might change.

Random thought: Reading some of his blog, John C. Wright reminds me of Glosoli in attitude and writing style.

 

Aspie longface. Scalzi with smaller eyes.

 

Sorry you had that run-in with Wright; good for you for doing the public rebuke. Much good it did...

I wrote Wright off a few months ago when I saw what a liar he was on the topic of geocentricity. Not everyone here is geocentric. Maybe I'm on the only geocentric. Nevertheless, if Wright had Truth on his side, he wouldn't have resorted to a series of outrageous lies to "debunk" geocentricity. Then he refused to read the public rebuke/rebuttal that Robert Sungenis gifted him with.

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/wp.../10/John-C-Wright-Could-Not-be-More-Wrong.pdf

And this debate is Catholic vs Catholic, so we can't even chalk it up to denominational differences. Wright started off as an atheist, then he went Catholic (the biggest, "safest" Christian denomination), he married a Jewess. In the photos I've seen, she looked a few shades darker than your typical Jewess. Perhaps African? Maybe the photos I've seen were false photos, but his wife didn't look Jewish, she looked like a kinky haired, big-lipped Negress from the heart of Africa.

I know Geocentricity isn't everyone's bag here. I am content that at least Tex is open to it. But if you look at that PDF linked above, the depth of Wright's scientific posturing and lying is just over the top incredible. He may claim to be Catholic, but it isn't the spirit of Christ that speaks through him. And he is gifted with words, with turns of phrase, with metaphors and similes. But his threats and posturing do seem really Gamma.

My ancestors figured out that Papism was a deception from the pits of Hell many centuries ago. But from Wright's behavior, I'm not even sure he is deceived. Is he yet another atheist using Catholicism as a socially respectable "beard" to hide his true loyalty?

 

Quote from the beginning of that PDF, and boy, does the author deliver on his promise:

 

Sungenis seems hooknose MT, somewhat remniscient of Ted Cruz.


(Left)

 

Also, I'd never heard of Wright before this post but the general impression I get from him reminds me of Rod Dreher.

"Dreher and his fellow Christcucks are Christian drag queens, to them religion is just something to sashay about in."

 

"Ye shall know them by their fruits fedora tipping."

 

Whenever I saw John C. Wright's comments on Vox Day they seemed very stilted to me and he came across as a close-minded person with a head full of cliches. Seeing the snide way he responded to Sungenis reinforced that impression. In the video in question Sungenis spoke in a very unctuous fashion and Wright just latched on to that superficiality while responding poorly to the substance of his talk..

Geocentricism is not the only alternative cosmology which is compatible with empirical observation. The notion that the Earth was an object floating in empty space was invented by ancient Greeks. An inside-out universe with strange geometry could also exist inside of a Hollow Earth. It has been argued that The Divine Comedy depicts the universe including Heaven and Hell as a 3-sphere, which may have interesting ramifications regarding teleparallelism and realism in quantum mechanics.

 

The "milady" is strong in this one...

 

Thankfully not all Catholics let their forgiveness get in the way of vengeance.

 

I appreciate that you guys zeroed in on the thing that set me off. Besides the recapitulation of my personal history that is clearly occurring here at least to some extent, the specific issue was sending his son to experience tribal alienation at an age when he is too young to compartmentalize it. That's the kind of thing that leaves a lasting mark, a life inflection point.

I inflicted that on myself in the name of fighting the culture war for Christ, and it was a stupid thing to do.

 

I think he has pledged sincere fealty to Christ.

His incomprehension is probably partly character flaw, but also he has quite lopsided cognitive abilities.

A man can only travel so far in one lifetime. I just hope one day when I'm old and passe that I have the grace to shut up. But I probably won't.

 

Re Dreher (Ophi's earlier image has vanished, so apologies if redundant):





Obvious occ + upwardnose, probable temps. Resembles Card. Solipsism, childishness, as pointedly indicated in Ophiu's link.

"This inspiring encounter produces such a relevatory effect on Dreher that it alters the book he is writing--a defeatist, depressive book about how Christians need to hide themselves away in quasi-cult enclaves."

Smells like an MT reacting to value weaving on behalf of adoption of quasi-thal group size.

 

If so, his ears are stuffed with cotton. His Christ isn't the Christ of the
Bible, since he rejects that as a literal book. If the Catholic church wasn't
so cucked... actually, to be honest, how can he claim to be Catholic, they'd
never graduate him from catechism class with some of his views about the Bible.
I don't see how someone can claim fealty to Christ and then lie so blatantly
and openly. It is one thing to not be able to go as far as one should; it is
quite another to invent lies out of whole cloth. Taqqiya much?

I couldn't quite get this post into the 10000 character limit for posts, so
I'll break it into two.

Quote from the PDF rebuke linked above:

Wright: The problem with Biblical literalism is that it requires a
firmament of water above the atmosphere, plants older than the sun, and the
presence of unicorns in the wilderness, leviathans in the sea, and God having
hands and feet and wings and so on.

Sungenis: So now we see the root of the problem. Mr. Wright doesn’t like
reading the Bible at face value. So he will try to prove his point by showing
you his favorite “biblical errors” and use them to prejudice you against the
Bible and allow himself to discredit whatever he doesn’t like in the Bible. So
let’s go through Mr. Wright’s objections one by one:

Wright: “it requires a firmament of water above the atmosphere”

Sungenis: Genesis 1 does not say the firmament is either water or is
above the atmosphere. The firmament is space itself, as stated in both
Genesis 1:6-9 and Genesis 1:14-20. If Mr. Wright then wants to contend that
water cannot be outside of space, then he will have to prove it, not just
assert it. In these cases, I’ll take the word of the Fathers. Unlike Mr.
Wright, they weren’t afraid to take Scripture at face value, particularly St.
Augustine: With this reasoning some of our scholars attack the position of
those who refuse to believe that there are waters above the heavens while
maintaining that the star whose path is in the height of the heaves is cold.
Thus they would compel the disbeliever to admit that water is there not in a
vaporous state but in the form of ice. But whatever the nature of that water
and whatever the manner of its being there, we must not doubt that it does
exist in that place. The authority of Scripture in this matter is greater that
all human ingenuity.

Wright: “plants older than the sun.”

Sungenis: As I said, Mr. Wright gives us either half-truths, downright lies, or
ignorance. This one is a half-truth since Genesis 1 allows no more than one day
between the plants created on the Third Day and the sun created on the Fourth
Day. Of course, Mr. Wright also leaves out the fact that the Light of the First
Day in Genesis 1:3 serves as light and heat for the plants created on the Third
Day (but I wouldn’t expect Mr. Wright to read the Bible that carefully, much
less believe what it says. After all, he will tell us that he is “Roman
Catholic” and thus doesn’t have to believe what the Bible says).

Wright: “the presence of unicorns”

Sungenis: Here Mr. Wright wants to prejudice you against the fact that unicorns
were once real animals and make you feel silly for believing they once
existed, all without the slightest proof, of course. This is how attorneys
work. They make leading suggestions to the jury to get them to think a certain
way (at least until the judge stops them). The fact is, unicorns are no
stranger than the extinct Dodo bird.

Here is a logical explanation from Answers in Genesis (but we can depend upon
it that Mr. Wright’s research went no farther than his own prejudice): Modern
readers have trouble with the Bible’s unicorns because we forget that a
single-horned feature is not uncommon on God’s menu for animal design.
(Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.) The Bible describes unicorns
skipping like calves (Psalm 29:6), traveling like bullocks, and bleeding when
they die (Isaiah 34:7). The presence of a very strong horn on this
powerful, independent-minded creature is intended to make readers think of
strength. The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to
doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but
we do not doubt that it existed in the past.) Eighteenth century reports from
southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce,
single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn,
directly in front, about as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick.
. . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead,
but fixed only in the skin.” The elasmotherium, an extinct giant rhinoceros,
provides another possibility for the unicorn’s identity. The elasmotherium’s
33-inch-long skull has a huge bony protuberance on the frontal bone consistent
with the support structure for a massive horn.

In fact, archaeologist Austen Henry Layard, in his 1849 book Nineveh and Its
Remains, sketched a single-horned creature from an obelisk in company with
two-horned bovine animals; he identified the single-horned animal as an Indian
rhinoceros. The biblical unicorn could have been the elasmotherium. Assyrian
archaeology provides one other possible solution to the unicorn
identity crisis. The biblical unicorn could have been an aurochs (a kind of
wild ox known to the Assyrians as rimu). The aurochs’s horns were symmetrical
and often appeared as one in profile, as can be seen on Ashurnasirpal II’s
palace relief and Esarhaddon’s stone prism. Fighting rimu was a popular sport
for Assyrian kings. On a broken obelisk, for instance, Tiglath-Pileser I
boasted of slaying them in the Lebanese mountains. Extinct since about 1627,
aurochs, Bos primigenius, were huge bovine creatures. Julius Caesar
described them in his Gallic Wars as, . . . a little below the elephant in
size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. Their strength and
speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have
espied. . . . Not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to
men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from
the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips
with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.

One scholarly urge to identify the biblical unicorn with the Assyrian aurochs
springs from a similarity between the Assyrian word rimu and the Hebrew word
re’em. We must be very careful when dealing with anglicized transliterated
words from languages that do not share the English alphabet and phonetic
structure. However, similar words in Ugaritic and Akkadian (other languages of
the ancient Middle East) as well as Aramaic mean “wild bull” or “buffalo,” and
an Arabic cognate means “white antelope.” To think of the biblical unicorn as a
fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.

However, the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns
the biblical unicorn had. While modern translations typically translate
re’em as “wild ox,” the King James Version (1611), Luther’s German
Bible (1534), the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate translated this Hebrew word
with words meaning “one-horned animal.” The importance of the biblical unicorn
is not so much its specific identity—much as we would like to know—but its
reality. The Bible is clearly describing a real animal. The unicorn mentioned
in the Bible was a powerful animal possessing one or two strong
horns—not the fantasy animal that has been popularized in movies and
books. Whatever it was, it is now likely extinct like many other animals. To
think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word,
which is true in every detail.

Some writers who hold to the two-horned identity think that the KJV translators
substituted the plural unicorns for the singular an unicorn in Deuteronomy
33:17 because they were uncomfortable with the idea of a two-horned unicorn.
However, the KJV translators themselves noted the literal translation an
unicorn in their own margin note. They likely chose the plural rendering to fit
the context of the verse. Deuteronomy 33:17 states, “His [Joseph’s] glory is
like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of
unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth:
and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of
Manasseh” (KJV). The verse compares the tribal descendants of Joseph’s “horns,”
meaning descendants of his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, with the strong horns
of unicorns. “Horns” is plural because there are two sons in view, and
“unicorn” is referenced because the unicorn’s horn is so incredibly strong.

 

Contination of Quote from last post:

Wright: “leviathans in the sea”

Sungenis: Again, the attempt is to imply that leviathan is a creature that
never existed and thus the Bible can’t be trusted, all said, of course, without
the slightest proof or even evidence from Mr. Wright. All Mr. Wright had to do
(which he won’t) is look up Leviathan on the internet, and he would have found
something like this: ...(jointed monster ) occurs five times in the text of the
Authorized Version, and once in the margin of (Job 3:8) where the text has
"mourning." In the Hebrew Bible the word livyathan, which is, with the
foregoing exception, always left untranslated in the Authorized Version, is
found only in the following passages: (Job 3:8; 41:1; Psalms 74:14; 104:26;
Isaiah 27:1). In the margin of (Job 3:8) and text of (Job 41:1) the crocodile
is most clearly the animal denoted by the Hebrew word. (Psalms 74:14 ) also
clearly points to this same saurian. The context of (Psalms 104:26) seems to
show that in this passage the name represents some animal of the whale tribe,
which is common in the Mediterranean; but it is somewhat uncertain what animal
is denoted in (Isaiah 27:1). As the term leviathan is evidently used in no
limited sense, it is not improbable that the "leviathan the piercing serpent,"
or "leviathan the crooked serpent," may denote some species of the great
rock-snakes which are common in south and west Africa.

Wright: “God having hands and feet and wings and so on”

R. Sungenis: First of all, the Bible never says God has wings. Second, a common
mistake is that since God is omnipresent, then he cannot localize himself in
figures having hands and feet. God can localize his presence anyway he chooses
(Exodus 33:19).

 

Some dank OC in this thread, really thick stuff. Nothing like a drama to get all sorts of interesting information out. I'd never heard of the unicorn thing.

 

Yeah, well, Wright's a Catholic, so he's all about that tradition, not the Book.

 

One does not simply trigger Mycroft without bringing towering walls of text crashing down upon oneself.