What follows are comments I submitted at Dan's Blog Of Lies And Perversions under his post of Aug 9 (https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2026/08/a-curse-to-fourth-generation.html). I don't know if he responded to them, or if he just did his typical deletion thing and then lied about what I said. I never scrolled down to the comments total to see if there's any change in that number one way or the other. When I finished submitting my comments, I just copied them to a file in anticipation of his eventual deletion of them (the probability of deletion is always extremely high, as it's easier for him than confronting that which he deletes), and now I've chosen to post them here. Refer to the link above to find out what nonsense provoked my response, or just pour through Craig's blog post and the subsequent comments there (https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2026/08/monkey-see.html).
I should also mention an earlier post at Dan's Blog Of Lies And Perversions (https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2026/06/happy-pride-to-beloved-community.html) which is referenced both at Craig's blog and Dan's linked post of pompous poop above. So here we go:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You start right off with lies and fasehoods:
"As always, I'm engaged with conversations with conservatives who believe the best of the white privileged male protesters on days of infamy like the January 6th uprising or nearly every Pride Parade,..."
First is another example of your self-loathing, white-guilted racism against white people, as every white dude who expresses an opposing opinion must be "privileged" to dare speak at all. There's not a person who is born of this nation who is not privileged, some more than others in various ways, but none so much that they deserve the arrogant condescension inherent in every instance whereby liars like you label them "privileged white guys". Worse is that you can't even, nor even so much as make the slightest attempt to connect their skin color to their expressed opinion, as if ONLY white people feel as do those you attack without just cause.
There was no "uprising" on January 6, but only the concerns of decent Americans who were treated badly for daring to express their concerns. Indeed, video evidence proves that from the start, the most vitriolic among them...few in number...were rebuked by those decent people (see Ray Epps, clips of people seeking to restrain the more destructive among them...also few in number), and it got out of hand after the Pelosi people began lobbing tear gas and flash bangs into peaceful crowds of marchers.
Those who protest at "Pride" events are more often than not peaceful in their protests against the participants, particularly given the often lurid behaviors of pro-LGBTQ participants. They almost never (I'm being generous here in suggesting they might ever) get violent with anyone.
"...and one thing that I believe these people are missing is the context of oppressor and oppressed."
Not at all. You just need to believe this. What's missing is the relevance of past oppression having any bearing on the expressed positions of those who disagree with your kind, as it has absolutely no relevance at all.
"In one recent conversation, the conservative posted a video where there was a white guy protesting against abortion rights and health rights for women. In that example, the white anti-abortionist (in THAT example) remained fairly calm and low-key."
Again with the racism! What possible difference does it make what race the protester is? Answer this question for a change!
The lie here is that he wasn't protesting against "abortion rights and health rights for women." He was protesting against the unnecessary murder of people in utero, as there is no medical reason for ever having to do that. He was advocating for life in ways you never do, and in this case, seek to suppress his most righteous message on the basis of the fictitious "right to abortion" and the equally fallacious "health rights for women".
What's more, he didn't "remain" "fairly calm and low-key". He came calm and had no reason to elevate his emotions because his cause is just and those attacking him have no argument rationalizing their doing so.
"In another example, I had offered the story of the interaction (cited in a previous recent post here) of the six white nationalist men protesting at this year's Louisville Gay Pride Day."
And no where in that previous post, nor in your pearl clutching comments at Craig's blog and not in this post either, have you offered any evidence that these six were "nationalists" in any way, but only that because they were white and righteously opposing those at the "Pride" event, they then must be.
"In one, we're talking about rights for women, in the other, we're talking about equal rights and opportunities for LGBTQ folks and their allies"
No. That's what you're trying to make them both to be. The reality is the promotion, defense, celebration and enabling of infanticide and sexual immorality.
"In each of those cases it is vital to remember that we are talking about
groups who have been historically abused,
oppressed,
maligned,
demonized,
harmed, and
killed
on the one hand and the oppressors on the other."
This is a lie. Again, you're trying to make it about that in order to abdicate your obligation to address that actual protests and objections to the things like the sexual immorality and infanticide you promote, celebrate, defend and enable.
"...if the oppressed and their allies were to get loud and yell, we must remember there is a historic memory of abuses towards women and denying the rights to women."
This is abjectly stupid and deceitful! Again, what relevance does past oppression have to the objections of those who protest against you privileged groups? And yes, those you defend are privileged. If you hit me with rocks last year, does that mean you're not allowed to deny me the ability to park my car on your lawn. Because you must remember there is a historic memory of abuses by you against me. How absurd you argument is! It's a dodge and nothing more.
"That makes it a charged situation for those on the side of the oppressed."
But of course, they're not even oppressed! You continue to assert that because some of them had been, then they must be accommodated in all things. That no one must ever oppose any demand for accommodation for even those things unrelated to having been oppressed.
"Trauma is a real thing caused by the real world history of abusive oppressors."
Any and every current "trauma" they experience/endure is totally self-inflicted.
"And in each of these cases, the oppression is not ancient history. It's still a fresh, recent thing, in our lifetimes only - and truly into our children's lifetimes - has it started to get a little bit better."
Yet, to whatever extent that's true at all, it's still wildly irrelevant. Public displays of celebration and lobbying by your "oppressed" people are demands for more privileges akin to the demand for reparations for slavery. There's no justification for it and past offenses aren't justifications. And it's not gotten "a little better"! It's gotten wildly insane and unjustified!
"If LGBTQ folks and their allies or women or others get their ire up and respond a bit frantically in the face of oppression rising back up, that's understandable."
No, it's not. But it is typical. Leftists always want to get violent when told their demands are the nonsense they are. And opposing their demands is not oppression at all, unless you can provide an example of any policy of oppression being proposed and in what way anyone would be truly "oppressed".
"We're talking about human rights and people are rightly, strongly and righteously emotionally defending human rights and warning against returning to days of oppression."
Another willful, intentionally told lie. It's not a matter of human rights at risk, nor about any "oppression" on the rise simply because your "oppressed" might not get yet another accommodation for which they are truly undeserving.
And the lies keep coming!
"In other words, even if the supporters of historic oppression remain relatively calm (and often, they don't), that's not to their credit. It doesn't win them any points."
Who are these "supporters of historic oppression" to whom you refer? You're now lying about those who oppose sexual immorality and infanticide as "supporters of historic oppression"??? What a slander! This is you demonizing better people again to defend those who aren't oppressed at all. What's more, those who oppose infanticide and sexual immorality aren't known for acting in any way other than calm. After all, they're typically not leftists/progressives!
"Picture Jesus pulling together a whip to drive out the money changers from the temple."
Another corruption of Scripture to defend immorality and murder! It's what we've come to expect from you. Here's a better analogy:
Imagine Jesus being crucified for preaching the Word of God against sexual immorality and infanticide. That's what YOU'RE doing by disparaging those who oppose what you celebrate, defend, enable and support. You're "crucifying" followers of Jesus who are defending and promoting HIS teachings. You're "martyring" His followers for the crime of telling the Truth. You seek to oppress them by lying about them and their message and intentions.
"Righteous burning active anger against oppression."
Another lie. It's UNrighteous burning anger against the truth and the fear that all others will wake up to it and accept it as the truth it is. Yet, none of that awakening seeks to oppress, but rather to end oppression...the oppression of sinful sexual desires and compulsions and more so, the oppression of the your kind against those in utero.
"God and reasonable people are rightfully outraged at oppression."
God has no truck with those you defend, celebrate, support and enable, nor with you for doing so. He and truly reasonable people are rightfully outraged at how badly your kind has brought moral decay to our culture.
"There was and continues to be active harm, ongoing harm caused by that oppression and it doesn't go away in a day."
None that you've ever identified, while at the same time you ignore true oppression, particularly the oppression of the unborn.
"Likewise the trauma experienced by all these other groups: women, LGBTQ folks, those with disabilities, immigrants."
Once again, you purposely place into your list those who do not belong...the disabled, as what they experience is not the result of anything unrelated to their disability. Women, "immigrants" (the lie that there's no distinguishing between those who come here according to our laws versus those who don't) and of course your beloved "LGBTQ" people. That's lying. It's like the fruit put on a list of vegetables with full knowledge it's not a vegetable.
"Those who would downplay the trauma from that oppression need to understand what they're asking when they're asking people to be calm in the face of oppression rising back up."
When you can identify specific examples of "oppression rising back up", that'll be the day. And yes, when decent and righteous people of character speak out against that what you falsely support as worthy of concern...speaking out against that which has no relation to any oppression, real or imagined....attacking them as "oppressors", "white privileged people" or worse, you expose yourself as the liar you are.
Now you'll delete some or all of my comments on the basis of your standard lies of disrespectful comments, when simply it's just because I shred your lies. You won't support your lies, or I would have addressed that support. Instead, you just lie, because that's how you roll.
18 comments:
Dan and his LEFTIST ilk live a victim mentality--everyone is always a victim of so-called white Christian racist nationalist. They are still victims of slavery for crying out loud, and almost everything nowadays is considered racist--unless a black person is the being the racist and then its only "pay back" or some other nonsense. Today I saw a post where woman claimed that 40 percent of American women are fat and it's all because of racism!!!!
Dan and his ILK have destroyed everything they touch. THEY are the racists.
Feodor defends the notion of same-sex marriage, which obviously includes the act of sodomy. That makes him an asshole on a whole special level.
I laugh out loud at how Dan pretends like he is more of a man, that he is better read, or more cultured. You could make a calm and reasoned reply to him, yet he would still release tears because of it. Dan just twists your words, tries to make you defend positions that you do not hold, or demands a dissertation amount of citations for your every sentence while providing nothing like that himself. He tried to do this at my site and got himself deleted in moderation.
I cannot help myself in making a separate comment about Feodor here. Nobody should take him seriously as an authority on anything, much less be insulted by any browbeating statements that he makes. I've documented a number of occasions at my site where he misuses and abuses scholarly sources to support his beliefs, assuming anyone wants specific examples. Feodor has a long history of parading himself with his wealth of pseudologia.
I remember him criticizing me for citing a Victorian era dictionary, while he weeks before made reference to Duns Scotus, who lived hundreds of years before! Feodor is fully aware that men from the past can have insights that still carry weight today, and that I would not treat such sources as if they were modern authorities. He just wants to control the script in an effort to bolster his egocentric views of reality.
Yeah...he's a special case. That's for sure. Danny Double-Standard.
feo's more special a case than Dan. He's Dan without a harness on his arrogance and self-aggrandizement. I find him tedious. From the first moment he soiled the blogosphere, he's attempted to posture and intellectually superior to all others, particularly those who aren't wallowing in the falseness of leftism as he is.
I would have no problem allowing him the privilege of having his comments published if he would not be a dick, limit his comments to the topic of the post (he thinks he can just add crap and expect it to be published despite his crap having no relevance to the topic) and stop trying to sound intelligent, given he clearly isn't. You know. Act like a normal person. But his ego is unable to be controlled by him. He's not worth the time. And he can't be trusted to "play nice". I outlawed him after he filled the blogs of Craig, Glenn and myself with literally hundreds of repetitions of the same stupid sentence. I. Mean. LITERALLY HUNDREDS! Again. He's not worth it. He's vermin.
LOL! Feodor literally published over one thousand snippets of comment threads that he had already left on other blogs through 2024 and 2025. He left me trying to piece together in my mind all what he was trying to say.
Feodor should be locked in a solitary confinement room with somebody like Alex Jones. That way, we can watch the heads of both lunatics collide and explode into pieces.
*at my blog
They are both pompous and arrogant people who have no problem trying to force others to accept their pronouncements as if repeating themselves is a substitute for Truth.
Two people sought to have posted submissions I no longer care to give a welcome. One was anonymous which seemed to defend feo, so I believe it was probably feo. The second from someone who identifies as "Tom Tillis", but without any link to a profile one could examine, and who sought simply to make disparaging remarks about feo. I won't argue that feo isn't well deserving of disparagement, but I'm not keen on anyone visiting just to crap on someone else, especially since a long-standing rule here is that no visitor gets to simply lob insults against other visitors, because that's my job alone. I'm open game for anyone, though there's a limit to that as well. So that crap won't fly, especially from one too cowardly to even have a profile available for review by anyone who cares to do so.
Feodor is bat shit crazy. He got rabies as a result of trying to become Batman.
True enough. At least the "feodor is bat shit crazy" bit. Don't know anything about rabies or Batman.
But one thing which is amazingly absurd is his belief he lives rent free in our brains. That's a pretty bold statement coming from someone so determined as he is to force his unwanted comments on our blogs. He's not "living rent free" except as a squatter lives rent free where he neither belongs or is welcomed.
The sad part is that all he has to do to change that fact is to dispense with the unjustified arrogance and condescension, don't impose unwanted opinions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of a given post simply because his low character hasn't led to people flocking to his blog to read what he has to say next. Just be normal. He doesn't have to agree, he just needs to stop being such an unmitigated dickhead (and apologize for past offenses) and all will be well. He won't. He likes being a dickhead far too much.
The problem with Dan's premise (that we somehow need to make special accommodation for past oppression) is that the US has legally codified the end to those oppressions. Slavery and discrimination are illegal, those who were or might have been oppressed at some point in the past, are now legally protected and have legal recourse to deal with perceived oppression in the present.
What Dan then does is to conflate oppression in law, with failure to affirm and support every whim of every group. My belief regarding the "trans" situation is not oppression, it's disagreement. Yet, Dan seems to think otherwise.
What is bizarre is that there are plenty of countries, worldviews, religions, and cultures that are actively engaged in actual oppression yet Dan doesn't seem particularly interested in those examples. He's obsessed with past oppression, to the exclusion of present oppression.
Dan cites "past abuses and oppression" to suppress opposing opinion on the behaviors of the "abused and oppressed", because he has no legitimate, mature and intelligent way to defend against pointing out bad behaviors of those "abused and oppressed" in the past. In doing so, he pretends such objections to the whims and demands and bad behaviors of such people are akin to the actual "past abuses and oppression" they might have suffered.
For example: What possible relevance does the past patriarchal culture have to do with the fact that abortion is rank murder and should be outlawed? Answer: none whatsoever. And Dan's incapable of making the case that it does or might. He can't honestly argue in defense of murder, so like a lefty does, he reframes it to his advantage.
If one follows Dan's premise to the logical conclusion, no one who's group has ever been oppressed has any culpability or agency because (apparently) this vestigial oppression can never stop. In the US, the legal "oppression" has been eliminated for quite some time. Which makes this more of an excuse for people. The problem is that every group has been "oppressed" at some point in history, so how does one choose which vestigial "oppression" deserves special treatment and which does not.
The fact that Dan is virtually silent on countries and cultures that are actually engaging in systematic oppression right now (as opposed to hundreds/thousands of years ago), and that Dan is broadly supportive of those who come from or cultures or ideologies which are oppressive, just shows how incoherent his premise really is.
Indeed. Anyone who's ever been abused and oppressed in the past is totally absolved of all responsibility for what they do to others or what they do to themselves. As to the latter, it means that what was done to them can automatically be attributed to current abuse and oppression by some unknown bad actor. But we don't need to know who that bad actor is, just suffice it to say that the suffering was abuse and oppression inflicted upon the member of a given group who were victims of past abuse and oppression.
Nothing the members of these groups do can be criticized because of past abuse and oppression and thus to criticize is no less than abuse and oppression, even when factually proven proposals which would benefit said members of these groups accompany the criticism. Regardless of the harm they cause to themselves or others, let them be, because they're of a group which have historically been abused and oppressed in the past. Indeed, having been members of such groups historically abused and oppressed in the past, they're worthy of nothing less than glowing praise and adulation.
"...so how does one choose which vestigial "oppression" deserves special treatment and which does not."
That's the easy part. Does Dan like 'em? If so, then dammit, they're deserving without question!
"The fact that Dan is virtually silent on countries and cultures that are actually engaging in systematic oppression right now (as opposed to hundreds/thousands of years ago), and that Dan is broadly supportive of those who come from or cultures or ideologies which are oppressive, just shows how incoherent his premise really is."
When need be, Dan will simply assert his concern is focused on his own country and community. This allows him to ignore actual and far more brutal abuses and oppression than that which no longer happens to his favored groups, but rather happened in the past, which dammit is enough to continue demanding support and special treatment for his favored groups, as if they're actually deserving, rather than asserted as deserving due to this "history of abuse and oppression".
Of course and again, the real issue is that this appeal to past abuse and oppression is just another means by which Dan hopes to stifle legitimate concerns, criticisms and proposals for those Dan defends without any other true and legitimate justification.
Ultimately, Dan's premise totally breaks down with his support of Islam. Islam has always been an oppressor worldview by Dan's definition, and is continuing to oppress Dan's favorite oppressed groups significantly. That Dan deems Israel an oppressor, and the Arab/Muslim world as oppressed simply demonstrates the insanity of his premise.
Dan's entire philosophy breaks down because it has no solid foundation in truth and facts. It's based entirely on subjective feelings and ideological nonsense.
Post a Comment