I'm trying something new for an article review. Rather than marking it up with blue text, as I sometimes do, I made a video reading and commenting on it. It's my first attempt at something like this, so there are some production miscues, such as the text not lining up properly on the top. But there's no way I'm going to go back and redo it all at this point. The video is long, at nearly two hours. I'd be interested in hearing if people prefer reading or listening to these things, or if anyone really wants to sit through such a long article review.
If anyone thinks I've blown my cover with this, the blog has never truly been anonymous anyway, as I link to it from my personal social media. Plus, there are other people out there brave enough to match their face with their opinions. We should be as well, whatever the consequences.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/W970oXKDp1j8/
Friday, October 19, 2018
Monday, October 15, 2018
Affirmative Action for Neo Nazis
The left just keeps giving us these delightful gifts. In the news today, a judge dismissed Stormy Daniels's defamation suit against Trump, ordering her to pay all legal fees. So all those anti-Trumpers dumping money into her GoFundMe are paying his lawyers. Very sweet. That is two big wins that Avanatti has delivered for President Trump in, what, two weeks? The speed of time is warped in this new environment and difficult to keep track of. If Avenatti wasn't such a highly emotional tool, you'd almost suspect he was a Trump operative. He's just too good to be true. But for that to be true, he'd have to be one of the greatest actors of all time. No, he is far more likely to be a result of the left's enthusiasm for elevating any dredged-up loser to stardom whose willing to make allegations against their great nemesis.
The even juicier story today is Senator Warren, who seems almost desperate in her quest to put herself at the front of the very short line of Democrat presidential prospects. To her credit, if her goal was merely for a massive media blitz, under the assumption that all press is good press, then it has been quite a success for her. She's been the talk of the day. But at what cost? She's forced the left to either reject her, or to discard several of their cherished battle cries.
The Boston Globe led with the news the Warren hired a DNA expert who determined that she has between 1/32 and 1/512 Indian DNA content. That was actually wrong, but even at that level, what an astonishing play. The middle of that range is 1/128 meaning she is less the 1% Native American by blood. And they claimed that as a victory that Trump was wrong when he said she wasn't Native American! Even in the best case, at 1/32, she's still a generation shy of the 1/16 required by most tribes, which is incredibly lenient in itself. For reference, Barack Obama was 1/2 white. Please, go tell a liberal that Obama was actually a white president and report their reaction in the comments.
But the truth is far more damning than that. The Globe retracted their initial article and amended it to state that the correct ratio was, in fact, between 1/64 to 1/1024, or less than a tenth of a percent. (It is reasonable that the Globe made a common off-by-one error when dealing with these fractions.) Still, Warren has claimed this tiny percentage of a percentage as somehow a moral victory. One calculation estimated that, if Senator Warren's body contains the normal amount of blood, then the amount of correct proportion of Asian / Native American blood is less than half a drop. That is, it is factually correct to state that Senate Warren does not have a drop of Indian blood in her veins. The Globe referred to "family lore" that Warren's great great great grandmother was at least partially Native American. If we take the new middle of the range - 1/256 - then her great great great grandmother contained a little over 10% Indian genetics, but possibly as low as 3%. That is, it would be ridiculous to call Warren's distant ancestor an ethnic minority a century and a half when she was alive. If the ratio is the far-end number of 1/124, then one must go back 8 generations, or about 240 years, which is just about the age of the country. Think about it. In the dark winters of the Revolutionary War a colonial Warren takes a squaw for his wife, and centuries later Elizabeth Warren gets a high-status job at Harvard and makes nearly a million a year off that career, in total. Boy, that is some butterfly effect stuff there.
Warren's Indian heritage is a triviality, an amusement she has leveraged to amass real-world power. She claims vindication because her story is true. It is likely that there was, indeed, family lore of a long-distant relative, and you can vaguely see a resemblance in her younger pictures. But that doesn't count for anything. I have a vague Asian resemblance, and in fact I've been asked several times by Asians if I am half, even when I lived in Japan. It's likely that my Polish ancestors brought some Mongol genes over to the new world. In short, I have about the same claim to ethnic minority status as she has, but I'd never dream of checking that box, except out of willful deceit. She did check that box, many moons ago, to boost her career. Now that she's eyeballing a White House bid, she's in a pickle. She can't deny that she claimed minority status, because it's on the record that she did so for some professional organization, and she'd be under tremendous pressure to release her college applications. She's trying to clear that out early on by claiming victory on the matter, and - like Hillary - she's willing to tear down any plank of progressives that stands between her and power. Here are three.
1. Genetics of Race. No longer can they claim race is a social construct. Not if Warren - who has never lived on an Indian reservation, who is a member of no tribe, nor qualified to be a member of any tribe, nor speaks any of their languages nor practices any or their customs, nor suffers any of their particular hardships - can claim ethnic minority status based on a trace of genetic heritage. Not only is race genetically determined, but DNA experts can determine race to extremely high precision.
2. Non-white Privilege. It really throws the whole claim of white privilege into jeopardy. If the great liberal chief Warren really believes in white privilege, then why was she so desperate to claim minority status during her early legal career? If white privilege were real, wouldn't she seek to hide her long-distant ancestor, and perhaps cover those high cheek bones with some make up.
3. Neo Nazis get Affirmative Action. It hasn't been that long ago since the left were really getting their kicks out of "white supremacists" discussing their genetic testing results which often showed non-European ethnic contributions of less than a percent (here and here). Good news, Neo Nazis....you're all ethnic minorities now! Which means, you can apply for colleges, jobs, and other benefits and get that affirmative actions hiring bump.
The left is now indistinguishable from the small fraction of fringe right-wingers whom they demonize. Both are quibbling over tiny traces of genetic impurity. As we say around here, demands for purity are sure signs of a cult. The difference is that the cult of whiteness is a tiny marginalized subset of the right, whereas the cult of anti-whiteness is the mainstream on the left. They're two sides of the same coin.
The even juicier story today is Senator Warren, who seems almost desperate in her quest to put herself at the front of the very short line of Democrat presidential prospects. To her credit, if her goal was merely for a massive media blitz, under the assumption that all press is good press, then it has been quite a success for her. She's been the talk of the day. But at what cost? She's forced the left to either reject her, or to discard several of their cherished battle cries.
The Boston Globe led with the news the Warren hired a DNA expert who determined that she has between 1/32 and 1/512 Indian DNA content. That was actually wrong, but even at that level, what an astonishing play. The middle of that range is 1/128 meaning she is less the 1% Native American by blood. And they claimed that as a victory that Trump was wrong when he said she wasn't Native American! Even in the best case, at 1/32, she's still a generation shy of the 1/16 required by most tribes, which is incredibly lenient in itself. For reference, Barack Obama was 1/2 white. Please, go tell a liberal that Obama was actually a white president and report their reaction in the comments.
But the truth is far more damning than that. The Globe retracted their initial article and amended it to state that the correct ratio was, in fact, between 1/64 to 1/1024, or less than a tenth of a percent. (It is reasonable that the Globe made a common off-by-one error when dealing with these fractions.) Still, Warren has claimed this tiny percentage of a percentage as somehow a moral victory. One calculation estimated that, if Senator Warren's body contains the normal amount of blood, then the amount of correct proportion of Asian / Native American blood is less than half a drop. That is, it is factually correct to state that Senate Warren does not have a drop of Indian blood in her veins. The Globe referred to "family lore" that Warren's great great great grandmother was at least partially Native American. If we take the new middle of the range - 1/256 - then her great great great grandmother contained a little over 10% Indian genetics, but possibly as low as 3%. That is, it would be ridiculous to call Warren's distant ancestor an ethnic minority a century and a half when she was alive. If the ratio is the far-end number of 1/124, then one must go back 8 generations, or about 240 years, which is just about the age of the country. Think about it. In the dark winters of the Revolutionary War a colonial Warren takes a squaw for his wife, and centuries later Elizabeth Warren gets a high-status job at Harvard and makes nearly a million a year off that career, in total. Boy, that is some butterfly effect stuff there.
Warren's Indian heritage is a triviality, an amusement she has leveraged to amass real-world power. She claims vindication because her story is true. It is likely that there was, indeed, family lore of a long-distant relative, and you can vaguely see a resemblance in her younger pictures. But that doesn't count for anything. I have a vague Asian resemblance, and in fact I've been asked several times by Asians if I am half, even when I lived in Japan. It's likely that my Polish ancestors brought some Mongol genes over to the new world. In short, I have about the same claim to ethnic minority status as she has, but I'd never dream of checking that box, except out of willful deceit. She did check that box, many moons ago, to boost her career. Now that she's eyeballing a White House bid, she's in a pickle. She can't deny that she claimed minority status, because it's on the record that she did so for some professional organization, and she'd be under tremendous pressure to release her college applications. She's trying to clear that out early on by claiming victory on the matter, and - like Hillary - she's willing to tear down any plank of progressives that stands between her and power. Here are three.
1. Genetics of Race. No longer can they claim race is a social construct. Not if Warren - who has never lived on an Indian reservation, who is a member of no tribe, nor qualified to be a member of any tribe, nor speaks any of their languages nor practices any or their customs, nor suffers any of their particular hardships - can claim ethnic minority status based on a trace of genetic heritage. Not only is race genetically determined, but DNA experts can determine race to extremely high precision.
2. Non-white Privilege. It really throws the whole claim of white privilege into jeopardy. If the great liberal chief Warren really believes in white privilege, then why was she so desperate to claim minority status during her early legal career? If white privilege were real, wouldn't she seek to hide her long-distant ancestor, and perhaps cover those high cheek bones with some make up.
3. Neo Nazis get Affirmative Action. It hasn't been that long ago since the left were really getting their kicks out of "white supremacists" discussing their genetic testing results which often showed non-European ethnic contributions of less than a percent (here and here). Good news, Neo Nazis....you're all ethnic minorities now! Which means, you can apply for colleges, jobs, and other benefits and get that affirmative actions hiring bump.
The left is now indistinguishable from the small fraction of fringe right-wingers whom they demonize. Both are quibbling over tiny traces of genetic impurity. As we say around here, demands for purity are sure signs of a cult. The difference is that the cult of whiteness is a tiny marginalized subset of the right, whereas the cult of anti-whiteness is the mainstream on the left. They're two sides of the same coin.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
The Racist Gene
A recent properly progressive headline from the great, red state of Missouri.
Damn white people and their... **shuffles deck** ... dating apps!
The definition of racism must be something like: holding people to different standards based on their race. That is not a noncontroversial definition. The dominant segment of the left believes that being racist consists of merely being white, or at least of being unapologetically white. By either approach - our boring logic-based formalization, or their hip race-based take on racism - this headline must be racist. By our standards, because it is condemning whites for a behavior universal to all races. Or by their standard, because the author is white. He knows it, but also knows he can still be accepted in the DC cocktail party scene if he self-flagellates juuust enough.
Mating within one's own race has been the norm, for all races, throughout all history, with the possible exception of Brazil. Even among whites of the west - the least racist society of all time - the great majority of offspring are single-race babies. This is so even considering that the cosmopolitan mainstream like to date across race lines so they can virtue signal on social media. Look, proof of how un-racist I am! (unlike those bigots...) Of course they're the same people who still call people like Gavin McGinnes a white supremacist, who has mixed-race children with his non-white wife. I'm told that the interracial dating fad is all the rage in England where, truly, if you aren't shacking up with POCs, you're definitely a racist. But, when it comes time to marry & mate, birds of a feather still flock together.
Why is it that humans innately prefer to date their own types? Because they're racist? That's really a nonsensical answer. Why do humans eat food? Because they're hungry? It's a tautology. Humans eat because they're hungry, and are hungry because they haven't eaten. Not too enlightening. But we know the answer. Humans eat because consuming energy and nutrition gives survival advantage over not eating.
Certainly, picky breeding gives a survival advantage. Not to the individual, but it's never about the individual. It's all about the genes. Dawkins makes the case very well in The Selfish Gene. Gene survival is what is selected for. They run the show. We're merely robot vehicles that the genes utilize for their own selfish ends. They're happy to use us organisms up and kill us off as necessary. Animals like salmon sacrifice themselves to make a spawning run. Most human parents are ready and willing to defend their children's lives with their own. Love is irrational, they say, but such self-sacrifice is perfectly logical from an evolutionary viewpoint. Kill a man and his genetic heritage still passes on through his offspring. But kill his children and he risks becoming a genetic dead end. This is even truer for women, who have limited years of fertility.
Picky breeding gives an advantage because, when we unzip our genes and zip half of them up with someone else's, we want to ensure that the other half is as fit as possible, to ensure our offspring survive and continue to propagate our genes down the line. Here is where people get hung up. They say that, because one race is not better than another - or, perhaps if they're being a bit more rational, because the variations between individuals are typically greater than those between the races - then it is completely illogical to engage in race-based mating strategies. The optimal strategy is to find the most fit partner possible to ensure maximum fitness of your progeny. QED, and those who disagree are not merely icky racists who are totally not invited to our cool parties, but they are actually doing themselves a great disservice by foolishly engaging in a suboptimal approach to the only game that ultimately matters. Funny, that, because the selfish gene should compel us to never interrupt our enemy when he is making a Darwinistic mistake.
That logic is not faulty for what it contains, but what it omits. As usual, they obsess over the part that syncs up with the liberal worldview, and ignore the existence of the rest. Yet, a paradox remains. If intraracial breeding gives no advantage, why is it the norm for all humans? Liberals can't acknowledge the explanatory reasoning, so this is where they just get superstitious. It's those damn white people with their Whiteness and their Crusades! Or whatever. You've heard it all. There can't be a Darwinistic reason for racial mating - the Narrative does not allow it - so the answer must be demons. Those demons happen to all be white as a matter of convenience.
Dawkins doesn't explicitly offer an answer on the dilemma, but it falls out easily from the reasoning of his great book. First, we should dispel a myth or two. One favorite meme of the left that you're likely to encounter on Facebook is that, because all humans share over 99% of the same DNA, we are all virtually the same. Why does it even matter who we mate with, if the overwhelming majority of their genes are the same anyway? Well, a chimpanzee has 99% of the same DNA. I don't see them marrying chimps. A sea sponge has about 70% of the same DNA. Even on their ever-exanding eye chart of sexual orientations I see no mention of sea-sponge lovers, although I do hesitate to give them any ideas.
We have to consider the genes which vary among humans and ignore the rest, because those are the ones that matter to us. Dawkins notes the genetic similarities of relatives. Your child has 50% of the same genes as you and, by reflexivity, so do your parents. Your siblings also have, on average, 50% as well, but with more variance. Identical twins are 100% related. In theory, it is possible that you and your sibling each got the opposite split of genes from each parent and end up "0%" related. That probably never happens to the full extreme, but still it is possible for siblings to be more or less related to each other than they are to their parents. With your grandparents you share 25% genetics, and the same with your first cousins. There is still a significant genetic link at that point, and grandparents tend to be involved in helping raise their children's children. After that, the bonds get loose. Great-grandparents and second cousins don't tend to play a key role.
The part that gets lost is that those percentages are theoretical minimums. Even if two siblings got opposite splits of their parents' DNA, they wouldn't be totally unrelated, because their parents aren't totally unrelated. That is, they share some of the same genes. In fact, the more related the parents are (in the sense of having common genes, not of being kissing cousins), the more related the kids will be to each other. The more related people are to each other, the more selective pressure they have for mutual survival. I want me to survive so that my genes survive. I want my children to survive so that my genes survive, and their children too. I want anyone with many of the same genes as me to survive. I want my offspring to have as many of my genes as possible. Well, I don't necessarily want that, like I want a Tesla Roadster, but my selfish genes are running the show, and trick me into doing their bidding.
A thought scenario. Two people, you must kill one and allow the other to survive. If one is your identical twin, and one your "anti-twin", who do you let live? If you have no moral qualms but to do the bidding of your selfish genes, then the choice is obvious that you let your twin live, which is as good as letting yourself live, in the gene wars. What if one is a random person of your race, and the other is a random person of another race? Even more, what if one is a deadbeat of your race, and the person of the other race highly fit? Well, you want people of your race to win because you share more genes with them. In fact, the latter case makes the case even stronger, because the last thing you want is a bunch of highly competitive "other" genes out on the field. As it turns out, the selfish gene is a bit racist too.
The optimal approach is to breed with the most genetically similar person to you without risking recessive genetic disorders. The recessive gene thing ends up being a big deal, because recessive genes common to a particular race will be eradicated by interracial breeding. For instance, redheads are genetically recessive. It's not racist to say that redheads shouldn't breed with dark-skinned people. In fact, to say that they should do so it tantamount to calling for genocide against redheads, and genocidal is the most racist that you can be. The left claims to be all for racial diversity. Can we say we've increased diversity if redheads go extinct? Of course not, but it's a moot point. When they say more racial diversity they always, and I mean always, just mean fewer whites.
Now if you refer back to that original headline, it's actually a twofer. It doesn't merely shame whitey, but hints at a solution. We finally have the technology! What to do about those pesky genes and their incessant machinations for optimal reproduction? It's 2018, and there's an app for that.
Are there any other noble attempts to fix the broken bigoted world? Of course...
A final word from our sponsor.
Damn white people and their... **shuffles deck** ... dating apps!
The definition of racism must be something like: holding people to different standards based on their race. That is not a noncontroversial definition. The dominant segment of the left believes that being racist consists of merely being white, or at least of being unapologetically white. By either approach - our boring logic-based formalization, or their hip race-based take on racism - this headline must be racist. By our standards, because it is condemning whites for a behavior universal to all races. Or by their standard, because the author is white. He knows it, but also knows he can still be accepted in the DC cocktail party scene if he self-flagellates juuust enough.
Mating within one's own race has been the norm, for all races, throughout all history, with the possible exception of Brazil. Even among whites of the west - the least racist society of all time - the great majority of offspring are single-race babies. This is so even considering that the cosmopolitan mainstream like to date across race lines so they can virtue signal on social media. Look, proof of how un-racist I am! (unlike those bigots...) Of course they're the same people who still call people like Gavin McGinnes a white supremacist, who has mixed-race children with his non-white wife. I'm told that the interracial dating fad is all the rage in England where, truly, if you aren't shacking up with POCs, you're definitely a racist. But, when it comes time to marry & mate, birds of a feather still flock together.
Why is it that humans innately prefer to date their own types? Because they're racist? That's really a nonsensical answer. Why do humans eat food? Because they're hungry? It's a tautology. Humans eat because they're hungry, and are hungry because they haven't eaten. Not too enlightening. But we know the answer. Humans eat because consuming energy and nutrition gives survival advantage over not eating.
Certainly, picky breeding gives a survival advantage. Not to the individual, but it's never about the individual. It's all about the genes. Dawkins makes the case very well in The Selfish Gene. Gene survival is what is selected for. They run the show. We're merely robot vehicles that the genes utilize for their own selfish ends. They're happy to use us organisms up and kill us off as necessary. Animals like salmon sacrifice themselves to make a spawning run. Most human parents are ready and willing to defend their children's lives with their own. Love is irrational, they say, but such self-sacrifice is perfectly logical from an evolutionary viewpoint. Kill a man and his genetic heritage still passes on through his offspring. But kill his children and he risks becoming a genetic dead end. This is even truer for women, who have limited years of fertility.
Picky breeding gives an advantage because, when we unzip our genes and zip half of them up with someone else's, we want to ensure that the other half is as fit as possible, to ensure our offspring survive and continue to propagate our genes down the line. Here is where people get hung up. They say that, because one race is not better than another - or, perhaps if they're being a bit more rational, because the variations between individuals are typically greater than those between the races - then it is completely illogical to engage in race-based mating strategies. The optimal strategy is to find the most fit partner possible to ensure maximum fitness of your progeny. QED, and those who disagree are not merely icky racists who are totally not invited to our cool parties, but they are actually doing themselves a great disservice by foolishly engaging in a suboptimal approach to the only game that ultimately matters. Funny, that, because the selfish gene should compel us to never interrupt our enemy when he is making a Darwinistic mistake.
That logic is not faulty for what it contains, but what it omits. As usual, they obsess over the part that syncs up with the liberal worldview, and ignore the existence of the rest. Yet, a paradox remains. If intraracial breeding gives no advantage, why is it the norm for all humans? Liberals can't acknowledge the explanatory reasoning, so this is where they just get superstitious. It's those damn white people with their Whiteness and their Crusades! Or whatever. You've heard it all. There can't be a Darwinistic reason for racial mating - the Narrative does not allow it - so the answer must be demons. Those demons happen to all be white as a matter of convenience.
Dawkins doesn't explicitly offer an answer on the dilemma, but it falls out easily from the reasoning of his great book. First, we should dispel a myth or two. One favorite meme of the left that you're likely to encounter on Facebook is that, because all humans share over 99% of the same DNA, we are all virtually the same. Why does it even matter who we mate with, if the overwhelming majority of their genes are the same anyway? Well, a chimpanzee has 99% of the same DNA. I don't see them marrying chimps. A sea sponge has about 70% of the same DNA. Even on their ever-exanding eye chart of sexual orientations I see no mention of sea-sponge lovers, although I do hesitate to give them any ideas.
We have to consider the genes which vary among humans and ignore the rest, because those are the ones that matter to us. Dawkins notes the genetic similarities of relatives. Your child has 50% of the same genes as you and, by reflexivity, so do your parents. Your siblings also have, on average, 50% as well, but with more variance. Identical twins are 100% related. In theory, it is possible that you and your sibling each got the opposite split of genes from each parent and end up "0%" related. That probably never happens to the full extreme, but still it is possible for siblings to be more or less related to each other than they are to their parents. With your grandparents you share 25% genetics, and the same with your first cousins. There is still a significant genetic link at that point, and grandparents tend to be involved in helping raise their children's children. After that, the bonds get loose. Great-grandparents and second cousins don't tend to play a key role.
The part that gets lost is that those percentages are theoretical minimums. Even if two siblings got opposite splits of their parents' DNA, they wouldn't be totally unrelated, because their parents aren't totally unrelated. That is, they share some of the same genes. In fact, the more related the parents are (in the sense of having common genes, not of being kissing cousins), the more related the kids will be to each other. The more related people are to each other, the more selective pressure they have for mutual survival. I want me to survive so that my genes survive. I want my children to survive so that my genes survive, and their children too. I want anyone with many of the same genes as me to survive. I want my offspring to have as many of my genes as possible. Well, I don't necessarily want that, like I want a Tesla Roadster, but my selfish genes are running the show, and trick me into doing their bidding.
A thought scenario. Two people, you must kill one and allow the other to survive. If one is your identical twin, and one your "anti-twin", who do you let live? If you have no moral qualms but to do the bidding of your selfish genes, then the choice is obvious that you let your twin live, which is as good as letting yourself live, in the gene wars. What if one is a random person of your race, and the other is a random person of another race? Even more, what if one is a deadbeat of your race, and the person of the other race highly fit? Well, you want people of your race to win because you share more genes with them. In fact, the latter case makes the case even stronger, because the last thing you want is a bunch of highly competitive "other" genes out on the field. As it turns out, the selfish gene is a bit racist too.
The optimal approach is to breed with the most genetically similar person to you without risking recessive genetic disorders. The recessive gene thing ends up being a big deal, because recessive genes common to a particular race will be eradicated by interracial breeding. For instance, redheads are genetically recessive. It's not racist to say that redheads shouldn't breed with dark-skinned people. In fact, to say that they should do so it tantamount to calling for genocide against redheads, and genocidal is the most racist that you can be. The left claims to be all for racial diversity. Can we say we've increased diversity if redheads go extinct? Of course not, but it's a moot point. When they say more racial diversity they always, and I mean always, just mean fewer whites.
Now if you refer back to that original headline, it's actually a twofer. It doesn't merely shame whitey, but hints at a solution. We finally have the technology! What to do about those pesky genes and their incessant machinations for optimal reproduction? It's 2018, and there's an app for that.
The study’s authors noted that OK Cupid itself experimented with pairing up users and saying they were “highly compatible” — even though they weren’t considered good matches — and found that the conversation between the two people often went well.What do liberals do when their designs for the world contradict with reality (which is always)? They lie! It's bloody brilliant! Well, these are the same people who so zealously encourage confused children to engage in transgenderism, which greatly increases their risks of suicide and other maladies...why wouldn't they trick internet daters into potentially disastrous relationships? Isn't progress grand?
Are there any other noble attempts to fix the broken bigoted world? Of course...
Another potential solution could come from 9Monsters, a gay dating app from Japan, that allows people to describe themselves without explicitly revealing their race, according to the study’s authors.Admittedly, withholding truth is an improvement over outright lying to people.
Another gay dating app, called Hornet, prevents people from using their profile to mention race at all.Well, when it comes to gay dating then none of this genetic talk really matters. What difference is there if a homosexual dates a white or an Asian or a sea sponge? There is no gradient of reproductive optimality for gay dating. They all score at zero. No right winger takes the time to lecture the gay community on the evils of interracial dating, but I do love the article's insinuation that we need to do something about all the racism on gay dating sites.
And a final solution might come in the form of “Kindr,” a campaign from Grindr that seeks to stamp out prejudice on its app by promoting inclusion. The study’s authors said positive writing about diversity may help promote more diverse couples on the apps.Did he really just call it a "final solution"? Anyway, this is my biggest beef with the gays, is they're such wimps. On their own major dating site, they must focus on what they like over what they don't, at risk of being excommunicated. "Oh my gosh, he just said three things he didn't like but only two that he did. Get him, girls!" Brooklyn Nine-Nine is a funny cop drama, if it's still on, which features a stiff-necked hardass police captain who is gay married, who is often at the center of the core moral dilemma of the episode. It's amusing to have the "straight man" be gay. If gays were generally more like that, they'd get a better reception from the rest of us. There is a misconception from the liberals that we hate gays. Well, it's not really a misconception so much as an attack to position themselves as savior of any group they can convince are helpless and marginalized. They've rejected the Christian value of hating the sin but loving the sinner. Like them, we want what's best for society. We don't hate gays. They leave more chicks for us, am I right? Seriously though, the logical approach is not to interrupt your enemy when he's making a Darwinistic mistake. For instance, I think all Somali immigrants should be gay. (I'd love to hear liberals debate us on that one.)
The new guidelines from Kindr, for example, suggest that users describe “what you’re into, not what you aren’t” to avoid offending others.
“These guidelines exist to let you express yourself freely while also helping us maintain the safe, authentic, and accepting environment we strive to cultivate,” the guidelines read. “Any violation of these guidelines may result in the removal of prohibited content or a permanent ban from Grindr.”
A final word from our sponsor.
“Kindr is not going to solve racism by any means,” Zumwalt said, according to GQ. “These issues have been present in our community long before Grindr, but we hope to increase conversations around it and have a dialogue about what constitutes sexual racism.”If there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that we have to do something about all those racist bigots on Grindr. Thanks for reading. Please share this post on Facebook, if you're trying to get banned and haven't been able to do that yet.
Monday, October 8, 2018
Kavanot
Now that the dust is settling around the Kavanaugh fiasco, and the despicable corporate media are no doubt regrouping for their next bout of fabricated outrage, I might just take a minute to mention that I don't really care much for Brett Kavanaugh. I supported his confirmation for the Senate, of course, but how could one not? The Democrats made the confirmation process a referendum on insanity. Do you oppose insanity? Great, now you support Kavanaugh, by necessity. It become a matter of principle, not how we personally felt about the guy, or even his judicial record. His legal career was considered to be impeccable by the likes of the National Review - who can't be trusted - but we can safely assume that anyone on a list hand-picked by the Federalist Society and vetted by the Heritage Foundation is an acceptable choice. For those who may not have been aware, Trump had those two organizations collaborate a list of potential nominees during his 2016 campaign, and he promised to select someone off the list. It was a brilliant political move. So brilliant, in fact, that I'd be surprised if we don't see it copied in future elections. It was particularly relevant to Trump's campaign, the first election in something like a hundred years with a Supreme Court vacancy during the election, and he as the wild-card candidate. Offering a whitelist of names before the election soothed a lot of anxiety among conservatives unsure about the unconventional outsider and former Democrat.
We don't know why President Trump picked Kavanaugh over other names on the list, many of whom are more conservative. Perhaps he suspected that Kavanaugh had the guts to handle a potentially raucous confirmation process. Perhaps he had made an agreement with Justice Kennedy not to pick someone too far to the right. Most likely he made what seemed to be a safe pick given the Republicans very soft hold of the Senate. When you consider that there are several Senate RINOs prone to treachery, and that Democrats will only very rarely vote with the president, you can see why 51 seats on the Senate doesn't go very far.
A serious demerit to Kavanaugh's record is his affiliation with the George W Bush administration, and his involvement with the Patriot Act. Rand Paul doesn't think much of Kavanaugh's record regarding the Fourth Amendment. You can trust Rand Paul on those kinds of matters. It's a very important consideration. Since the Bush tenure we've had the Snowden revelations, a massive expose of the depth of the US surveillance state. Even worse, and still ongoing, is that the FBI used those anti-terrorism powers to spy on a US presidential candidate in an attempt to veto a national election. Even those of us who are extremely skeptical of the US surveillance state were floored to learn that a FISA warrant was issued against a presidential candidate based on his opponent's opposition research. So yeah, having a guy who is weak on the 4th Amendment and was even involved in some of the offending executive actions is cause for concern.
Senator Claire McCaskill, whose Senate seat is under serious threat, voted No because Kavanaugh would not vote to overturn the Citizens United ruling. Well, that was her excuse anyway. Of course, she never actually considered voting for him. You know, this is one area where I tend to want to agree with the left. The corporate media is enemy number one in this country, and anything to increase their influence should be resisted as a matter of pragmatism. You have to wonder, why are so many liberals - complete stooges of the corporate propaganda - so opposed to Citizens United? Well, for one, liberals are unprincipled. The reason they oppose it is because the majority opinion was from the conservative wing of the court. As simple as that. And their leadership - the media, Soros, the Clintons, etc -haven't directed them away from their default position of opposing whatever conservatives do. So why haven't the left-wing elites done that? Well, Citizens United was a conservative non-profit that was prevented by the FEC from airing an anti-Hillary film during the 2008 primaries. They sued on grounds that the law violated their First Amendment rights, and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed. So, while personal contributions are strictly regulated, PACs were granted unlimited influence in politics. Scary stuff, it would seem. But consider something. Isn't it interesting that the plaintiff in Citizens United was a conservative outfit? There's big money on both sides, but much more goes to the left. Consider not only that Clinton outspent Trump by about three times in 2016, but that she got the vast majority of the big money. If the laws in place prior to Citizens United were limiting to corporate influence, wouldn't we expect the plaintiff to be from the left?
And that's the rub. The left already own the corporate outfits. They own the media. They get the Wall Street cash and Hollywood endorsements. They effectively own a mass propaganda wing that is largely immune to regulations. As we say here a lot, selectively enforced rules are merely tool of tyranny. So the prior FEC regulations would limit, say, Dinesh D'Souza from putting out documentaries, but allow CNN to engage in 24-hour vitriol against conservatives. Moreover, even in this slanted environment, punishments will still be selectively doled out. D'Souza went to prison for illegal campaign donations. A crime under the law, to be sure, but he was the first person to ever serve jail time for such a crime. He was a political prisoner. Meanwhile, the Wikileaks showed numerous campaign finance violations by the Democrats and even the media. There has been not even a hint of action on anything. These selectively enforced rules are unjust. Citizens United is preferable to one-sided regulations.
The final piece to Kavanaugh is more personal. After the rape accusations fell apart, the left went to questioning his temperament. It's a nonsense argument. For ten days straight the biggest news story in the world was that he was a serial gang-raping monster, which resulted in threats on his family and the like. We don't do trial by ordeal in this country. Even Lindsey Graham made the quip to a protestor, "why don't we dunk him in water and see if he floats?" Why don't we ruin his career, publicly humiliate him and destroy his reputation, threaten his daughters, and see if he gets mad? Of course he got mad! Still, just the same, I thought he was too emotional. It's because he was naive, as I argued here a while back. Nothing disturbs a person like unexpected maliciousness. Kavanaugh should have expected it. They accused Roy Moore of rape right before his election. They accused Donald Trump of rape right before his election. Did he not suspect they'd accuse him of rape right before his nomination to flip the balance of the court? Clearly he did not, nor did he or his family expect the circus going on in the Senate before the rape claims came out. When someone has that mindset - oh, yeah they accused those other guys of rape, but that can't happen to me because I'm solid - it's hard to tell where the naivety ends and the narcissism begins. Those are the traits we hate the most in leftoids, and in so-called conservatives like Bill Kristol.
The best case for Kavanaugh is that he has been red-pilled to the extreme by his public attempted lynching. Still, I'm hedging my bets. I saw two Kavanaugh headlines today on a pro-Trump site, both regarding his staff appointments. One was that he was the first SC Justice ever with an all-woman staff, and another about a high-level of minority staff appointments, higher in his career than the liberal hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The boast was to shove it in liberal's faces. "See, you're wrong, he does care about women and minority races!" It's the stupidest political stance you can take. Since when do the liberals give credit where it's due? All they do is to vilify any of us, and especially Kavanaugh, whom most Democrats still believe - or at least pretend to believe - is a gang-raping monster now sitting on the Supreme Court. It's possible that his staff picks, now and throughout his career, are genuine. I don't know much about the biz, but I'd suspect women's traits of attention to detail and ability to multitask could give them an advantage in the role. It's certainly possible that all the best candidates were women. Still, I ain't buying it. It's too much like your typical cuckservative behavior. Appease the left enough and maybe they'll like you. Or at least stop calling you bad names in the press. Hire enough women and maybe you won't be crucified in the press as a gang rapist. Or maybe you will. Conservatives hiring based on sexual and racial virtue signaling is just as bad as when liberals do it. Actually, it's worse because it adds a whole new layer of irrationality. We'll show those stupid feminists by only hiring women!
Speaking of irrationality, Jordan Peterson had quite a surprising take on the issue. He suggested that, if confirmed, Kavanaugh should step down. If you don't know about Jordan Peterson, one of his big principles is that you never apologize to a mob. He's quite articulate on the matter. You only apologize to people where the apology stands between you and resuming a cordial relationship. If I get drunk and say some awful things about you - perhaps on this blog, where literally dozens of people read - you might demand I make an equally public apology. You know, friendship isn't all about being nice to each other. Friendship is about telling the truth and pushing each other to improve. If I disparage you publicly, I have at least granted you the opportunity to demonstrate you have a backbone and won't tolerate abuse. And if you force me to concede my error, you teach me humility and steer me in the direction of improving so I won't make a similar blunder in the future. The transgression-apology cycle can actually strengthen a relationship, as counter-intuitive as that may be. But none of that applies with the leftist mob. Vox Day - who loathes Jordan Peterson - was writing about it years ago in his book SJWs Always Lie. It's something of a modern corporate survival guide, and I've sent copies to a couple friends working in those environments. The major lesson is don't apologize for "offensive speech" and other pseudo infractions, because your accusers will take that as the admission of guilt they will use to hang you with. Jordan Peterson knows this well, and in fact he first became famous for standing up to proposed compelled speech laws in Ontario. He's now making millions a year off his fame, but he advises Kavanaugh to effectively prostrate himself before the mob.
I'm quite a Jordan Peterson fan, myself. In fact, last Thursday I attended a Jordan Peterson lecture when he came through Missouri. Dave Rubin tours with Peterson, and led off with a brief standup bit. Then Peterson gave his hourlong stream of consciousness, followed by about a half hour of Q&A with the two. Rubin had Peterson's laptop which he was using to take question off of some app. He quipped, "Oh look, Jordan left his Twitter open. I could send the Tweet that ends it all tonight." It got a good laugh because one of Peterson's things is that he is very careful with his words. He says he does so as a matter of principle, but also because he knows the radical left are just dying for him to misspeak in a career-ending way. So it's interesting that just a number of hours later Peterson would Tweet something like that. He's very careful not to arouse the leftist lynch mobs, but he neglected to be mindful of his own supporters. Peterson isn't really a conservative. He's never claimed to be. But most of his followers are right of center. Some are far to the right. It would be one thing if he made a principled stance that ruffled the feathers of his conservative patrons. It's quite another to seem to abandon all his own principle to do so. He followed up his initial Tweet with a couple more that only seemed to dig the hole deeper. He said it's a complex issue. No, it isn't. He's the guy who did such a great job of making the dynamic simple for the rest of us. Don't apologize to a mob. Five words. Not complex at all. He called Kavanaugh a divisive figure. Getting assailed by the left because they don't want the courts to lean right doesn't make him divisive. It makes them divisive. What's Kavanaugh to say to all the people who went to bat for him, like the many dozens of women from his life making positive character references? "Thanks for pulling through when I needed you the most, but nevermind."
Many on the right already dislike Peterson. Some because he's a liberal. He was anti-Trump last I know, and I imagine he still is. Some because they are jealous, I suspect. Vox Day and the Zman fall into that camp. They've both dismissed him before all this, but never made a compelling case. They don't have to like him, yet they still go out of their way anyway to making unconvincing arguments against him. They don't like intellectual competition in their niche. Some just don't get him. Blonde in the Belly of the Beast says she was pretty well on the fence with Peterson already. She also went to one of his live shows, but found it to be just an hour of incoherent rambling. Well, the show isn't for everyone. It certainly takes an intellectual bent to follow and enjoy. Blonde is a Q believer, so her inclinations can be questioned. She still makes a perfectly logical refutation of him. Either he's not that logically consistent after all, and not careful with his words, or he's selling out his convictions to pander to the left, more interested in gaining approval from his "intellectual dark web" compatriots than standing by the lessons he delivers to his fans and supporters. Either way, she's justified to denounce him.
I think it's great that someone can make millions as a rambling philosopher in this culture. Peterson is the icebreaker, and many more should be following through to keep that sea lane open. If anti-progressive "hate speech" becomes big business, that's good for everyone. I think Jordan Peterson is absolutely brilliant, and I'm not likely to stop following him because of this incident, as bad as it is. He could do a lot of damage control by actually issuing an apology. Because those of us who are his supporters, who buy his book and pay to see his lectures, we actually want to resume cordial relations. And if he can't man up to own the error here and admit he got reckless, well maybe Dave Rubin's joke was quite timely after all.
We don't know why President Trump picked Kavanaugh over other names on the list, many of whom are more conservative. Perhaps he suspected that Kavanaugh had the guts to handle a potentially raucous confirmation process. Perhaps he had made an agreement with Justice Kennedy not to pick someone too far to the right. Most likely he made what seemed to be a safe pick given the Republicans very soft hold of the Senate. When you consider that there are several Senate RINOs prone to treachery, and that Democrats will only very rarely vote with the president, you can see why 51 seats on the Senate doesn't go very far.
A serious demerit to Kavanaugh's record is his affiliation with the George W Bush administration, and his involvement with the Patriot Act. Rand Paul doesn't think much of Kavanaugh's record regarding the Fourth Amendment. You can trust Rand Paul on those kinds of matters. It's a very important consideration. Since the Bush tenure we've had the Snowden revelations, a massive expose of the depth of the US surveillance state. Even worse, and still ongoing, is that the FBI used those anti-terrorism powers to spy on a US presidential candidate in an attempt to veto a national election. Even those of us who are extremely skeptical of the US surveillance state were floored to learn that a FISA warrant was issued against a presidential candidate based on his opponent's opposition research. So yeah, having a guy who is weak on the 4th Amendment and was even involved in some of the offending executive actions is cause for concern.
Senator Claire McCaskill, whose Senate seat is under serious threat, voted No because Kavanaugh would not vote to overturn the Citizens United ruling. Well, that was her excuse anyway. Of course, she never actually considered voting for him. You know, this is one area where I tend to want to agree with the left. The corporate media is enemy number one in this country, and anything to increase their influence should be resisted as a matter of pragmatism. You have to wonder, why are so many liberals - complete stooges of the corporate propaganda - so opposed to Citizens United? Well, for one, liberals are unprincipled. The reason they oppose it is because the majority opinion was from the conservative wing of the court. As simple as that. And their leadership - the media, Soros, the Clintons, etc -haven't directed them away from their default position of opposing whatever conservatives do. So why haven't the left-wing elites done that? Well, Citizens United was a conservative non-profit that was prevented by the FEC from airing an anti-Hillary film during the 2008 primaries. They sued on grounds that the law violated their First Amendment rights, and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed. So, while personal contributions are strictly regulated, PACs were granted unlimited influence in politics. Scary stuff, it would seem. But consider something. Isn't it interesting that the plaintiff in Citizens United was a conservative outfit? There's big money on both sides, but much more goes to the left. Consider not only that Clinton outspent Trump by about three times in 2016, but that she got the vast majority of the big money. If the laws in place prior to Citizens United were limiting to corporate influence, wouldn't we expect the plaintiff to be from the left?
And that's the rub. The left already own the corporate outfits. They own the media. They get the Wall Street cash and Hollywood endorsements. They effectively own a mass propaganda wing that is largely immune to regulations. As we say here a lot, selectively enforced rules are merely tool of tyranny. So the prior FEC regulations would limit, say, Dinesh D'Souza from putting out documentaries, but allow CNN to engage in 24-hour vitriol against conservatives. Moreover, even in this slanted environment, punishments will still be selectively doled out. D'Souza went to prison for illegal campaign donations. A crime under the law, to be sure, but he was the first person to ever serve jail time for such a crime. He was a political prisoner. Meanwhile, the Wikileaks showed numerous campaign finance violations by the Democrats and even the media. There has been not even a hint of action on anything. These selectively enforced rules are unjust. Citizens United is preferable to one-sided regulations.
The final piece to Kavanaugh is more personal. After the rape accusations fell apart, the left went to questioning his temperament. It's a nonsense argument. For ten days straight the biggest news story in the world was that he was a serial gang-raping monster, which resulted in threats on his family and the like. We don't do trial by ordeal in this country. Even Lindsey Graham made the quip to a protestor, "why don't we dunk him in water and see if he floats?" Why don't we ruin his career, publicly humiliate him and destroy his reputation, threaten his daughters, and see if he gets mad? Of course he got mad! Still, just the same, I thought he was too emotional. It's because he was naive, as I argued here a while back. Nothing disturbs a person like unexpected maliciousness. Kavanaugh should have expected it. They accused Roy Moore of rape right before his election. They accused Donald Trump of rape right before his election. Did he not suspect they'd accuse him of rape right before his nomination to flip the balance of the court? Clearly he did not, nor did he or his family expect the circus going on in the Senate before the rape claims came out. When someone has that mindset - oh, yeah they accused those other guys of rape, but that can't happen to me because I'm solid - it's hard to tell where the naivety ends and the narcissism begins. Those are the traits we hate the most in leftoids, and in so-called conservatives like Bill Kristol.
The best case for Kavanaugh is that he has been red-pilled to the extreme by his public attempted lynching. Still, I'm hedging my bets. I saw two Kavanaugh headlines today on a pro-Trump site, both regarding his staff appointments. One was that he was the first SC Justice ever with an all-woman staff, and another about a high-level of minority staff appointments, higher in his career than the liberal hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The boast was to shove it in liberal's faces. "See, you're wrong, he does care about women and minority races!" It's the stupidest political stance you can take. Since when do the liberals give credit where it's due? All they do is to vilify any of us, and especially Kavanaugh, whom most Democrats still believe - or at least pretend to believe - is a gang-raping monster now sitting on the Supreme Court. It's possible that his staff picks, now and throughout his career, are genuine. I don't know much about the biz, but I'd suspect women's traits of attention to detail and ability to multitask could give them an advantage in the role. It's certainly possible that all the best candidates were women. Still, I ain't buying it. It's too much like your typical cuckservative behavior. Appease the left enough and maybe they'll like you. Or at least stop calling you bad names in the press. Hire enough women and maybe you won't be crucified in the press as a gang rapist. Or maybe you will. Conservatives hiring based on sexual and racial virtue signaling is just as bad as when liberals do it. Actually, it's worse because it adds a whole new layer of irrationality. We'll show those stupid feminists by only hiring women!
Speaking of irrationality, Jordan Peterson had quite a surprising take on the issue. He suggested that, if confirmed, Kavanaugh should step down. If you don't know about Jordan Peterson, one of his big principles is that you never apologize to a mob. He's quite articulate on the matter. You only apologize to people where the apology stands between you and resuming a cordial relationship. If I get drunk and say some awful things about you - perhaps on this blog, where literally dozens of people read - you might demand I make an equally public apology. You know, friendship isn't all about being nice to each other. Friendship is about telling the truth and pushing each other to improve. If I disparage you publicly, I have at least granted you the opportunity to demonstrate you have a backbone and won't tolerate abuse. And if you force me to concede my error, you teach me humility and steer me in the direction of improving so I won't make a similar blunder in the future. The transgression-apology cycle can actually strengthen a relationship, as counter-intuitive as that may be. But none of that applies with the leftist mob. Vox Day - who loathes Jordan Peterson - was writing about it years ago in his book SJWs Always Lie. It's something of a modern corporate survival guide, and I've sent copies to a couple friends working in those environments. The major lesson is don't apologize for "offensive speech" and other pseudo infractions, because your accusers will take that as the admission of guilt they will use to hang you with. Jordan Peterson knows this well, and in fact he first became famous for standing up to proposed compelled speech laws in Ontario. He's now making millions a year off his fame, but he advises Kavanaugh to effectively prostrate himself before the mob.
I'm quite a Jordan Peterson fan, myself. In fact, last Thursday I attended a Jordan Peterson lecture when he came through Missouri. Dave Rubin tours with Peterson, and led off with a brief standup bit. Then Peterson gave his hourlong stream of consciousness, followed by about a half hour of Q&A with the two. Rubin had Peterson's laptop which he was using to take question off of some app. He quipped, "Oh look, Jordan left his Twitter open. I could send the Tweet that ends it all tonight." It got a good laugh because one of Peterson's things is that he is very careful with his words. He says he does so as a matter of principle, but also because he knows the radical left are just dying for him to misspeak in a career-ending way. So it's interesting that just a number of hours later Peterson would Tweet something like that. He's very careful not to arouse the leftist lynch mobs, but he neglected to be mindful of his own supporters. Peterson isn't really a conservative. He's never claimed to be. But most of his followers are right of center. Some are far to the right. It would be one thing if he made a principled stance that ruffled the feathers of his conservative patrons. It's quite another to seem to abandon all his own principle to do so. He followed up his initial Tweet with a couple more that only seemed to dig the hole deeper. He said it's a complex issue. No, it isn't. He's the guy who did such a great job of making the dynamic simple for the rest of us. Don't apologize to a mob. Five words. Not complex at all. He called Kavanaugh a divisive figure. Getting assailed by the left because they don't want the courts to lean right doesn't make him divisive. It makes them divisive. What's Kavanaugh to say to all the people who went to bat for him, like the many dozens of women from his life making positive character references? "Thanks for pulling through when I needed you the most, but nevermind."
Many on the right already dislike Peterson. Some because he's a liberal. He was anti-Trump last I know, and I imagine he still is. Some because they are jealous, I suspect. Vox Day and the Zman fall into that camp. They've both dismissed him before all this, but never made a compelling case. They don't have to like him, yet they still go out of their way anyway to making unconvincing arguments against him. They don't like intellectual competition in their niche. Some just don't get him. Blonde in the Belly of the Beast says she was pretty well on the fence with Peterson already. She also went to one of his live shows, but found it to be just an hour of incoherent rambling. Well, the show isn't for everyone. It certainly takes an intellectual bent to follow and enjoy. Blonde is a Q believer, so her inclinations can be questioned. She still makes a perfectly logical refutation of him. Either he's not that logically consistent after all, and not careful with his words, or he's selling out his convictions to pander to the left, more interested in gaining approval from his "intellectual dark web" compatriots than standing by the lessons he delivers to his fans and supporters. Either way, she's justified to denounce him.
I think it's great that someone can make millions as a rambling philosopher in this culture. Peterson is the icebreaker, and many more should be following through to keep that sea lane open. If anti-progressive "hate speech" becomes big business, that's good for everyone. I think Jordan Peterson is absolutely brilliant, and I'm not likely to stop following him because of this incident, as bad as it is. He could do a lot of damage control by actually issuing an apology. Because those of us who are his supporters, who buy his book and pay to see his lectures, we actually want to resume cordial relations. And if he can't man up to own the error here and admit he got reckless, well maybe Dave Rubin's joke was quite timely after all.
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Peering Into the Abyss
Since this blog is set to expire soon, I might as well confess that the wordy blog title doesn't really mean anything. When I started the blog I had no good title in mind, but I got a kick out of the endless hysteria surrounding politics, so I made the blog name a pun of "comical emergency." As we spend a lot of time here prattling petty politics, it seems the title isn't relevant any more. My apologies to anyone who ever had to type out "calmgullemergentsea.blogspot.com" more than once, although "eternalvigilance.com" is only a moderate improvement in that regard.
The subtitle "Peering Into the Abyss" was a more recent addition, maybe in the last year or so. It was a reflection on this blog's increasing focus on the growing irrationality infecting this society. Of course, many others were doing the same, yet it was uncommon enough to allow the subtitle to be something of a branding attempt. A lot of the best blogs, even if they roam around on different topics, tend to have a home domain of discussion they specialize in. This blog has tried to make some sense of the nonsense.
I don't think you'd brand a blog the same way today. Left-wing irrationality has gone mainstream. You know, it can be a little muddy what we mean when we say liberal, or progressive, or leftist, etc, but everyone here understands what The Cult means. I used to link some of my posts on my personal facebook account - I hardly bother these days - and, when I did, I was careful to avoid sharing posts that included "The Cult" or similar verbiage because it seemed like it would come off a little kooky to those who weren't regular readers. That has changed. These days I suspect that if you went up to anyone with a hint of red-blooded American in them and said, "liberalism is a cult," the likely response would be some variation of "it sure the hell is."
Things are changing fast. Consider that it's only been twenty or twenty-five years since the internet became a mass-consumed product, and only a bit longer since Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine and unleashed conservative talk radio. Since then it's been a slow and gradual awakening, until so recently. Isn't that they way systemic changes happen? Slowly, and then all at once.
It's worth examining, as a brief aside, why talk radio and the internet would tend to empower conservative awakening. As is so common, Moldbug discussed it over a decade ago. Alternative outlets are conservative because mainstream outlets are progressive. After decades of progressive propaganda parading as education and an independent press, why would anyone go out of their way to listen to liberal talk radio, or read a liberal blog? What could they possibly learn there? They might go to get their two minutes of hate, but there's no need when the corporate news and late-night clowns do such a marvelous job already. The alternative media is inherently conservative because the liberals have taken over everything mainstream. Look at how the social media corporations are reacting now. They're not even pretending that it's anything but a political takeover of the newly mainstream outlets. Look at the major alternatives like Gab, Voat, and Bitchute. They're very right-wing, for the obvious reason. Right-wingers didn't just disappear when they were kicked off the normie sites.
Look at the phrase "Alt-Right". Alternative right. Most have backed away from the term as it became associated with the fringe right. But really all it meant was an alternative to what was the mainstream right. Namely, neocons, another word for liberals. Alternative right meant actually conservative, not a neocon. The label has been soiled, but it's hardly needed these days anyway, as we've become the mainstream conservatives.
Moldbug said in that article, "I have never heard any conservative suggest that the American political system is fundamentally and incurably anticonservative." Well, plenty are suggesting it now. That's the "abyss", really. That the American political system is fundamentally and incurably anticonservative. A lot of people are starting to peer into that abyss. It's becoming common talk. The reaction to the pure insanity from the left in the Senate has been twofold. There is the agitated and energetic reaction - excitement that the left has played itself and is likely to be soundly defeated in November. But there is another, more somber reaction. That the gains will be only temporary. That we're truly at war. That the long-term prognosis is fatal, not just because the left controls the cultural and educational institutions, but because they control the demographic trends, and they will always find a way to do so in a democracy. It's the only way they can survive. The emotional reactions of Kavanaugh and Senator Graham that we saw last week were not mere political theater. They were the realization that the left is actually evil, that they are communists who will stop at nothing to destroy us and take power over us.
Let's really consider where we're at with Trump, whom we're very lucky to have. The foreign policy is still imperialist. The national debt still grows at Obama-era rates. The media sets the national discourse with nonstop hysteria. Violence and threats against conservatives are routine. Anti-white racism is rampant in liberal media. Higher education is churning out antisocial political radicals. There is still an ongoing coup attempt on the president for his opponent's crimes. The mob has overrun the Senate, and possibly the Supreme Court. And this is the Golden Era! The Trump years! Think of what happens when we don't own the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court. When Lindsay Graham said he hopes they don't get power, he means it. And if Lindsey Graham is woke, a lot of people are woke. We're all peering into the abyss now.
The subtitle "Peering Into the Abyss" was a more recent addition, maybe in the last year or so. It was a reflection on this blog's increasing focus on the growing irrationality infecting this society. Of course, many others were doing the same, yet it was uncommon enough to allow the subtitle to be something of a branding attempt. A lot of the best blogs, even if they roam around on different topics, tend to have a home domain of discussion they specialize in. This blog has tried to make some sense of the nonsense.
I don't think you'd brand a blog the same way today. Left-wing irrationality has gone mainstream. You know, it can be a little muddy what we mean when we say liberal, or progressive, or leftist, etc, but everyone here understands what The Cult means. I used to link some of my posts on my personal facebook account - I hardly bother these days - and, when I did, I was careful to avoid sharing posts that included "The Cult" or similar verbiage because it seemed like it would come off a little kooky to those who weren't regular readers. That has changed. These days I suspect that if you went up to anyone with a hint of red-blooded American in them and said, "liberalism is a cult," the likely response would be some variation of "it sure the hell is."
Things are changing fast. Consider that it's only been twenty or twenty-five years since the internet became a mass-consumed product, and only a bit longer since Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine and unleashed conservative talk radio. Since then it's been a slow and gradual awakening, until so recently. Isn't that they way systemic changes happen? Slowly, and then all at once.
It's worth examining, as a brief aside, why talk radio and the internet would tend to empower conservative awakening. As is so common, Moldbug discussed it over a decade ago. Alternative outlets are conservative because mainstream outlets are progressive. After decades of progressive propaganda parading as education and an independent press, why would anyone go out of their way to listen to liberal talk radio, or read a liberal blog? What could they possibly learn there? They might go to get their two minutes of hate, but there's no need when the corporate news and late-night clowns do such a marvelous job already. The alternative media is inherently conservative because the liberals have taken over everything mainstream. Look at how the social media corporations are reacting now. They're not even pretending that it's anything but a political takeover of the newly mainstream outlets. Look at the major alternatives like Gab, Voat, and Bitchute. They're very right-wing, for the obvious reason. Right-wingers didn't just disappear when they were kicked off the normie sites.
Look at the phrase "Alt-Right". Alternative right. Most have backed away from the term as it became associated with the fringe right. But really all it meant was an alternative to what was the mainstream right. Namely, neocons, another word for liberals. Alternative right meant actually conservative, not a neocon. The label has been soiled, but it's hardly needed these days anyway, as we've become the mainstream conservatives.
Moldbug said in that article, "I have never heard any conservative suggest that the American political system is fundamentally and incurably anticonservative." Well, plenty are suggesting it now. That's the "abyss", really. That the American political system is fundamentally and incurably anticonservative. A lot of people are starting to peer into that abyss. It's becoming common talk. The reaction to the pure insanity from the left in the Senate has been twofold. There is the agitated and energetic reaction - excitement that the left has played itself and is likely to be soundly defeated in November. But there is another, more somber reaction. That the gains will be only temporary. That we're truly at war. That the long-term prognosis is fatal, not just because the left controls the cultural and educational institutions, but because they control the demographic trends, and they will always find a way to do so in a democracy. It's the only way they can survive. The emotional reactions of Kavanaugh and Senator Graham that we saw last week were not mere political theater. They were the realization that the left is actually evil, that they are communists who will stop at nothing to destroy us and take power over us.
Let's really consider where we're at with Trump, whom we're very lucky to have. The foreign policy is still imperialist. The national debt still grows at Obama-era rates. The media sets the national discourse with nonstop hysteria. Violence and threats against conservatives are routine. Anti-white racism is rampant in liberal media. Higher education is churning out antisocial political radicals. There is still an ongoing coup attempt on the president for his opponent's crimes. The mob has overrun the Senate, and possibly the Supreme Court. And this is the Golden Era! The Trump years! Think of what happens when we don't own the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court. When Lindsay Graham said he hopes they don't get power, he means it. And if Lindsey Graham is woke, a lot of people are woke. We're all peering into the abyss now.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
American Taqiya
With the circus going on in the Senate, it is easy to become enraged and lose sight of the big picture here. We are all, I imagine, seeing red at this point. This may all work out in our favor, in the long run, but that would be the mindset of optimism, which often leads to disappointment. Let's see where we're at.
We're in a political war, and there are three big battles in front of us: the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court battle is well underway, and it is already half lost. The reality of the situation, that they've managed to drag a crying woman before a national audience, is really hitting home. The nominee is now effectively on trial. This, by the way, is all Senator Grassley's fault. I like him, but this is his fielding error. The time to file the sexual assault allegations was anytime between 36 years ago and the end of the vetting process of the Senate hearings. Feinstein waited until after that time to unleash the allegations. Grassley allowed the process to be derailed, because he is weak. The correct approach is: you never give them an inch. Not ever, not for any reason. They need a sip of water? Have to go pee really, really bad? No, no, no. It's so easy. Just one step. Now, look where we're at.
Liberal accuser: Kavanaugh touched me inappropriately 36 years ago.
Grassley: I'll allow an exception, to show how fair we are, and because I know the process will reveal how absurd the claim is.
** a week passes **
Liberal accuser: Kavanaugh was the ringleader of a band of DC gang rapists in the 1980's!!!
You see how quickly that escalates? You crack the door an inch, and they come barging in. Every. Single. Time. It's easy to understand why Grassley made his decision. As soon as he failed to bend over backwards for the poor abused woman (remember, we assume guilt in these kinds of things), then his name would be drug through the mud for weeks, as a sexist villain, and worse. The thing about this is, with a few exception, no one really believes the woman. No one believes she sat on these allegations for 36 years, while Kavanaugh was nominated to incrementally higher judgeships, and only decided to come clean at the very last possible minute, in a way that just so happens to work out perfectly for Democrats trying every trick in the book to sabotage and delay. No one believes there was a roving rape gang in Maryland that only targeted loony liberals. No one thinks it's believable that none of the other dozens of victims of the alleged rape gang have come forward, or that all witness provided by the accusers have refuted the claims. No one believes her. No one. It's American Taqiya. They are pretending to care about our rules, like rule of law, so they can use them against us. They don't care one iota for abused women, or they wouldn't rally around a clearly fraudulent claim, nor ignore cases with actual evidence, like that of the DNC chairman.
The Supreme Court nomination has been turned into a trial, but not a legal one. There is no presumption of innocence, the burden of proof is not on the prosecution, and there is no requirement to prove the claim beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. All they have to do is whip up the media/mob frenzy enough to scare a couple of fence-sitting RINOs, make them fear about the wrath they'll incur from voting YES. The Republicans, who own the committees, have allowed the judiciary committee to degenerate into a lynch mob. The conclusion is yet to be seen. We might still "win" this battle, but it is half lost no matter the outcome. This is the new norm for conservative nominees: utter insanity.
The Supreme Court battle isn't really lost, so long as the Senate is held. PredictIt gives 2/3 odds of holding it. I think we'll actually gain seats. If the Democrats win the Senate, then there will be no more Republican-appointed judges until the next time a Republican Senate and presidency are coincident. To get a real conservative appointed, we need more like 55 seats to be safe, given the RINO predilection to treachery. If the Republicans gain seats - and the Senate circus is only helping us there - then Trump just appoints another nominee in November, even more conservative than the last one. From Trump's perspective, this could turn into a huge win. It would be unfortunate if Kavanaugh had his career and reputation destroyed. Watching him refuse to back down, and realizing how hardened this process will make him, he really is a fantastic candidate at this point. On the other hand, his emotional reaction shows that he and his family really were caught off guard by this. They naively believed that progressives are just people who prefer different approaches to the same end goals we want, instead of what they really are, which is communist insurrectionists. The thing that people like Kavanaugh don't comprehend is that the liberals truly believe that all evil stems from white conservatism, and Trump is the next...you know who. When Trump is Hitler, then fake rape allegations to sabotage a Supreme Court nomination, or fake Russia allegations to trigger an FBI investigation motivated for impeachment, aren't even moral dilemmas. Of course that's what you do, to stop neo-Hitler.
But, this could all turn out OK for us. In some capacity, I wish the communists would torture every federal judge. Nothing like a new justice whose hatred for the radical left oozes out of every pore. But if he gets borked, things will be fine for us so long as we hold the Senate. For better or worse, Trump doesn't mind using people up. He pushes them hard and discards them as needed. He doesn't exactly throw supporters to the wolves, but he demands more loyalty than he gives. Like the left, he is willing to sacrifice a man for the cause. I hope Kavanaugh understood that going in. He is caught between two massive human grinding wheels. I suspect he went in with full faith in the righteousness of the system. God help him.
Of the three big battles, the one that really matters is the Senate. A loss in the Supreme Court could turn into a victory. The Democrats expose themselves as insane liars, and we still get a conservative appointee. A house loss would be painful, but not fatal. A Senate loss would be, to my mind, the demarcation of the end of the republic. The day the mob finally took over the Supreme Court, and got away with it. But, if Republicans can pull a hat trick: hold the House, gain the Senate, and get Kavanaugh or another strong conservative appointed, it's hard to see how the Democrat party could survive such a heavy defeat.
We're in a political war, and there are three big battles in front of us: the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court battle is well underway, and it is already half lost. The reality of the situation, that they've managed to drag a crying woman before a national audience, is really hitting home. The nominee is now effectively on trial. This, by the way, is all Senator Grassley's fault. I like him, but this is his fielding error. The time to file the sexual assault allegations was anytime between 36 years ago and the end of the vetting process of the Senate hearings. Feinstein waited until after that time to unleash the allegations. Grassley allowed the process to be derailed, because he is weak. The correct approach is: you never give them an inch. Not ever, not for any reason. They need a sip of water? Have to go pee really, really bad? No, no, no. It's so easy. Just one step. Now, look where we're at.
Liberal accuser: Kavanaugh touched me inappropriately 36 years ago.
Grassley: I'll allow an exception, to show how fair we are, and because I know the process will reveal how absurd the claim is.
** a week passes **
Liberal accuser: Kavanaugh was the ringleader of a band of DC gang rapists in the 1980's!!!
You see how quickly that escalates? You crack the door an inch, and they come barging in. Every. Single. Time. It's easy to understand why Grassley made his decision. As soon as he failed to bend over backwards for the poor abused woman (remember, we assume guilt in these kinds of things), then his name would be drug through the mud for weeks, as a sexist villain, and worse. The thing about this is, with a few exception, no one really believes the woman. No one believes she sat on these allegations for 36 years, while Kavanaugh was nominated to incrementally higher judgeships, and only decided to come clean at the very last possible minute, in a way that just so happens to work out perfectly for Democrats trying every trick in the book to sabotage and delay. No one believes there was a roving rape gang in Maryland that only targeted loony liberals. No one thinks it's believable that none of the other dozens of victims of the alleged rape gang have come forward, or that all witness provided by the accusers have refuted the claims. No one believes her. No one. It's American Taqiya. They are pretending to care about our rules, like rule of law, so they can use them against us. They don't care one iota for abused women, or they wouldn't rally around a clearly fraudulent claim, nor ignore cases with actual evidence, like that of the DNC chairman.
The Supreme Court nomination has been turned into a trial, but not a legal one. There is no presumption of innocence, the burden of proof is not on the prosecution, and there is no requirement to prove the claim beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. All they have to do is whip up the media/mob frenzy enough to scare a couple of fence-sitting RINOs, make them fear about the wrath they'll incur from voting YES. The Republicans, who own the committees, have allowed the judiciary committee to degenerate into a lynch mob. The conclusion is yet to be seen. We might still "win" this battle, but it is half lost no matter the outcome. This is the new norm for conservative nominees: utter insanity.
The Supreme Court battle isn't really lost, so long as the Senate is held. PredictIt gives 2/3 odds of holding it. I think we'll actually gain seats. If the Democrats win the Senate, then there will be no more Republican-appointed judges until the next time a Republican Senate and presidency are coincident. To get a real conservative appointed, we need more like 55 seats to be safe, given the RINO predilection to treachery. If the Republicans gain seats - and the Senate circus is only helping us there - then Trump just appoints another nominee in November, even more conservative than the last one. From Trump's perspective, this could turn into a huge win. It would be unfortunate if Kavanaugh had his career and reputation destroyed. Watching him refuse to back down, and realizing how hardened this process will make him, he really is a fantastic candidate at this point. On the other hand, his emotional reaction shows that he and his family really were caught off guard by this. They naively believed that progressives are just people who prefer different approaches to the same end goals we want, instead of what they really are, which is communist insurrectionists. The thing that people like Kavanaugh don't comprehend is that the liberals truly believe that all evil stems from white conservatism, and Trump is the next...you know who. When Trump is Hitler, then fake rape allegations to sabotage a Supreme Court nomination, or fake Russia allegations to trigger an FBI investigation motivated for impeachment, aren't even moral dilemmas. Of course that's what you do, to stop neo-Hitler.
But, this could all turn out OK for us. In some capacity, I wish the communists would torture every federal judge. Nothing like a new justice whose hatred for the radical left oozes out of every pore. But if he gets borked, things will be fine for us so long as we hold the Senate. For better or worse, Trump doesn't mind using people up. He pushes them hard and discards them as needed. He doesn't exactly throw supporters to the wolves, but he demands more loyalty than he gives. Like the left, he is willing to sacrifice a man for the cause. I hope Kavanaugh understood that going in. He is caught between two massive human grinding wheels. I suspect he went in with full faith in the righteousness of the system. God help him.
Of the three big battles, the one that really matters is the Senate. A loss in the Supreme Court could turn into a victory. The Democrats expose themselves as insane liars, and we still get a conservative appointee. A house loss would be painful, but not fatal. A Senate loss would be, to my mind, the demarcation of the end of the republic. The day the mob finally took over the Supreme Court, and got away with it. But, if Republicans can pull a hat trick: hold the House, gain the Senate, and get Kavanaugh or another strong conservative appointed, it's hard to see how the Democrat party could survive such a heavy defeat.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
We're Going to Need Some More Awards
Awards of prestige come and go. Sometimes they are created because a new field arises. For example, the Turing Award - considered the "Nobel Prize for Computing" - was created because Computer Science was not yet a field of study when the Nobel prizes were created. Sometimes awards die. The International Lenin Peace Prize died with the Soviet Union. (One wonders hold long until that is resurrected.) There are numerous Oscar Awards that have been abandoned. Overall, Tinseltown awards are on the decline. This year I didn't hear any news about the Emmy Awards at all, did not even know they had occurred, until hearing reports that they had, again, reached some new low-water mark for viewership. These awards may not be on the endangered list, but they've certainly lost a great deal of prestige.
Two other major awards have lost their luster without about half the populace. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a newly elected President Obama for...wining the election, it seems. Apparently he was awarded for his campaign promises, and not just because of his ethnicity. (We'll take their word for it that it wasn't racially motivated). At the time, the award drew great scorn, since he hadn't done anything noteworthy to actually promote peace. The committee told us that the award could be awarded not just post factum, but also pre-emptively to encourage a peaceful outcome. (We notice that they don't similarly give Nobel prize to unaccomplished chemists or physicists in the hopes they'll be spurned to some great scientific discovery.) Perhaps they should have given him two Peace Prizes, because he went on to oversee a foreign policy that was just as bad - and arguably worse - as that of his predecessor. The Nobel became the Hail Mary play of peace prizes. There are some who say - a very few of them - that the Nobel Peace Prize might be redeemed if it is rewarded to President Trump, for his pivotal role in ending the 70-year war on the Korean peninsula. More likely, it would just mean the award would lose prestige for its remaining fans. The only way to restore the legitimacy of the prize would be to retract it from Obama. Still, some will demand that it be revoked from Arafat and Kissinger as well. Well, the Nobel committee certainly can't please everyone when politics are involved. But, as long as they've awarded it to Obama, and not to Trump, they have a serious credibility problem.
The other prize that's become about meaningless for everyone to the right of Glenn Beck is the Pulitzer, which is awarded to a number of writers each year. The domain is inherently subjective, so there will naturally be arguments about who deserved it and didn't. However, the awarding body decided to get political and awarded a journalism prize for coverage of the Trump-Russia scandal. That is, they gave a big-boy prize for serious reporting of a pretend crime. As that whole episode transitions from current calamity to historical absurdity, this will look worse and worse for the Pulitzer, and cast a shadow of doubt on all recipients. The only proper action would be to recall all fake-news recipients. Which, of course, they won't do, and the award will become nothing but the official reading list of the Democrat Party.
It's clear that we need new awards for journalism and peace. Some names come to mind. The Julian Assange Award for Bureaucratic Transparency. The Glenn Greenwald Award for Objective Journalism. The Sara A. Carter Award for Independent Journalism. For peace, it's hard to say no to the Donald J. Trump Peace Prize, with it's focus on peace through strength & mutual self-interest, national sovereignty, and self-determination. Now, someone might counter that calling it the Trump Prize makes it inherently political, since he's a politician, and isn't that what we're trying to avoid? We would kindly remind such a person of O'Sullivan's Law, the observation that all organizations that aren't explicitly right-wing will become left-wing over time. Observe the pattern that the Nobel Peace Prize, Pulitzer, and various awards were not inherently political, but succumbed to O'Sullivan's Law to their own slow but certain demise. No, by calling it the Trump Prize we inoculate it from left-wing capture, and ensure it becomes the gold-standard of peace prizes for all eternity.
Similar to journalism, an award might be necessary for guerrilla journalism. During the Wikileaks releases of Democrat emails, each dump would be pored over by an army of unpaid investigators at Reddit's the_donald forum. The voting mechanism meant interesting finds were elevated to the top and received the most exposure. As far as I can tell, it's the world's only example of an organized but de-centralized mass investigation. Of course, the media has completely ignored or demonized it all, but one day I think it will be looked back on as a remarkable event. Also, a Canadian girl on Twitter discovered that Reddit user stonetear was a Clinton staffer trying to get help destroying criminal evidence under subpoena. And, most notably, James O'Keefe has engaged in such substantive undercover journalism that we wonder if the other outlets are even trying. (We'll, we don't wonder that much.)
Another category which is in need of a major award is political blogging. The blogs vary a great deal, so it's tough to peg down what a category is. For instance, the Gateway Pundit is very different from the ZBlog, which is very different from Chateau Heartiste. One is practically a news outlet, one a sage political philosopher, and one a clever Trump bro. Can they all compete for the same award? Details to be solved, but I see no reason no to make those awards a feature of the eternalvigilance.com site once it's running. Who knows, maybe someone will mistake it for something prestigious.
Finally, and most importantly, there needs to be an award for an art form that was only made possible by the information revolution: online trolling. It seemed that the Troll of the Year Award would go to whichever 4chan prankster convinced the liberals that the A-OK hand-sign was actually a secret white-power gesture. However, even that ruse appears to have been eclipsed. After Diane Feinstein brought forth her claims of sexual assault four decades ago by the Supreme Court nominee (itself an epic trolling of the American people), who else came forward but...Michael Avenatti, the Creepy Porn Lawyer! He made these tweets and, while he has since locked down his Twitter account, I assure they are real, as I had to check for myself when they first came out.
It's looking like this guy just got trolled, hard. Someone in 4chan is taking credit, but has not provided any evidence. This trolls not just CPL, but the mainstream media that were infatuated with him and his prostitute client for...weeks? Months? And it trolls the entire nonsense that is these last-minute sexual charges against conservative candidates. (Even dorky virgins.) This isn't minor, as much as they'll try to downplay it. Look at that last screenshot. Ten thousand retweets. Forty thousand likes. Who knows how high they got before he privatized his account? I'd like to see a list of those who retweeted.
This is the most epic troll, at least since Rachel Maddow released Trump's tax returns. And, think about it, Trump was certainly behind that little masterpiece. Did Trump troll the Creepy Porn Lawyer? We might never know, but I'd plan for this to be the first eternalvigilance.com Troll of the Year Award winner.
Two other major awards have lost their luster without about half the populace. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a newly elected President Obama for...wining the election, it seems. Apparently he was awarded for his campaign promises, and not just because of his ethnicity. (We'll take their word for it that it wasn't racially motivated). At the time, the award drew great scorn, since he hadn't done anything noteworthy to actually promote peace. The committee told us that the award could be awarded not just post factum, but also pre-emptively to encourage a peaceful outcome. (We notice that they don't similarly give Nobel prize to unaccomplished chemists or physicists in the hopes they'll be spurned to some great scientific discovery.) Perhaps they should have given him two Peace Prizes, because he went on to oversee a foreign policy that was just as bad - and arguably worse - as that of his predecessor. The Nobel became the Hail Mary play of peace prizes. There are some who say - a very few of them - that the Nobel Peace Prize might be redeemed if it is rewarded to President Trump, for his pivotal role in ending the 70-year war on the Korean peninsula. More likely, it would just mean the award would lose prestige for its remaining fans. The only way to restore the legitimacy of the prize would be to retract it from Obama. Still, some will demand that it be revoked from Arafat and Kissinger as well. Well, the Nobel committee certainly can't please everyone when politics are involved. But, as long as they've awarded it to Obama, and not to Trump, they have a serious credibility problem.
The other prize that's become about meaningless for everyone to the right of Glenn Beck is the Pulitzer, which is awarded to a number of writers each year. The domain is inherently subjective, so there will naturally be arguments about who deserved it and didn't. However, the awarding body decided to get political and awarded a journalism prize for coverage of the Trump-Russia scandal. That is, they gave a big-boy prize for serious reporting of a pretend crime. As that whole episode transitions from current calamity to historical absurdity, this will look worse and worse for the Pulitzer, and cast a shadow of doubt on all recipients. The only proper action would be to recall all fake-news recipients. Which, of course, they won't do, and the award will become nothing but the official reading list of the Democrat Party.
It's clear that we need new awards for journalism and peace. Some names come to mind. The Julian Assange Award for Bureaucratic Transparency. The Glenn Greenwald Award for Objective Journalism. The Sara A. Carter Award for Independent Journalism. For peace, it's hard to say no to the Donald J. Trump Peace Prize, with it's focus on peace through strength & mutual self-interest, national sovereignty, and self-determination. Now, someone might counter that calling it the Trump Prize makes it inherently political, since he's a politician, and isn't that what we're trying to avoid? We would kindly remind such a person of O'Sullivan's Law, the observation that all organizations that aren't explicitly right-wing will become left-wing over time. Observe the pattern that the Nobel Peace Prize, Pulitzer, and various awards were not inherently political, but succumbed to O'Sullivan's Law to their own slow but certain demise. No, by calling it the Trump Prize we inoculate it from left-wing capture, and ensure it becomes the gold-standard of peace prizes for all eternity.
Similar to journalism, an award might be necessary for guerrilla journalism. During the Wikileaks releases of Democrat emails, each dump would be pored over by an army of unpaid investigators at Reddit's the_donald forum. The voting mechanism meant interesting finds were elevated to the top and received the most exposure. As far as I can tell, it's the world's only example of an organized but de-centralized mass investigation. Of course, the media has completely ignored or demonized it all, but one day I think it will be looked back on as a remarkable event. Also, a Canadian girl on Twitter discovered that Reddit user stonetear was a Clinton staffer trying to get help destroying criminal evidence under subpoena. And, most notably, James O'Keefe has engaged in such substantive undercover journalism that we wonder if the other outlets are even trying. (We'll, we don't wonder that much.)
Another category which is in need of a major award is political blogging. The blogs vary a great deal, so it's tough to peg down what a category is. For instance, the Gateway Pundit is very different from the ZBlog, which is very different from Chateau Heartiste. One is practically a news outlet, one a sage political philosopher, and one a clever Trump bro. Can they all compete for the same award? Details to be solved, but I see no reason no to make those awards a feature of the eternalvigilance.com site once it's running. Who knows, maybe someone will mistake it for something prestigious.
Finally, and most importantly, there needs to be an award for an art form that was only made possible by the information revolution: online trolling. It seemed that the Troll of the Year Award would go to whichever 4chan prankster convinced the liberals that the A-OK hand-sign was actually a secret white-power gesture. However, even that ruse appears to have been eclipsed. After Diane Feinstein brought forth her claims of sexual assault four decades ago by the Supreme Court nominee (itself an epic trolling of the American people), who else came forward but...Michael Avenatti, the Creepy Porn Lawyer! He made these tweets and, while he has since locked down his Twitter account, I assure they are real, as I had to check for myself when they first came out.
It's looking like this guy just got trolled, hard. Someone in 4chan is taking credit, but has not provided any evidence. This trolls not just CPL, but the mainstream media that were infatuated with him and his prostitute client for...weeks? Months? And it trolls the entire nonsense that is these last-minute sexual charges against conservative candidates. (Even dorky virgins.) This isn't minor, as much as they'll try to downplay it. Look at that last screenshot. Ten thousand retweets. Forty thousand likes. Who knows how high they got before he privatized his account? I'd like to see a list of those who retweeted.
This is the most epic troll, at least since Rachel Maddow released Trump's tax returns. And, think about it, Trump was certainly behind that little masterpiece. Did Trump troll the Creepy Porn Lawyer? We might never know, but I'd plan for this to be the first eternalvigilance.com Troll of the Year Award winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)