Friday, April 20, 2018

The 11 percent metric

Modern science is actually less reliable than flipping a coin. The Wall Street Journal reports on scientific efforts to address the reproducibility crisis:
Half the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are probably wrong. John Ioannidis, now a professor of medicine at Stanford, made headlines with that claim in 2005. Since then, researchers have confirmed his skepticism by trying—and often failing—to reproduce many influential journal articles. Slowly, scientists are internalizing the lessons of this irreproducibility crisis. But what about government, which has been making policy for generations without confirming that the science behind it is valid?

The biggest newsmakers in the crisis have involved psychology. Consider three findings: Striking a “power pose” can improve a person’s hormone balance and increase tolerance for risk. Invoking a negative stereotype, such as by telling black test-takers that an exam measures intelligence, can measurably degrade performance. Playing a sorting game that involves quickly pairing faces (black or white) with bad and good words (“happy” or “death”) can reveal “implicit bias” and predict discrimination.

All three of these results received massive media attention, but independent researchers haven’t been able to reproduce any of them properly. It seems as if there’s no end of “scientific truths” that just aren’t so. For a 2015 article in Science, independent researchers tried to replicate 100 prominent psychology studies and succeeded with only 39% of them.

Further from the spotlight is a lot of equally flawed research that is often more consequential. In 2012 the biotechnology firm Amgen tried to reproduce 53 “landmark” studies in hematology and oncology. The company could only replicate six. Are doctors basing serious decisions about medical treatment on the rest? Consider the financial costs, too. A 2015 study estimated that American researchers spend $28 billion a year on irreproducible preclinical research.

The chief cause of irreproducibility may be that scientists, whether wittingly or not, are fishing fake statistical significance out of noisy data. If a researcher looks long enough, he can turn any fluke correlation into a seemingly positive result. But other factors compound the problem: Scientists can make arbitrary decisions about research techniques, even changing procedures partway through an experiment. They are susceptible to groupthink and aren’t as skeptical of results that fit their biases. Negative results typically go into the file drawer. Exciting new findings are a route to tenure and fame, and there’s little reward for replication studies.
It's always ironic how the IFLS crowd isn't even remotely up to speed on current science while simultaneously pointing and shrieking about how everyone with substantive and valid criticism of scientistry simply "doesn't understand science". You can see this in the comments of the most recent Voxiversity on Christianity and Western Civilization. Richard Dawkins has repeatedly argued that eyewitness testimony should not be used in the courtroom because it is insufficiently reliable, but by his own metric, the expert testimony of a scientist should barred from the courtroom as well because science is considerably less statistically reliable.

As for the idea that science can even theoretically serve as a basis for moral guidance, the grand windmill at which Sam Harris has been jousting in futility for the last 10 years, that has become even more obviously ridiculous than even his most brutal critics believed at the start. One would do nearly four times better to simply flip a coin; indeed, statistically speaking, one's best bet is to listen to what scientists advise, then do precisely the opposite.

Of course, this should have always been obvious, in retrospect. Look at the average scientist. Do you think following his advice on women or doing the precise opposite is more likely to lead to a desirable outcome? These are people whose entire perspectives on life, the universe, and everything are constructed on an illusion of solidity.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, April 19, 2018

The nonexistent principles of Never Trump

Kurt Schlichter tears into the pious frauds who, despite their proclamations of high principle, have proven to be every bit as unprincipled as we always figured they were:
Where are your principles in the face of the gross injustices of the last few days? A federal judge who was nearly appointed Bill Clinton’s attorney general and who officiated at Soros’s wedding ordered Hannity’s information disclosed, but that was cool with you. After all, Sean Hannity is so…oh well, I never!

Principles that depend on who is asserting them aren’t principles. They are poses.

If you actually adhered to them, your principles would have you shrieking, not cheering. A bunch of Hillary-donating feds should not be allowed to randomly pillage through privileged materials looking for a crime. No, the crime-fraud exception does not mean that the feds can just take all your stuff, read through it, and decide if some happens to fall into that narrow exception and leak the rest. But hey, why let some principles get in the way of a good laugh at the expense of one of those Trump people?

Gosh, it’s almost like your talk of principles was just…talk.
Schlichter is correct. There are no Never Trump principles. As a matter of fact, there are no conservative principles, because conservatism is not, and has never been, a coherent ideology. It is, ultimately, a reactive, defensive pose.

That's the strategic problem with conservatism. It literally can't win. It can't go on the offense, because it has no objectives. And Never Trump is conservatism with cancer.

UPDATE: They were always frauds from the start.
Former presidential candidate Evan McMullin owes his former campaign staff members tens of thousands of dollars and most believe he has no intention of ever paying them, a former campaign worker tells The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Right before McMullin’s failed bid for president in 2016 as the conservative alternative to President Donald Trump, the campaign was inundated with debt. The disastrous fiscal situation was a combination of frivolous spending by McMullin and his campaign manager Joel Searby, according to the former staffer.

McMullin received news weeks before Election Day 2016 about how dire the campaign’s finances were, and he had “no remorse” and said “I have qualms about this thing ending badly in debt,” the former staffer claimed. McMullin’s cavalier attitude towards the campaign’s spending struck many as a surprise, particularly because he billed himself as a fiscal conservative, he added.
It is simply delicious to think of all the harrumphing bow-ties shedding furious tears over the way they were stiffed by their fine, principled fiscally conservative candidate who was only running out of his deep sense of outraged honor.

Labels: ,

A win-win

More jobs for the working class supporters, fewer jobs for the chattering class enemy:
The Tampa Bay Times announced that it would cut about 50 jobs after new tariffs imposed by the Trump administration dramatically increased the cost of newsprint. A spokeswoman for the Times confirmed the layoffs to the Tampa Bay Business Journal, saying they are directly in response to the tariffs imposed on newsprint imported from Canada. The Times spokeswoman declined to say how many of the layoffs would be within the paper’s newsroom, but said that the "cuts are taking place throughout the organization."
That's how you do it. The God-Emperor would do well to aggressively seek more of these heads my people win, tails yours lose actions.

Labels: ,

A reliable evil-detector

FN postulates an explanation for legalistic religious sophistry:
I think these crazy-seeming reinterpretations of the plain meaning of the Old Testament are partly motivated by a desire to seem clever. "Look how smart I am, I can understand it better than anyone else! No, it doesn't really mean what the words say, it means this subtle thing that nobody but I can see!"
I have no doubt that is partly true, but mostly it comes down to wanting to have sex with children. Evil always comes up with some way to rationalize that. Here is a reliable heuristic for evil: does it justify, rationalize, excuse, defend, encourage, advocate, or require sex with children in any way, openly or covertly, directly or indirectly? Then it is evil, topped by an evil sauce, with a side of evil.

Labels: ,

Mailvox: Googlers exit Google

I was aware that more people are leaving Google because they don't want to deal with the lunatic SJWs that are running the asylum any longer. The hapless Sundar Pikachu simply cannot control them, despite them being a very small, very vocal, very crazy minority of the employees. This email from a reader confirms what I'd already been hearing.
I had an interesting encounter with an ex-Googler this afternoon. A man overheard me and a colleague talking about Fortran at a coffee shop, and he started chatting with us about computer programming. Turns out, he's an ex-Google developer.

My colleague asked him what he thought of the James Damore situation, and he surprised us a little by responding that that was the main reason he'd quit Google. He said he didn't want to be part of an environment where people were not free to express reasonable opinions. When I asked him if there were others at Google who felt the same way, he said, yes, most of them. Most of them. It may look like all of Google has gone insane, but it's really a minority of loud, obnoxious SJWs ruling things there.

It sounds crazy that a few mentally ill tyrants could dominate a place like Google, but this dovetails with something Jordan Peterson points out in a recent interview with Australian ex-deputy PM John Anderson. Peterson says that tyrants, whether petty or large, are not psychologically equipped to deal with resistance. I believe you've said something to this effect in your SJW books. If anyone needs more convincing, well, we have a man whose expertise is human behavior and who has extensively studied the great tyrannies of the 20th century telling us that tyrants will cave most of the time when they are resisted. But most people don't resist, because they figure it will cost them too much. Peterson counters that resistance costs comparatively little when you consider what will happen if you don't do anything.

This was underscored by my ex-Google acquaintance's parting comment, that if even 10% of people in the tech world actively resisted the SJWs, that nonsense would come to an end very quickly.
Of course, this is true of SJWs and the larger culture as well. Look at how the Alt-Right's resistance has made significant inroads into the SJWs' ability to intimidate and destroy their targets. The conservative strategy of retreat, complain, condemn, and cry does not and will never work; it is intrinsically and inevitably defeatist.

As with most bullies, a metaphorical punch or two in the mouth is sufficient to dissuade the average SJW. As evidence, I offer the observation that SJWs have tended to steer well clear of me ever since I published SJWAL.

Speaking of punching bullies in the mouth, three more men have joined the lawsuit against Google:
Three new plaintiffs have joined former Google employee James Damore’s lawsuit against the company, alleging gender, racial, and political discrimination. Manuel Amador, Stephen McPherson, and Michael Burns, who were all job applicants turned down by Google, have joined the lawsuit.
Given what we know about Microsoft and Pikachu's background, the lawyers for the plaintiffs should dig deep for any potential unlawful favoritism being shown to applicants with Indian backgrounds.

Labels: , ,

Disavowing the blank slate

It's obviously over for the Left's Blank Slate theory of Man. The media is already starting to lay the foundation for denying that anyone on the Left could possibly have believed in such obviously unscientific nonsense, let alone considered it to be infallible scientific fact:
The appointment – followed, eight days later, by the resignation – of Toby Young to the board of the government’s new Office for Students in January was only the latest in a series of controversial interventions in education for the self-styled Toadmeister (Young’s Twitter handle). Having established his media profile on a platform of comments guaranteed to rile the “politically correct” (sexism, homophobia, that sort of thing), he began to reinvent himself as an educationalist through his initiatives on free schools – and he has been raising hackles in that sphere too. Things came to a head late last year when an article that Young wrote for the charity Teach First on intelligence and genetics was withdrawn from the organisation’s website on the grounds that it was “against what we believe is true and against our values and vision”. Young’s article summarised – rather accurately – the current view on how genes affect children’s IQ and academic attainment, and concluded that there is really not much that schools can do at present to alter these seemingly innate differences.

That affair is now coloured by the disclosure that Young had advocated “progressive eugenics” as a way to boost intelligence in a 2015 article in the Australian magazine Quadrant. The flames were fanned by Private Eye’s account of how Young attended what was widely labelled a “secret eugenics conference” at University College London that featured speakers with extremist views.

All this is viewed with dismay by scientists who are researching the role of genes in intelligence and considering the implications for education. They are already labouring under a cloud of suspicion, if not outright contempt, from some educationalists, and interventions by grandstanders such as Young will do nothing to soften the tenor of the debate. Such polarisation and conflict should trouble us all, though. Because, like it or not, genetics is going to enter the educational arena, and we need to have a sober, informed discussion about it.

Researchers are now becoming confident enough to claim that the information available from sequencing a person’s genome – the instructions encoded in our DNA that influence our physical and behavioural traits – can be used to make predictions about their potential to achieve academic success. “The speed of this research has surprised me,” says the psychologist Kathryn Asbury of the University of York, “and I think that it is probable that pretty soon someone – probably a commercial company – will start to try to sell it in some way.” Asbury believes “it is vital that we have regulations in place for the use of genetic information in education and that we prepare legal, social and ethical cases for how it could and should be used.”
This is an interesting behavioral pattern of the Left that is a useful way of tracking what they currently believe, which is the memory-holing of their previous dogma. Most Leftists still strongly believe in Blank Slate theory, but it is apparent that their intellectual school of fish is about to make one of its sudden right turns.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

No one is happier than the satan

This is a usefully informative theological lesson for Christians from a rabbi.
Why Don’t Jews Believe in Original Sin? This is a delicate question, as it exposes one of the fundamental differences between the Christian outlook and the Jewish one.... So what, in fact, do Jews believe?

Consider the terms tov and ra, conventionally translated, as I wrote before, as “good” and “evil.” At every stage of the world’s creation, G-d pronounced it tov before proceeding to the next stage. On the creation of mankind, He pronounced it tov me’od (“very good”), and there is no indication thereafter that He changed his mind.

Ra does not actually mean “evil” in the English sense of the word. Some glimmering of its actual meaning can be ascertained from some of the other ways that the root is used. For instance, in Psalms II, 9 King David beseeches G-d to deal with his enemies: Tero‘em beshevet barzel (“You should smash them with an iron rod”), or in Isaiah XXIV, 19 the prophet begins his description of an earthquake: Ra’o hithro‘a‘a ha’aretz ("the Earth is completely shaken”). From these, we can see that it means something like “unstable, broken, dysfunctional” and therefore “bad.”

Human beings come into this world innocent of anything, but possessed of a capacity for good (commonly termed the yetzer hatov) as well as a destructive capacity, commonly termed the yetzer hara. The yetzer hara presents all the physical urges, the needs and wants, of the physical body which, like everything else in the physical realm, is subject to entropy -- that is, it wears out and falls apart. But he is also provided with a soul, whose highest purpose is to control those urges and channel them into positive actions.

To this end, children are provided with parents and other mentors, whose job it is to teach them right from wrong and self-control, so that his soul is capable of taking charge and leading a proper, sanctified life. Until that moment when he is capable of taking over, any “sins” that the child commits are the responsibility of the parent.

So when does a Jewish individual begin to sin? At the age of bar or bath mitzva. These terms mean “son or daughter of the commandments” because on reaching that age, they become subject to the 613 commandments in the Torah, and their parents are no longer responsible for their actions. This landmark occurs when a boy is 13 years old and a girl is 12. One of the most emotional moments of the bar mitzva ceremony comes when the boy’s father pronounces the blessing, baruch sheptarani me‘onsho shel ze (“Blessed is He who has exempted me from this one’s punishment”).

What is the Jewish concept of the satan? Well, we agree with the Christians that he is a mal’ach, conventionally translated “angel,” but there’s nothing “fallen” about him. He works for the same Divine Boss as all the other mal’achim. Think of the satan (the word means “adversary”) as the proctor of an exam. The proctor isn’t actively rooting for you to fail the test; to the contrary, he wants you to pass. But he administers a tough test, to be certain that it tests all your capabilities and that you’ve mastered the material, i.e. the life lessons available from one’s parents and other mentors. If you manage to pass the test, no one is happier than the satan.
Now, my dear Christian reader, combine this doctrine of a very good, unfallen world that has been harmed by the destructive capacity of Man with the mandate of healing the world under the guidance of the angelic proctor with the ultimate aim of bringing it together, and perhaps you will begin to understand what Jesus was talking about and why the concept of Judeo-Christianity is not merely a contradiction in terms, but offensive to Jews and Christians alike.

Labels: ,

An AD who can catch

I was watching these Saquon Barkley highlights, and they really reminded me of Adrian Peterson, except for the fact that Barkley also catches the ball very well.

Definitely impressive, although the important thing to remember is that AD was doing those sorts of things against NFL-calibre talent, not Big 10-level talent. Then again, they have the same 4.4 40 speed, and Barkley is an inch shorter and 16 pounds heavier.


Answer: in every possible way

Question: "Kendrick Lamar just won a Pulitzer. ... How is that not progress?”
– Columbia Journalism Review

Some examples of the recently awarded work of the new winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Music.
If I gotta slap a pussy-ass nigga, I'ma make it look sexy
If I gotta go hard on a bitch, I'ma make it look sexy
–  From “Element.”

Girl, I can buy yo’ ass the world with my paystub
Ooh, that pussy good, won’t you sit it on my taste bloods?
–  From “Humble.”

Today is the day I follow my intuition
Keep the family close – get money, fuck bitches.
–  From “Yah.”
It's at moments like this that I find myself thinking, you know, as bad as it is probably going to get in the next 25 years or so, it's so going to be worth it, whether it ends in Western Civilization 2.0 or the Back to the Caves scenario.

In fairness to the new Pulitzer laureate, I have to admit that he is probably right, as I myself have always found that when one happens to find it necessary to slap a pussy-ass nigga, one might as well take the trouble to make it look sexy.

Labels: , ,

Sadiq is murder

Morrisey isn't sad anymore. He's hopping mad over the debased state of Londonistan and its Pakistani mayor:
The former Smiths frontman lashed out at the Mayor of London in an interview discussing his views on racism, violence and the capital. And Morrissey stated that London “is debased” and that “civilisation is over”.

Going on a rampage against Mr Khan, he added: “The Mayor of London tells us about ‘Neighborhood policin’ - what is ‘policin’? He tells us London is an ‘amazin’ city. What is ‘amazin’? This is the Mayor of London! And he cannot talk properly! I saw an interview where he was discussing mental health, and he repeatedly said ‘men’el’…he could not say the words ‘mental health’. The Mayor of London!”

Morrissey, 58, also went on claiming that “we now live in the Age of Atrocity” because of the way authorities have been dealing with acid attacks in London.

Speaking to interviewer John Riggers via his new website Morrissey Central, the singer said: “London is second only to Bangladesh for acid attacks. All of the attacks are non-white, and so they cannot be truthfully addressed by the British government or the Met Police or the BBC because of political correctness.
You know a nation is in trouble when its pop music stars are more intelligent, articulate and aware of historical actions and their consequences than its political class.

The USA is not the only country heading for another civil war. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is apologizing to "the Windrush generation" when she should be apologizing to the British people for her predecessor's failure to sink the ship and stop the invasion of their island at the start.

Sink the ships or fight a vicious war inside your borders. History clearly demonstrates that those are the two options. Western civilization isn't over. But thanks to the historically epic foolishness of our parents and grandparents, we're going to have to fight for it if we want to keep it.

Labels: ,

Conservatism and immigration

This earlier exchange epitomizes the result of all that legal, merit-based immigration that conservatives been championing since the rhetorical failure of their focus on "illegal immigration".
Raghav Hegde
LOL....I don't know whether to be outraged at some of the stuff you lot say about my people or laugh. Anyway, I will say just one thing. Microsoft market cap when the company was "less Indian" in 2009: $138 billion. Microsoft market cap now that it is a company of Indians, in 2018, $738 billion. Anyway, keep up with your silly rants against those "curries", "apus" or whateveer it is you call us :)

Sherwood family
Raghav Hegde: you just said it yourself. They are your people. Which is fine. Everyone has a people and should support them the best they can. But they are not our people. You have to go back. Make India Great Again.

Raghav Hegde
Sherwood family: Sure we will. But first we are gonna take over "your" companies and make them "our" companies. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Adobe, Apple, name it, we dominate. LOL...I bet you prefer the Mexicans or Latinos to us smelly Apus. At best, they work as your gardeners or house help or whatever. The little smelly ugly effete Indians, LOL, we are basically replacing you from your best jobs :) Go on, rant away :)

Sherwood family
So...Raghav Hegde's response is summed up as: all those things you say don't like about us...yeah...we are actually doing them and plan to do them a lot more and your noticing that is 'ranting'. Even Raghav Hegde's threats are parasitic at best: "we are gonna take over "your" companies and make them "our" companies." Don't be a parasite. Go Make India Great Again.
You see, conservatives have never understood that no one else in the world gives a damn about their high-minded principles. Which is ironic, given that conservatism, as it was originally conceived, was about the triumph of history and tradition over ideology and reason-based principles. Remember the phrase, "the democracy of the dead?" But what pass for conservatives today resolutely turn their face from the traditions of the past in favor of liberte, egalite, fraternite.

They have more in common with the French Revolution than the American one.

Recent conservative rhetoric has resorted to trying to equate the SJW Left with the Alt-Right. I suppose that's fair enough if you're talking about the anti-nationalist Fake Right cartoon version of Obama voters and EU supporters portrayed as the Alt-Right by the media. But any straightforward comparison of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right, or with the rising European nationalism, with the globalist, anti-American, and equalitarian values espoused by today's conservatives will clearly show that it is the conservative movement that is considerably far to our Left.

Every generation of Man prior to the Greatest Generation understood that a nation exists to benefit its posterity, even at the expense of all other nations. That is the traditional and true Right principle, and the perverted "conservatism" of today is the result of 120 years of virulent ahistorical, anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-nationalist propaganda by self-serving immigrants. The Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and the Millennials are the only generations to have ever generally bought into the nonsense.

The exchange above illustrates what I mean when I say that European anti-Semitism is an accident of history. There is nothing special about the adversarial historical relationship between the two parties, it is simply what happens when low-trust cultures and high-trust cultures collide. Neither Jews nor Europeans understand its true nature or that the results would have been much the same if it had been a Chinese, an Indian, or any other high-performance, self-serving minority living parasitically in a high-trust, high-performance society. And almost everyone, on all sides, is going to be astonished by the eventual outcome, due to this failure to understand the nature of the historical situation.

For example, the Jews are already alarmed that the Chinese are successfully challenging their control over Hollywood and the Ivy League admissions offices. Do they really think they are going to be able to withstand the Indian plan to take over technology companies like Microsoft and Google or believe they will be able to hold onto the media, or even Wall Street when the Chinese decide to take it over with a double-envelopment from within and without.

That's the long-term logistical problem with permitting a parasitical, self-serving minority to take control of the societal high ground of a large nation. The influential minority simply doesn't have the numbers or the power to hold onto it when another, larger and more powerful, but equally self-serving minority decides to take it from them. As for relying on the canard of the supposedly superior intelligence explaining Jewish success, which mysteriously did not appear until the 20th century, keep in mind that there are several orders of magnitude more high-IQ Chinese and Indians than Jews.

The 21st century is not only going to be a historically interesting one, I believe it is going to turn out very, very different than almost anyone is imagining.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Avoiding the elephant

It's remarkable how this article on 10 reasons why things are going wrong with public education didn't mention the single biggest problem:
Something is wrong—very, very wrong. Teachers across the country at all grade levels, in all subjects, teaching a wide variety of student populations, can sense it. There is a pulse of dysfunction, a steady palpitation of doom that the path we are on is not properly oriented.

There is a raw and amorphous anxiety creeping into the psyche of the corps of American teachers.

We may have trouble pinpointing the exact moment when something in our schools and broader culture went wildly astray, leaving in its wake teachers sapped of optimism and weighted with enervate comprehension. The following is a small sampling—this list could easily have been twice as long if my conversations with fellow teachers are any indication—of problems that teachers were not facing ten years ago.

Every failure of civil society—institutional rot, political cynicism and polarization, tattered family and other filial relations, depressed expectations of student behavior, a preening and non-apologetic narcissism, extravagant self-regard, anti-intellectualism in our minds and moral relativism in our hearts—manifests itself in our schools. The result is a weight of responsibility, an anvil of obligation, now pushing against the outer periphery of what schools can realistically achieve given their inherent limitations. It is no headline to announce that schools mirror the dysfunction of society writ large. With this in mind, I offer the following list of ten things teachers did not have to deal with just a decade ago.
Translation: the percentage of white American students is now too low to maintain the pretense. There is no longer a "school community", or even a "town community" thanks to the post-1965 immigration. Sure, all the educational fads and new management philosophies don't help, but none of those things would have made much of a difference in your average 1950s or even 1980s suburban high school.

This isn't really debatable. The busing battles of the 1970s and 1980s was fundamentally based on the idea that blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities can't be successfully educated without being surrounded by a sufficient number of whites. So, what are they going to do now that they are running short on white students?

Labels: ,

The rapier wit of Ben Shapiro

If you don't grasp that Little Benny is being propped up by the so-called "conservative media" yet, you're not paying attention. 
‘GFY’! Ben Shapiro brutally DROPS blue-check blaming him and other Rightists for mosque shooting
And what was this brutal DROP?
Ben Shapiro@benshapiro
 The shooter is a deranged POS who should burn in hell. If you think I'm responsible for his evil, GFY.  
Brutal is one way to describe it, I suppose, if you're a sixth-grade girl. Remember, this is supposed to be the whip smart and witty aspect of the conservative media.

Russell Kirk wept.

UPDATE: Amazing! The Littlest Chickenhawk has done it again!
'Racist bully' Ben Shapiro has perfect answer for woman who told him, 'Don't ever have kids'

Ben Shapiro@benshapiro
 Sorry, already have two, including a 4-year-old daughter I will raise to believe she is capable of anything rather than a victim in the least sexist society in world history
Wow! I mean, just, WOW! That is just WHIP SMART stuff, man! Perfect answer! Just perfect!

They really should have named it Cringy.

Labels: ,

Merit-based immigration is no solution

It's merely a different and more intractable problem:
“Merit-based immigration” is seen as the gold standard of immigration reform by many Republicans and conservative policy wonks. But it could lead to their political ruin.

We already have a clear window into what a merit-based policy could bring to the political landscape: look at the Indian colonization of Seattle’s Eastside—the area across Lake Washington from Seattle which stretches from Sammamish in the south to Bothell in the north. It has been transformed, in roughly 25 years, from a region that leaned Republican into a cesspool of socialism.

It all started with the rise of Bill Gates’ Microsoft in Redmond, followed by likeminded corporate titans who gorged themselves on the delights of Indian staffing agencies that exploit the H1-B visa program. Once a foreign worker’s H1B status expires in six years, them it’s time for an employment-based green card. These green cards have for years been handed out like popcorn with curry on top to almost any Indian techie who agrees to work for, on average, one-third lower pay than American tech workers.

Microsoft was an American-led company for many years until its upper leadership became Indian, beginning with the head of personnel some 20 or so years ago. Although the data released by the company is hard to interpret, employees note that the firm is a plurality Indian company in employees, as well as in leadership.
I always find the desperate attempts of conservatives to avoid the obvious consequences of the truth about immigration to be more than a little funny. First, "all immigration is beneficial." Second, "it's not the immigration, it's the illegality". Third, "it's about the quality of the immigration." Now that high-caste Indians are doing in the Pacific Northwest what high-caste Indians have done in India for thousands of years, conservatives will be forced to face the fact that their fourth line of intellectual retreat is just as false as the previous three.

How did "high-quality immigration" work out for the American Indian? Low-quality means your people are replaced on the low end. High-quality means your people are replaced on the high end. Either way, your people are going to be replaced, conquered, and disenfranchised.

There is one and only one metric that matters with regards to immigration: quantity. And even a relatively small quantity is considerably more destructive to a society than most social scientists realize yet.

“Indians can only think in terms of might is right, street-smartness and political connections. Such a society cannot have any understanding of the principles of the Ten Commandments, or have respect for the individual and liberty.”
- Jayant Bhandari

Sounds familiar, does it not? I believe it is informative to note that those who claim I am incorrect about the inability of the vast majority of post-18th century immigrants to adapt to or adopt historical Anglo-American norms are usually untraveled monolingual whites who have literally no experience living in any culture or society outside the United States.

Labels: ,

The necessity of divorce

A political breakup is inevitable. The only question is the level of violence that will be involved. So, working towards a peaceful one based on the Czechoslovakian model rather than a not-peaceful one based on the Yugoslavian model is highly desirable.
Divorce is hard, but it’s easier than cutting the brake lines on your wife’s car. It is long past time for an amicable divorce of the United States of America. There is simply no common ground with the Left anymore. We are now the couple screaming at each other all night, every night as the kids hide in their room.

We cannot come together, but we do not have to live like this. The history of the world is nations breaking up and redrawing their borders. If we want to avoid this political divide turning into a deadly one, we should do likewise.

Stop clinging to the past and acknowledge where we are as a country, not where you want us to be, not where things were when your grandpa was storming the beaches of Normandy. Where we truly are.

We are a nation hopelessly divided. We are more divided now than we have ever been in our history. And before you start screaming at me about the Civil War, keep in mind that bloody conflict was fought over one major issue. In those days, take ten families from New York and ten families from Alabama, put them all in a room, and you’d find they mostly had the same values (and bad accents).

Now, fast-forward to today and do that same thing. Those families have virtually nothing in common. We as a nation have polarized and separated from each other.

Anyone who thinks this is a radical idea has an extremely narrow view of history. If you don’t believe me, go try to book a plane ticket to Czechoslovakia, or look at a map of Europe from the year 1600, then look at one today. See any differences? Borders move. Countries split and change hands. They do this for a myriad of reasons. Ours would be a major cultural shift toward the left and half the country refusing to go along with tyranny.
The problem is that there is no "we as a nation". The USA is a multinational empire. And like all such empires, the nations want to rule themselves, not be ruled over by other nations.

Labels: , ,


The bad coffee chain learns that no amount of virtue-signaling is sufficient to inoculate one from the SJWs:
Way, way back in the deepest mists of history, circa March 2015, the Starbucks Corporation rolled out an initiative they called "Race Together." Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, concerned about the racial divide in America, instructed baristas to scribble the thought-provoking phrase "Race Together" on customers' cups as a way to "foster discussion." Because that's exactly what you want when you're waiting in line for an overpriced cup of coffee that tastes like it was filtered through a hobo's liver. You want a lecture about what a racist you are.

Starbucks even gave us all some homework to do, in the form of an insert in USA Today.

I hope this fiasco proves instructive to Howard Schultz and everybody else at Starbucks. No matter how liberal you are, no matter how hard you work to establish and maintain your #woke credentials, all it takes is one slip-up. Just one viral video, taken on one of the cameras that we all carry now, and the angry mob will descend on you. Nothing you do or say will appease them. No apology will be sufficient. You can't grovel low enough.
They won't learn, of course. They never do. They'll just grovel harder in the hopes that they get devoured last.

And notice how Treacher is a brilliant example of the haplessness of the conservative, always seeking the instruction of the enemy rather than its defeat.

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 16, 2018

The most underrepresented

According to the WGA's 2016 Hollywood Writers Report, just two Native American writers were employed in film in 2014 (the latest year for which data is available), compared with 1,494 white writers. Native Americans accounted for 1.2 percent of the U.S. population in 2014 but in film represented just 0.1% of writers, making them the demographic group with the most disproportionate underrepresentation by a factor of 12 to 1.

So, if we do start making movies in another year or three, I wonder if Castalia Studios will be celebrated as the first Native American-led film studio?

I'm guessing no.


Why Johnny still can't read

The Atlantic simply cannot solve the mystery of ongoing US illiteracy:
Every two years, education-policy wonks gear up for what has become a time-honored ritual: the release of the Nation’s Report Card. Officially known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, the data reflect the results of reading and math tests administered to a sample of students across the country. Experts generally consider the tests rigorous and highly reliable—and the scores basically stagnant.

Math scores have been flat since 2009 and reading scores since 1998, with just a third or so of students performing at a level the NAEP defines as “proficient.” Performance gaps between lower-income students and their more affluent peers, among other demographic discrepancies, have remained stubbornly wide.

Among the likely culprits for the stalled progress in math scores: a misalignment between what the NAEP tests and what state standards require teachers to cover at specific grade levels. But what’s the reason for the utter lack of progress in reading scores?
My guess is because the teachers have lower-than-average IQs and they can't read either.
So I graduated from college, and when I graduated there was a teacher shortage and I was offered a job. It was the most illogical thing you can imagine - I got out of the lion's cage and then I got back in to taunt the lion again. Why did I go into teaching? Looking back it was crazy that I would do that. But I'd been through high school and college without getting caught - so being a teacher seemed a good place to hide. Nobody suspects a teacher of not knowing how to read. 


Mailvox: atheist copypasta

I usually just delete and ignore my daily hate mail, but this was right up there with the classic Navy SEAL copypasta.
Dear Pale Nigger with a Tiny Head

After encountering you and being within the confines of your sniveling shithole called "vox popoli" I have attempted to give my own honest and humble opinions and recommendations to anyone willing to listen. In hindsight I cannot imagine why I even paid attention to a lowly fool who believes wholeheartedly in the lie of jebus chris. Being the ultimate seeker of history beyond anyone I have ever seen I judge such books as 'Ecclesiastes' 'Luke' 'Deuteronomy' 'Genesis' 'Exodus' and other filth to be paltry, petty gibberish totally unfit for future generations to read. Unlike yourself, I am a reader of ALL known ancient languages and scripts. There are but few who could beat me in this field and most of them are dead. I have read the 'bible' from beginning to end and in all its earliest iterations. I know ALL of its flaws and the crude excuses of translations in its intricate fallacies. I am also aware of the seemingly endless archeological evidence and alternative historical records that ultimately crush the [ill]legitimacy of the Tanakh/Old testament and its synthesised bastard spawn the greco-roman 'new' testament. In the area of 'gawd's word' I am superior in knowledge to anything you 'know'.

Being as high as I am, and you as low as a mite, your censure of my deductions and articulations is quite the appalling breach of natural law. In the purely truthful sense of law it is only fitting that 'eye for an eye' to be meted on those equal and in this particular scenario you are not an equal on any level. The logical conclusion of this is to have you banned from employment and your entire well-being seized for the benefit of your betters as well as any belonging you claim to possess. You can retaliate but in the end it shall mean nothing. The tiny-brained mulatto wogs that dwell in that shitpit known as Italy are absolutely incapable of halting your punishment and any call to stop my righteousness shall only end in their demise. Any police found aiding your escape shall be executed as the repugnant criminals that they are.

I have noticed for a while that you have consistently deleted my infinitely righteous messages of truth on your site. As this crime is utterly irredeemable, I am forced to conclude that you have joined the ranks of the various cockroaches who have denigrated and insulted me for no better reason than to hide your own weak, pathetic, life-unworthy-of-life selves. As such, you shall be executed without dignity and any and every wog cop you call upon to hide yourself with shall also be judged guilty of the crime of preventing justice and tortured to death for this transgression.

You have been condemned and there is no redemption. No cry of mercy, no display of repentance to me or my Lord shall be accepted. Your existence shall be nothing but pain, misery and eventually suicide. May the disgusting thing you call "faith in christ" be expunged from your very being and your assets of "castalia house" be seized for the benefit of your betters.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this gentleman has asymmetrical features, objectively bad skin, and does not go out on a lot of dates. Can you even imagine how he would respond to getting shot down by a woman? I used to wonder why girls are so cruel to gammas, but now I understand.

Of course, it's so over the top that one tends to suspect it is one of the Dread Ilk trolling.

Labels: ,

God bless the GOP

Reince Priebus is determined to return the Washington Generals Republican Party to its more customary role of permanent defeat and retreat:
Priebus acknowledged Trump is, in some ways, not like any other Republican president. Trump is “extremely unique” in his personal style, Priebus said, and his campaign themes refocused the Republican Party on a populist message.... “I think post-Trump, the party returns to its traditional role and its traditional platform. It’s a Trump brand and he owns it and he has a way of protecting it,” Priebus said.
He's proud to be a Republican because at least he knows he'll lose.
He'll surrender to the Democrats and he'll defend the right to choose.
He'll gladly stand up next to you and give up your liberty.
Cause there ain't no doubt he loves to lose, God bless the GOP!

Labels: ,

Physiognomy is more than real

It is science. And Martin Luther King's dream remains just that, a dream that is not based on reality:
Unless it involves mocking President Trump’s supposedly “small hands,” there is nothing that horrifies our multiculturalist masters more than judging by appearances.

It is impossible, they claim, to infer anything about how someone is likely to behave by their gender or because they are from a particular ethnic group. Everyone is unique (but also, somehow, equal). Judging by appearances is not just superficial but plain evil.

It will be fascinating to see what they’ll make of the recently-published book by British academic Dr. Edward Dutton titled How To Judge People By What They Look Like, which argues that even within races and sexes you can, with a fair degree of accuracy, infer people’s personalities from appearances. You may even get an inside track on how smart they are by taking a good look at their physical characteristics, according to Dutton.

“You can’t judge people by what they look like! It’s drummed into us as children,” writes Dutton, an adjunct professor of anthropology at Oulu University in northern Finland. “It is utterly false.”

But Dutton makes a provocative case for resurrecting the ancient art of physiognomy—judging character from the face. He argues it should never have been dismissed as pseudo-science. Indeed, his research goes way beyond making inferences from the face. He writes:

We are evolved to judge people’s psychology from what they look like; we can accurately work out people’s personality and intelligence from how they look, and (quite often) we have to if we want to survive. Body shape, hairiness, eye width, finger length, even how big a woman’s breasts are . . . these and much else are windows into personality, intelligence or both.
So many people fail to understand that when I say the Alt-Right is inevitable, I am not merely engaging in rhetoric. I mean that quite literally and I am speaking in unvarnished dialectic. Just as communism is unviable because it denies economics and feminism is unviable because it denies biology, conservatism is unviable because it denies inequality. All of these unviable political identities have set themselves against science, history, and observable reality.

Remember, the red pill is reality.
As Dutton says in his book, the relevant research has been published in top psychology journals, such as Intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences and Evolutionary Psychological Science, as has his own research. This includes a study asserting that atheists tend to be less physically attractive and more likely to be left-handed than religious people and that they have objectively worse skin. Dutton, ever the evolutionist, opines that this is because we have been selected to be religious over thousands of years of evolution. Hence, those who are atheists reflect mutant genes in the brain and people with mental mutations are more likely to have physical ones. This explains their asymmetrical features and asymmetrical brains, leading to left-handedness.
You may recall that I was among the first to observe that atheists are neurologically atypical and that atheism is essentially a particular characteristic of being on the autism spectrum. It's not a coincidence that you can often pick out an atheist by his appearance.

However, the link between psychology, personality, and intelligence on the one hand and appearance on the other involves considerably more than our genes, it also involves our choices and behavior. When we see a man who is slender and clear-eyed at 60, we can safely conclude that he is both intelligent and self-disciplined, just as we can reliably reach the opposite conclusion of a child who is obese at the age of 12.

Labels: ,

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Liar ban: WATYF

I've never been impressed by WATYF's incessant posturing, but since he usually remained within more or less within the boundaries of the rules. I mostly ignored him. However, seeing how he was blatantly misrepresenting my positions at John Wright's blog, I am now banning him from commenting here.

It's really rather remarkable how dishonest so many self-professed Christian conservatives are about the Alt-Right, particularly the Christian Alt-Right, which they prefer to pretend does not even exist. Because they cannot rationally or scripturally defend either their theological positions or their commitments to various forms of equality, they usually resort to lying about us when they can't simply ignore us. I've indicated WAYTF's false statements in bold text and his omission of the necessary context in italics.
To be fair, Vox's emphasis on Christianity is just a bit offset by the fact that he says Christ preaches hatred as a virtue and that murder is totes OK (because war).

Benjamin Wheeler
Care to quote him on that? Or did you just think that because he says that not all men are equal that he preaches hatred? That, because he hates war, he wants to prevent it? I didn't realize that peoples who never meet each other still war.

No, I'm not misunderstanding him nor am I drawing an inference from something he said. He has said directly and with no equivocation that hatred is morally good (according to Christianity) and that murder is permissible because we're in a culture war.

Here is the latest "hatred is good" post where he invokes God to justify his position. Remember, this isn't just "we should oppose this view", it's "we should actively hate these people".

Benjamin Wheeler
Strange, because all I got from that was the hatred of sin. The rhetoric is merely a vehicle. "I am proud of my wife for refusing to respect Jack and the social mores enforced by his little Safety Council. What is better than a hot blonde hater? Hate is human, and hatred is a human right. God hates deceit, God hates the wicked, and so should we."

I didn't realize I shouldn't hate evil. I should start loving it! Thank you! I didn't realize how wicked I was not hating sin.

Yeah, your rhetoric isn't going to work on me so don't bother. I'm obviously not saying anything in your last sentence.

If all you got from that was the hatred of sin then you should read more carefully. He observably *isn't* just saying, "hate evil". He's saying, "hate these PEOPLE because they do evil (or rather, belong to a group that is disproportionately likely to do evil)". It's right there in the text you quoted.

Benjamin Wheeler
I know. I've got so long to go before I can match Vox.

His doesn't work either. Rhetoric is generally only useful on the stupid and those who can't control their emotions. It also makes the user stupider the more they use it.

So as I was saying, Vox openly advocates for a version of Christianity that preaches the hatred of entire groups (and individuals) as well as some other rather unchristian "virtues". Yes, he repeatedly points out how Christianity is a pillar of Western Civilization (which I agree with), but I wouldn't go to him to find out exactly what Christianity is.

Benjamin Wheeler
Right, but he gets a reaction out of you, since you're both emotionally offended by him and unable to think past his rhetoric to any points underneath. I'm pretty sure you ignore any dialectic because it's easier to paint him with a brush thanks to rhetoric.

Are you reading anything I'm writing? I'm trying to figure out if you're still trying to use rhetoric or if you just can't understand the argument.

I'm not "reacting" to what he's saying. I'm analyzing it (rather coldly and dispassionately). I'm quite able to "think past his rhetoric" which is why I can present the points underneath, and the points are explicit. People have asked him directly on his own blog to clarify and he has. At first, I assumed it must be some kind of tactic involving irony or whatever, but after enough times where he said it, explained his defense of the position, and confirmed it to people who asked, I saw no utility in assuming the opposite of what was obviously true.

But if you like, you can keep telling yourself that "God says it's OK to hate people" doesn't actually mean "God says it's OK to hate people". That just strikes me as a decidedly self-deluded way to approach the matter.

You're not "pretty sure" of anything here. Nothing you've said has actually addressed anything I'm actually saying. I started reading Vox over a decade ago when he mostly avoided rhetoric and engaged in dialectic debates on a regular basis. That's what attracted me to it. Now, it's almost non-stop rhetoric, all day every day. It's his blog, so whatever, but the change in the quality of the commenters there is a pretty good indicator of how that shift has affected his readership.
It's amusing that WATYF claims that it is non-stop rhetoric here. That's simply not the case. As for the intellectual quality of the commenters, it has naturally gone down as the readership has grown from 3,000 daily to 100,000 daily, but due to my consistently weeding out posers, gammas, trolls, and liars, it is a considerably more honest discourse than one will find elsewhere.

I would much rather have 10 honest commenters of average intelligence than 100 highly intelligent dissemblers and deceivers all trying to push their false narratives on the readers here.

As usual, WATYF is flat-out wrong. God does not just hate sin. God does not just hate wickedness. God hates the wicked. The wicked are clearly people, a subset of the human race set apart by their thoughts and their actions. Now, to the best of my understanding, the wicked are individuals who are not merely sinful, who are not merely weak, who have not merely given into temptation, but are those who have actively and purposefully set themselves against God and hate Jesus Christ. They are described as liars and deceivers and slanderers, among other things.

Should the Christian hate the wicked or should he love them? That is the question that I have yet to see a Churchian answer directly, without equivocation or dissembling or substituting words. And I also have an important follow-up question: is there a difference between sin and wickedness?

Labels: ,

This explains SO much

The longtime self-declared standard bearer of the so-called conservative movement and editor of National Review, William F. Buckley, was a closeted homosexual:
Back in the day, there was a famous feud that sometimes spilled out into public view - on tv, in the courts, and on the pages of certain magazines - between two men, both now deceased. They were on opposite ends of one spectrum, and while it may come as a shock to some the same end of a different spectrum.

By the time it escalated into a legal battle - there had already been years of shouting matches and near altercations - the two had amassed impressive files on each other. The longtime Hollywood procurer for the other denies on record that any of his interests there were underage, but what of course about the time he spent abroad, in southern Europe and later in Asia? The sworn statements provided to that legacy detective agency tell a different story. This person went to his grave fearful about the release of these statements and related pictures. The relatives may have been scorned, and left out of the will, but they were still telling the truth.

So, why then did #1 drop the suit at the eleventh hour, fearful of what he might be asked under oath? It might be because of what #2's team, which included a purported former KGB spy, had found out about #1's own interest: barely legal hustlers, often rough trade. He'd hire them whenever he was visiting his many politician friends in DC. He called them his "habit." For him, the revelation would have been enough to end his career, and bring down his empire.
From The New York Times of September 26, 1972:

Buckley Drops Vidal Suit, Settles With Esquire

The legal battle between William F. Buckley, Jr. and Gore Vidal arising out of their public exchange of affronts, apparently came to an end yesterday with an announcement by Mr. Buckley of two acts: the dropping of his suit against Mr. Vidal and an out-of- court settlement of $115,000 with Esquire magazine.

The conservative movement has always been a fraud. It is the Washington Generals of American politics. No wonder its opinion leaders are so reliably worthless.

Labels: ,

A flood of disinformation

The US ambassador insists that the USA will not withdraw from Syria soon, contra the President's previous statements. The objectives have officially evolved.
The US will not pull its troops out of Syria until its goals are accomplished there, ambassador to UN Nikki Haley said. This comes after Washington carried out airstrikes in Syria in response for an alleged chemical attack. US currently has over 2,000 troops in Syria and a number of contractors.

While it is America's goals to see the troops come home, "we are not going to leave until we know we have accomplished those things," she told Fox News Sunday.

Haley added the United States wants to ensure that chemical weapons are not used in a way that is of risk to US interests, the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) is defeated and Iran’s actions are monitored.

US officials were previously saying that their goal in Syria is just defeating ISIS. President Donald Trump said earlier that US would withdraw from Syria “soon”  and Washington would “let the other people take care of it now,” but no deadline for any such move has been announced.
That's obviously not good. But then, if these rumors are true, the US will probably be withdrawing sooner rather than later, and there will be no more air strikes either.
It appears Russia was going to attack, and the U.S. was threatened into stopping the attack. This is probably the case. When this started, it was "going to be sustained, lasting days". Then a large number of Russian planes took off, and suddenly America stopped attacking after only about an hour....

How do you go from "we are going to attack in waves, for days" to "an hour into the battle let's call it quits"? And it is now confirmed that the Russian missile systems knocked out virtually ALL American cruise missiles, resulting in a totally failed missile attack. A few planes dropped bombs and then went home, with nothing returning. I think America quit because:
  1. Russian defenses worked perfect, and America was watching its missiles go POOF on computer screens before they reached their targets, and
  2. Russian war planes took off after the air defenses were very well proven, with confirmed destruction of practically all cruise missiles. That alone would not stop an American attack, but if any planes were carrying nukes it sure would, if it was proven Russian air defenses would escort those planes to their targets unscathed.
The big proof: the "days long attack" lasted about an hour. SOMETHING HAPPENED.
That's not proof, let alone "big proof". I haven't seen any information that any Russian planes were launched anywhere, but we were told that Britain reports two hunter-killer subs were stalking one of its submarines carrying Tomahawk missiles, and that no missiles were launched from subs. In any event, the only way to determine who is telling the truth now is by watching to see what happens next. If there are more air strikes, that will be a strong indication that the Russians are seriously exaggerating. If there are not, that will be an indication, though less conclusive , that they are telling the truth now and the US has suffered a major blow to its military credibility.

It does seem a little strange that there should be so much sabre-rattling and posturing over a grand total of three targets in Syria, though. That offers minor support to the Russian account.


Voxiversity 005: a review

From a review posted on Idka:
I just watched the latest Voxiversity video. I had to wait, because I'm thinking about faith and epistemology for a blog post right now, and I find Vox persuasive, so I wanted to clarify my own thoughts before watching. That just took longer than planned.

Production-wise, it looks good, and the pacing works well. There is a nice balance between substantive points and visual quick-hitters, which is essential for the medium. Rhetorically, it is effective. The social transformation of Europe is superbly presented and the rape bit is a kill shot. The Christian ethics/falsification connection is less persuasive relatively, but seems more in need of fleshing out than off track, and it's close is thought provoking.  A little of Eco's The Open Work, to leave them engaged, perhaps. Overall, you can see the whole team growing into the format.

The delivery has been discussed on the blog, and I have a couple of observations. There is no perfect "voice" - it is a matter of showcasing strengths and mitigating limitations. Vox has a calm, measured tone that is excellent for presenting "hard" truths with matter-of-fact clarity. He also comes off as down to earth. Both of these qualities are working here. The editing adds the rhetorical punch, and an associate watching along pointed out that the low music is really effective on two levels. It keeps an elevated emotional engagement while subtly demonstrating the supremacy of Western culture. I concurred with that.

tl;dr - excellent addition to a project with huge upside. I hope these keep coming.
They will not only keep coming, but I expect an order of magnitude improvement in the visual quality when I am on camera in 007, which will be the second part of the Western Civilization and Christianity piece. We're doing a shorter piece that is primarily graphical next for 006.

It's important to keep in mind that what the producer and I are doing is new to both of us, so we're not only figuring what we can and cannot do given our various limitations, we're also experimenting with what approaches are effective and what is not.


Afraid to hope

SF explains why more and more Trump supporters are showing a tendency to freak out when they are disappointed by his statements and actions:
I think the reason lots of people are panicking is because they have been burned and burned repeatedly by people they elected who were "their guy." They are suffering from political "attachment disorder." They want to be the ones to terminate their loyalty to the President on their own terms rather than feel like they got screwed again after trusting yet another political leader who tells them what they want them to hear only to turn on them.
For those who are suffering from this disorder and genuinely feel frightened that the God-Emperor will betray them sooner or later, allow me to suggest the following litany, which, like the Bene Gesseret Litany Against Fear, may prove soothing.

Trump is not the answer.
Trump is not the salvation.
Trump is not the last and final hope.
Mistakes will be made.
Decisions will prove suboptimal.
Failure is likely. Disaster is possible.
The world is fallen and ruled by evil.
Republics and empires always fall.
Gideon only needed 300.
Jesus only needed 12.
Don't be afraid.
This is just the first level.
There is always hope.

If we get screwed again, we get screwed again. So what? What is the alternative, go back to the Jebs and Hillarys? Put our trust in the Romneys and Ryans? Trump was just the message. Trump is not the Second Coming of Charles Martel, the Defender of the West. He never promised to be. The time is not yet ripe. It cannot be, not when more than half the self-professed Right still firmly clings to the equality of race and religion, to multiculturalism, to civic nationalism, and to Judeo-Christianity, to the very deceits that are actively destroying everything they claim to cherish.

Before he comes, the statues of Stonewall Jackson and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Woodrow Wilson will fall. Perhaps even Abraham Lincoln. Before he comes, the South Africaust will take place. Before he comes, even the cucks and conservatives, even the identity-complicated and the civic nationalists, will be crying out to St. Breivik to save the harried remnants of their peoples from the barbarians they welcomed inside the gates as equals.

Only then, like Alfred the Great defending Anglo-Saxon England from the Great Heathen Army, will the people of the West be ready for the return of the Hammer. Only then will they be worthy of him.

Do not despair. Do not be afraid to hope. Remember, the Alt-Right is inevitable because the Alt-Right is the only political philosophy that is soundly based on a foundation of truth, history, logic, science, and Scripture. That is why not only the Left, but the cucks and cons and churchians as well, are observably terrified of debating us, listening to us, or even just accurately characterizing our views. They literally cannot handle the truth yet. And they will not be able to handle it, much less accept it, until the feelbads of their observed reality exceeds their feelbads caused by the truth.

Labels: , ,

50 years on, Enoch Powell was right

This is the full text of Enoch Powell's so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968.

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

Read more »

Labels: , ,

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Show some faith

I understand that there can be utility in holding someone accountable. But doesn't the God-Emperor come in for enough criticism already that he doesn't need to hear it all the time from both sides?
Prominent supporters of President Trump are expressing skepticism over his decision to launch airstrikes against Syria, slamming the move as overly aggressive and unnecessary.

Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham both questioned Trump’s decision Friday to launch strikes in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack last weekend that the U.S. has attributed to the Syrian government.

Carlson noted the move was inconsistent with the president’s message during his 2016 campaign, and Ingraham said she found that intervention in other countries could be risky, as shown in the Iraq War, according to the Daily Beast.

Michael Savage, a prominent conservative radio host and author, tweeted that “sad warmongers hijacking our nation” following news of the strike.

Michael Savage@ASavageNation
 We lost. War machine  bombs syria. No evidence Assad did it. Sad warmongers hijacking our nation

Infowars’s Alex Jones broke down in tears while speaking out against the military action. “If he had been a piece of crap from the beginning, it wouldn’t be so bad,” Jones said of Trump. “We’ve made so many sacrifices and now he’s crapping all over us. It makes me sick."

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter also shared her opposition to the strike, retweeting a series of other conservative or right-wing figures who condemned the move and resurfacing Trump's own past tweets against military action in Syria.

And far-right figures Mike Cernovich and Laura Loomer also ripped Trump over the military strike in Syria.

Mike Cernovich@Cernovich
At least I won’t feel bad when he gets impeached.
The ironic thing is that I am probably more anti-war, and have been for much longer, than any of these right-wing figures. I'm not bothered by a few missile strikes. I don't believe they will lead to boots on the ground, any more than all the previous missile strikes did.

Everything I have seen about the situation indicates that Trump is resisting the neocons and their war machine, not giving into it. I really don't understand why none of these folks, of whom most I generally think well, aren't able to do the same.

Be patient. Don't react. And don't assume you necessarily know what the President is doing.

Labels: ,

False flag proven

The double poisoning in the UK was not the Russians nor was the toxin utilized the one originally claimed by the British foreign office, according to a top Swiss lab:
The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report.

The Swiss center mentioned by Lavrov is the Spiez Laboratory controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and ultimately by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW.

The Russian foreign minister said that London refused to answer dozens of “very specific” questions asked by Moscow about the Salisbury case, as well as to provide any substantial evidence that could shed light on the incident. Instead, the UK accused Russia of failing to answer its own questions, he said, adding that, in fact, London did not ask any questions but wanted Moscow to admit that it was responsible for the delivery of the chemical agent to the UK.
Now, why would the British government be lying about this and why would it want to provoke a confrontation with Russia on a false basis in the first place?

Labels: ,

Join the club

I have to admit, I find it more than a little amusing when another right-wing figure gets banned by Twitter and acts genuinely surprised about it.
Conservative street artist Sabo has been permanently suspended from Twitter. Sabo, who ran the @UnsavoryAgents account, was banned from the platform on Friday.

“Was not told why or for how long. I just saw I no longer have my 32,000 followers and I’m no longer following anybody,” claimed Sabo in an email to Breitbart Tech. “They want nothing less than to completely destroy us on the Right.”
Really. You don't say.... It's always fascinating how so few on the Right believe there is a problem or is willing to actually lift a finger to do anything about it until they are personally affected.

Labels: ,

Please to paint target on your chest

The sports media is getting frustrated about the way in which NFL teams have learned not to hand them the hammer with which to hit them:
Let’s get it all out in the open. Regardless of how you feel about a player’s right to kneel during the national anthem, two men have peacefully risked their livelihood and dreams to prove a point they feel is vital. It’s time for the coaches and general managers who have enjoyed playing both sides of the issue to throw their cards on the table, too. Don’t leave an amateur psychologist like me to guess, because here are my notes:

You might be scared that a billionaire owner will fire you if you press them too hard on signing Reid or Kaepernick and, like them you will be unemployed.

• You might feel like signing and supporting players unafraid of speaking their mind will lead to you losing command inside the facility, and you will no longer be able to walk around pretending you are George S Patton in Nike khakis.

• You might resist having your opinion out there because you don’t want good players who care about social justice issues but only speak about them in societally approved ways to not come to your team in free agency.

Don’t leave it to your favorite reporter to clean it up on television via “sources,” either.

We might not like the answers, but what about this flimsy, hollow middle ground feels good to anyone right now?
No, let's not. If the sports media wanted honest answers, it should have it should never have started prosecuting and calling for the disemployment of those whose answers it didn't like. They destroyed the very information flows upon which they relied; if you bite the hand that feeds you, you probably shouldn't expect dinner tomorrow.

The minute any team official admitted that they will not sign Kaepernick or Reid due to the fact that they are known troublemakers who put politics ahead of their jobs, the entire sports media will tee off on them and sic the social media mob on them. Which is why no team official who cares about keeping his job will ever admit that.

Labels: , ,

The symbolic strike option

It appears that my expectations were more or less correct. But now that the US has opted for the symbolic strike, what are the implications? The Saker discussed this very possibility three days ago, even as he worried about mutual escalation:
The truth is that Russia would never be a credible threat to the AngloZionist Hegemony if it was not for the innumerable self-inflicted disasters the Empire has been absorbing year after year after year. In reality, Russia is no threat to anybody at all. And even China would not be a threat to the Empire if the latter was not so arrogant, so over-stretched, so ignorant, reckless and incompetent in its actions.

Let me just give one simple, but stark, example: not only does the US not have anything remotely resembling a consistent foreign policy, it does not even have any ministry of foreign affairs. The Department of State does not deal with diplomacy simply because the US leaders don’t believe in diplomacy as a concept. All the DoS does is issue threats, sanctions, ultimatums, make demands, deliver score-cards (on human rights and the like, of all things!) and explain to the public why the US is almost constantly at war with somebody. That is not “diplomacy” and the likes of Nikki Haley are not diplomats. In fact, the US has no use for International Law either, hence the self-same Nikki Haley openly declaring at a UNSC meeting that the US is willing to ignore the decisions of the UNSC and act in complete violation of the UN Charter. Simply put: thugs have no need for any diplomacy. They don’t understand the concept.

Just like their Israeli masters and mentors, the Americans have convinced themselves that all they need to be successful on the international scene is to either threaten the use of force or actually use force. This works great (or so it seems) in Gaza or Grenada, but when dealing with China, Russia or Iran, this monomaniacal approach rapidly shows its limitations, especially when your force is really limited to shooting missiles from afar or murdering civilians (neither the US nor Israel nor, for that matter, the KSA has a credible “boots on the ground” capability, hence their reliance on proxies).

The Empire is failing, fast, and for all the talk about “Animal Assad” or “Rocket Man” being in need of AngloZionist punishment, the stakes are the survival of Hegemony imposed upon mankind at the end of WWII and, again, at the end of the Cold War, and the future of our planet. There cannot be one World Hegemon and a multipolar world order regulated by international law. It’s an either-or situation. And in that sense, this is all much bigger than Syria or even Russia.

There is still a chance that the AngloZionists will decide to strike Syria symbolically, as they did last year following the previous chemical false flag in Khan Sheikhoun (Trump has now probably tweeted himself into a corner which makes some kind of attack almost inevitable). Should that happen though, we should not celebrate too soon as this will just be a minor course change, the 21st-century anti-Russia Crusade will continue, most likely in the form of a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass.
While I think the Saker misses the point that Trump is not a creature of the Empire and is probably the primary target of its attempts to wield its influence, I suspect that he is correct that the neocons' anti-Russian campaign will continue, although I expect its focus to shift to Iran next, rather than Ukraine.

And this commenter has it right: In its essence, U.S. foreign policy boils down to someone’s attempt to establish Satan’s kingdom on earth as per Isaiah 14:13,14.

But not just U.S. foreign policy. As another commenter observed, Russia appears to be placing the blame for both recent false flags squarely on Britain. And Britain was also involved in the attacks, which may indicate that any Russian retaliation is going to be directed at British interests.

Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has a more regional and historical take on the situation:
With so many interests, native and foreign, involved, a way out does not seem in sight. Nor can the outcome be foreseen any more than that of the Thirty Years’ War could be four years after the beginning of the conflict, i.e. 1622. In fact there is good reason to believe that the hostilities have just begun. Additional players such as Lebanon and Jordan may well be drawn in. That in turn will almost certainly bring in Israel as well. Some right-wing Israelis, including several ministers, actually dream of such a scenario. They hope that the fall of the Hashemite Dynasty and the disintegration of Jordan will provide them with an opportunity to repeat the events of 1948 by throwing the Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan.

That, however, is Zukunftmusik, future music as the Germans say. As of the present, the greatest losers are going to be Syria and Iraq. Neither really exists any longer as organized entities, and neither seems to have a future as such an entity. The greatest winner is going to be Iran. Playing the role once reserved for Richelieu, the great 17th century French statesman, the Mullahs are watching the entire vast area from the Persian Gulf to Latakia on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean turn into a maelstrom of conflicting interests they can play with. Nor are they at all sorry to see Turks and Kurds kill each other to their hearts’ contents.
What is most interesting, to me, is that despite their very different perspectives, both the Saker and van Creveld recognize that the "liberal factions" in Syria were false fronts for ISIS.

UPDATE: Russia Insider called it correctly ahead of time.
The latest news is that now the Russian and American militaries are frantically talking, helped by Israelis (Netanyahu himself!), and the Turks (NATO members after all, but de facto Russian allies), trying to figure a way out of this Mexican standoff. Some experts are saying that it will go down like last time: the Americans will notify the Russians in advance of the targets, the Russians (and most Syrians whom the Russians will inform) will leave them, the strikes will be all for show, and the Russians and Syrians will get on with pulverizing Al Qaeda. The Syrians have already moved their planes to Russian bases, so, no, Syria will not lose its air force. Everyone saves face, and the world moves on.
Interesting, though not surprising, that Mad Dog Mattis is credited as being the voice of reason responsible for the "de-conflicting" on the US side. And I note that he does have blue eyes.


Older Posts