Monday, October 29, 2018

Schisms & Isms

Consider the following recent Tweet from President Trump, keeping in mind Scott Adams' description of people observing one of two movies from a single reality.
The Fake News is doing everything in their power to blame Republicans, Conservatives and me for the division and hatred that has been going on for so long in our Country. Actually, it is their Fake & Dishonest reporting which is causing problems far greater than they understand!
You read something like this and instinctively know it will drive the liberals bananas. It plays right into their screenplay. They are perfectly convinced that Trump is, in fact, a sower of hatred and discord, so to them this Tweet is a lie of epic magnitude. They are fully convinced that he is both a demagogue and, by extension, a liar. It's funny when you confront them on the subject and ask what hateful things he has said. The normal response is to stammer, and, after fumbling a bit, likely treat you with surprise, suspicion, and disdain. "Really, you think Trump isn't hateful?' For them, it is so obvious that facts need not actually be considered.

Something that I hadn't noticed before, but have in the past week or two, is how convinced they are that Trump effectively leads his followers into mass adoption of lies. Perhaps I wasn't missing that, and it's just the new narrative going around, but they really believe that he speaks, and we - his sheep - mindlessly obey. Which is quite an exercise in projection given that the bulk of those brainwashed zombies have never had a thought that deviated from their corporate and academic programming. To pretend that we take our marching orders from the man in charge is to totally ignore that gaping schism that was growing in the Republican parties for years. They have to ignore the Ron Paul revolutions of 2008 and 2012, which lead to some very divided and heated Republican caucuses, and was in many ways analogous to the Bernie Sanders sensation of 2016. They have to ignore the Tea Party - conservatives' open revolt against Republican leadership - which was so analogous to Occupy Wall Street that you had to wonder if they weren't two sides of the same movement. It's easy for them to ignore the right's schism - and pretend Trump didn't ride the wave of popular resentment, but rather cast magical spells - because they ignore the left's own schism between popular socialists and establishment crooks - healed recently by the unity granted by their shared hatred of Trump. And the right is now, as well, united by their shared hatred of the people who hate Trump.

The schisms that divided each party have met in the middle to form one super-schism. We used to bemoan that the corporate left and corporate right had far more in common with each other than the liberals or conservatives that comprised the remainder of their respective parties. That isn't so today. Today, the schisms stand between isms. Nationalism vs globalism. Capitalism vs socialism.

Many outlets have come to blame Trump for a recent shooting at a synagogue. How they maintain that movie plot in relation to Trump's actions shows just how tenuous their relation to reality need be. What president has been more pro-Israel or supportive of Jews? In history? Of any country? Can a president who's adored daughter is Jewish, who appoints an Orthodox Jew into his inner circle of top advisors, who never uttered a bad word about them, be called anti-Semitic as anything but an exercise in absurdism? Honestly, if you didn't know anything about Trump's own ethnicity, you might even believe he was himself a Jew. That seems to have been the opinion of the actual shooter, who said, to paraphrase, I didn't vote for Trump because he is effectively a Jew. 

There is another schism out there, between the far right wing and everyone else, and it's been created by the liberals who control nearly all of the media and social media outlets. One of the far right outlets is Gab, a Twitter alternative that is currently offline because the mobs were able to pressure their hosting provider to withdraw service following the shooting. Another is Voat, which is a Reddit alternative, and another is Bitchute, an alternative to YouTube. All of these venues are potently right wing, because they are largely occupied by people who have been evicted from social media for wrong-think, and their audiences. Many of us have been saying for quite some time that the online schism is very dangerous. The left want the schism because they think they can divide and conquer. The right wingers don't just give up that easily, they just find another venue to speak their minds. None of them want to be holed up in ideological ghettos. They want to be on mainstream platforms, posting dank memes and triggering wimpy liberal soy boys. The isolation has been imposed on conservatives by the liberals who own the corporate media.

Let's be clear, there is hate speech on all three of the mentioned alt-tech platforms. There is a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment. (Of course, by that usage, then Twitter and Facebook contain a far greater amount of hate speech directed at whites.) Of the three platforms, Voat is the worst. There is something of a celebrate free speech by saying awful things mentality over there. Gab, heavily under fire now, is probably the least annoying in that regard, because it's easy to mute the people making the most noise. On Voat, it's harder to avoid, and Bitchute if you insist on reading the comments. I actually run a small subverse on Voat related to the politicization of academia. I don't advertise it here on the blog, and certainly not on my personal social media, because I don't want to be associated with the "JQ". The Jewish Question is the belief that the Jewish elite are secretly conspiring to destroy western nations. The big problem with the conspiracy theory is that there is at least a grain of truth to it. Or appears to, at least. Whites are lectured endlessly about white privilege, yet not a word is ever spoken about Asians or Jews, who, by their own metrics, have even more white privilege than whites. But the corporate media, largely dominated by Jewish executives, never talk about it. If you want to fuel conspiracy theories, turn the lights off on public facts or straight-forward arguments. The irony is that by trying to alienate their opponents, the media just make the right more radicalized and grant them martyrdom sympathy. It's the usual solution. Engage in coercive, even heavy-handed tactics to create some better good in the world, and then watch as the thing only gets worse.

Following the release of the Podesta emails by Wikileaks, many noticed that often Podesta and his colleagues were speaking in some sort of code. Between the strange language, and more direct references to occult activities like spirit cooking, a narrative was created that not only were Democrat elites engaged in a pedophilia ring, but were also engaged in Satanic rituals that they used to seal political alliances. Does that theory sound dangerous to you? Well, it's not. It's a perfectly valid theory. It's undeniable they were engaged in occult rituals of some level. And high-level pedophile rings in government are not unprecedented. It was as good a theory to fit the facts as any I'd heard, and frankly still is. No, the dangerous aspect was that the media would not touch the story, but perhaps to ridicule it from a wide distance. And maybe that's fair, maybe it really is a hair-brained notion. But then, you know that if the same emails had leaked out of Trump's camp that they'd have run hog-wild over them, and we'd still be hearing almost daily, two years later, about how scary it is that the nearly elected a Satanic pedophile.

The dangerous aspect was that no one can trust the media to do its job fairly. Whether or not the theory was valid, the media would respond the same way: by ignoring and ridiculing. And the same seemed to go for the DOJ, as well. Because of that, the only real feedback to be had was from other social media users. A subreddit was formed, called Pizzagate, because pizza was believed to be their code word for a child victim, and -gate identified it as a government scandal. Reddit banned the sub, and they were forced to move to Voat, which saw one of its biggest single upticks in traffic. There, they worked nearly in isolation. Eventually, one man became so sure that there were children held captive in the basement of Comet Pizza that he showed up armed with a rifle to free them, and shot the place up. He almost immediately realized his mistake, and was very fortunate to not have injured anyone, and was given a four-year sentence. It was a major setback for the online right. If the pedophilia theory was valid, the gunman killed any public support for it, effectively letting Democrat criminals off the hook. And if it was invalid, the incident still made online right-wingers look crazy, and, undeniably they were acting crazy in their isolated bubble.

Now we have another violent criminal emerging who partook in right-wing alt-media. He was, apparently, a JQer. The problem with the JQ is that there is hardly a thing to distinguish them from SJWs, just swap white for Jew. All our problems can be blamed on the other. It's just scapegoating. And the thing is, even if it's true, what are you going to do, cry about it all day? When we consider the black grievances against whites, we can admit that, yes, blacks probably do witness racism, but the real problem is the collapse of family values where 70% of their kids are now raised in single-parent households, and 90% out of wedlock. The world is tough, but your problems are your own. For whites too. If their nations are so fragile that they can be destroyed by a scrappy 2% of the population, then we certainly have much more serious issues than the presence of a high-IQ tribe, inclined to cosmopolitanism, who undoubtably tend to act out of self-interest. We're talking about countries that can't decide if they should allow themselves to be invaded by mobs of foreigners.

There is one more right-wing bubble to look at, which is a 4Chan account that a lot of people believe is a government agent called Q who leaks them insider information. Not a lot of the people I follow buy into the Q thing. Anonymous Conservative does, who is smart but prone to paranoia. Blonde in the Belly of the Beast does as well. Now I'm having people in my personal life, "normies", if you will, asking me about Q. Q is a LARP. It's nonsense. What benefit would Trump gain by having someone quietly leaking out insider information in riddle format? I notice that Q's brilliance is also post-hoc. He doesn't give us any predictive power that is actionable. So what exactly is the point? Is this going to go on until the next guy shoots up a crowd because he believes Q? It's time we reigned all this in.

Trump is right. The enemy is the media. Not only do they radicalize the left, by telling lies, but they radicalize the right, by not covering the truth and pushing them into isolated bubbles. I don't like supporting the corporate media outlets, so I try to make use of the free-speech alternatives. Still, we must be careful not to become isolated and crazy, which is just what they want. And we're not going to be attractive to normies if our alternatives are so heavily engaged in griping about Jews and praising Qs. The mainstream media is failing- the corporate social media is not far behind - and they will likely see a big ratings crash once Trump is gone. We need to be in a solid position to win over the audience at a national level.

video reading & discussion: https://www.bitchute.com/video/CK9ye0yXfYBz/

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Megyn Kelly Gets Hoisted

Can someone exhibit sympathy and schadenfreude at the same time? The recent sacking of Megyn Kelly suggests so. There is no sweeter poetic justice than seeing a lefty getting hoisted by their own petard; destroyed by a progressive lynch mob. It was Megyn Kelly, you'll recall, that went all attack prog on Trump in the Republican debates, when she berated him as insulting to women, where he gave his infamous quip of "only Rosie O'Donnell", which sent the signal that not only would he fight back against the media's penchant for destroying the lives of the unvirtuous, but that he could get the crowd on his side in the tussle. It was a big moment for the long-shot candidate. Kelly's accusations would have been credible if Trump had a habit of only criticizing women, but everyone knows that he is the quintessential cut-throat New York mogul who ruthlessly attacks all his opponents, who actually tend to be men. Kelly did what media headhunters do. If he didn't treat women and men the same, attack him for his archaic double standard in the times of holy equality. And if he does treat women the same, then attack him for treating women bad.

It was also Kelly who did the hit piece on Alex Jones. He shouldn't have done the interview, in my opinion, but he knew the situation and secretly recorded his communications with her, where she really comes off as a psychopath. She played the game they do, of playing coy and flirting, assuring that she actually respected him - unlike the other crazies in the biz - and would give him a fair shake. She then, of course, proceeded to do the normal smear job in editing. Indeed, the woman is a snake, has no virtue or shred of integrity to her, and got what she had coming.

At the same time, the particulars of her firing almost elicit pity. Kelly, who has struggled with ratings her entire tenure at NBC, seemed to have been trying out a more moderate, even pseduo-conservative role, perhaps sensing the shifting public sentiments, plus realizing that the role of shrieking feminist in the corporate media is well saturated. She was - to our surprise - critical of the allegations in the Kavanaugh hearings.

Her controversy was that she seemed to defend blackface. At least, that's the angle of the attack vector. But the transcripts indicate that the Kelly didn't quite understand the connotation of blackface. She seemed to think that blackface just meant a white person darkening their complexion to portray a black character - in general - whereas the term is really in reference to the old minstrel shows which were undeniably mocking of the black race and culture. Her crime was ignorance, common among reporters. Understandable, to reasonable people, but not to the radical culture that is now the mainstream left. It is expected that white people are well informed - and apologetic - of the entire Scripture of Oppressionism. It's actually not a defense that Kelly simply doesn't know about minstrel shows of over a century ago, because that is in itself a mortal sin.

She then compounded her sin by apologizing. It's funny how much Vox Day loathes Jordan Peterson, but they are both known for a core, basic message: never apologize to a mob. Never apologize to social justice warriors who are looking for a scalp. I really hope the readers here have internalized the message, because anyone - even their own - might at some point find themselves on the wrong side of one of these mobs. This is just one more example of the rule to hold dear: never apologize in response to accusations of heresy. Always fight back.

video reading & discussion: https://www.bitchute.com/video/H8Dg3E3u07PQ/
Kelly's very sincere apology: https://www.bitchute.com/video/JgaWEORABMc/

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Ben Shapiro is Officially Deranged

While insulting people for not being conservative enough is a favored pastime around here, I try to lay off those who seem to be part of the left-to-right pipeline. Around here we're wary of cults and their inevitable demands for purity. Cutting off allies for lack of virtue is not our bag, nor is it good strategy when so much is on the line and we are so institutionally outgunned. There are a lot of people to our left who appeal to liberals and plant the seeds that help them break free of the their programming. Look, no one ever transitioned from soy boy to commie slayer because they stumbled upon Unqualified Reservations one day. There are many vital intermediate steps along the way.

Notable in that crowd is Ben Shapiro, a libertarian civic-nationalist who is billed as a rational conservative with college-kid appeal. The people over at r/the_donald really loathe Shapiro, which is interesting because they aren't all that right-wing. A sizable portion are former Bernie supporters, and even more were Ron Paul fans. These people weren't too fazed that Trump spent most of his life as a pro-business Democrat who even ribbed on Republicans at times, because so many were moderate Democrats themselves, but watched that party swing far to the left in recent years. So the pedes on Reddit would seem primed to be as receptive as any audience out there to Shapiro's message of rational civic nationalism. Oh, but they despise him. The see him as a traitor, a con man even. Why? Is it just because he tends to rebuke each side for irrationality, and the pro-Trump crowd are overly sensitive? Maybe, to an extent, but I'm starting to agree that they are mostly justified.

Let's do an ad hoc case study, from his tweets just today, surrounding the bomb threat incident.

It was my first reaction, so I guess he's talking to me. Is this how a rational person talks? I have a pet peeve with abuse of the term officially, which has an air of valley-girl speak to it. It's just like when someone says literally and then proceeds to share a metaphor. Officially should mean that the claim is actually official in some regard. Literally official. Is there an officiating body for derangement? The DSM doesn't even mention the term. Perhaps he means that the behavior is so fitting with the official definition of the term as to be an obvious fit. It is given by the FreeDictionary as


The text reads: suffering from a severe mental illness; insane. 

Is basic pattern matching a sign of "severe mental illness"? The left are the side of fake gang rapes, fake refugees, fake Indians, fake news, fake debates, fake polls, fake outrage, fake dossiers, fake FISA warrants, and fake hate crimes - which have been documented in the hundreds since the election. Those are - and I won't abuse the term - literally false flag crimes. But Lil' Benji tells us it is deranged to assume that the fake bombs that were fake mailed to the fake news likely emanated from the left as well.

This feels a lot like the Jordan Peterson tweet of a couple weeks ago. The strong, even emotional, reaction from his (mostly conservative) followers wasn't that he exposed himself as left-leaning or even that he made a logical blunder. He's openly liberal, and we expect him to be a flawed mere mortal like the rest of us. The problem was that he seemed so eager to pander to his liberal pals in the IDW that he would say something that completely contradicted his message that made him so popular in the first place. The same here. People are suspicious that Shapiro's shtick is to pose as a conservative voice to give him more street cred when he attacks those on "his own side."

The rebuttal, of course, would be that Shapiro has a strong sense of principle, he attacks equally on both sides when principle is violated, and we're just being whiny because we demand perfect partisan loyalty. They would then, probably, direct us to Shapiro's Twitter feed, since he is criticizing hasty conclusion making from both sides.


Oh look, he criticized CNN for making the opposite hasty conclusion, so it's fair. Right? Well, do those look like equal and opposite rebuttals? In response to a liberal news outlet, he first seems to allow that Trump's criticism of the the outlet is "immoral", and then really dresses them down with some mild sarcasm. On the other hand, he responds to conservatives-at-large making the opposite conclusion in no uncertain terms as being "officially deranged." To the left he says "I agree Orange Man Bad but you're taking it too far for a news operation." To the scattered voices of the right, "you are all deplorable and irredeemable."

As it turns out, Shillpiro isn't careful with his words, doesn't actually care about evidence or context, and doesn't dish out criticism equally to both sides. How do we respond to such diatribe? In kind. I declare that Ben Shapiro is officially deranged. If his claim is credible, then mine must be as well.

video reading & discussion: https://www.bitchute.com/video/5ao1vfmh1AM8/
Styx on the subject: https://www.bitchute.com/video/PLpelK3ZsbE/

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Counter Conspiracies and Unarmies

Counter Conspiracies

2016 was the year of vindication for conspiracy theorists. It was a magical time when you could say things like, "holy crap, Alex Jones was right about everything...." and not sound too crazy. Much of that was because of multiple leaks of Democrat emails. One prominent conspiracy theory is that the US lies about why it goes to war, which is practically a mainstream belief, much as they try to depict us as fringe nutjobs. For instance, we were rallied to support military action against Libya for the usual reasons: because Democracy = Good, and, if we did nothing, then a mean man was going to kill babies. The Sydney Blumenthal emails not only revealed what we assumed to be true - that the war was really about geopolitical considerations, particularly French objections to an independent economic / political bloc rising in North Africa - but that the US Secretary of State was informed of the reality. Other emails would substantiate other conspiracy claims, such as collusion between the media & Democrats, or the machinations of the DNC to elect Clinton over Sanders.

2018 is the year of confusion for conspiracy theorists. The thing about a conspiracy theory is it still needs to hold up as a theory; it must satisfy Occam's razor or yield predictive power. The proposition that actors are collaborating in private to further their own interests must provide a more consistent explanation for observations than the ostensible, publicly promoted scenario. For instance, the belief that America goes to war to promote democracy for the benefit of civilians yields negative predictive power. If you believe the US invaded Iraq to bestow sweet democracy to its people, and to reduce the threat of WMDs, then you would go all in on a bet that the US would invade North Korea as well, and perhaps bet that the US would not invade Libya after they scrapped their WMD programs. However, if you believe that the US has its own reasons for picking its fights, and then promotes desired actions to the citizenry with whatever lie it thinks will sell, then you'll be somewhat less confounded by world events as they unfold.

So the essence of the conspiracy theory is that the culprits use deception to engage in actions of self interest. It's difficult to concoct conspiracy theories these days because it's not clear how the underhanded tactics of the elites are serving their interests at all. Look at the recent chaos in the Senate. Apparently they had some vision that they'd block Kavanaugh with disturbing public spectacles, win back Congress and impeach Trump. One almost wants to raise the conspiracy theory that Michael Avenatti is a Trump operative, who brilliantly morphed the left's plausible fake sexual assault accusations into implausible fake serial gang-rape accusations. But if he is a secret double agent, then Elizabeth Warren must be one as well, and Dianne Feinstein for that matter, and Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and...and eventually your theory becomes that the entire Democrat leadership are secretly conspiring to get Republicans elected.

It all makes the migrate caravan hard to interpret, which seems to be mostly an inorganic venture. Most people don't believe that ladies with $400 strollers are pushing 4 kids a thousand miles on foot to flee a violent Honduran regime, nor that the caravan's expected arrival just before the US midterms is anything but a political calculation. The best we can determine is that plot is to force Trump to respond with military force at the border, which hopefully will generate at least one image of evil Trump goonies oppressing cherished brown invaders of peace, which they'll broadcast 24/7 on the propaganda channels and convince the the good-hearted Americans to vote against the evil orange dictator and his cronies at the ballot box. Apparently, Hondurans are so stupid that they'll crawl a thousand miles over broken glass to leave one violent dictatorship for an even more violent (plus racist) dictatorship. But the story doesn't have to make sense. They just want the imagery for TV broadcast. That seems, at least, to be the best-fitting conspiracy theory.

It's hard to understate just how out-of-touch our elites are. You almost have to wonder if this isn't another counter conspiracy theory, like supposing that Avenatti was secretly aiding conservatives. Wouldn't it make more sense if the horde of immigrants marching towards our undefended border was the work of the sitting president, who previously won on his policy of strong immigration enforcement? Do the Democrats really think framing another election on their open-borders advocacy will be a winning formula? It seems like another counter conspiracy because they're giving Trump what every incumbent desires: a common enemy. The basic game of politics is unite the base and divide the opposition. The American elites are making a bet that most of America believes what they believe: that all worldly evil emanates from white trailer park hillbillies with their silly Christianity, and thus anything to darken up American demographics is a noble pursuit, that the migrants are inherently victims of white people and must be let in, and that white Americans will do anything to avoid being labeled as racists. In effect, they're attempting to trigger the NPC programming of the American populace, who have been born, raised, and educated in a stew of liberal propaganda that reminds us constantly that the worst vice in all the world is racism. The left don't have to make compelling arguments - in fact they are incapable of doing so - but merely to provide the right stimulus to trigger the pre-programmed "that's not who we are" response.

But they are really making the bet that our ideological programming will overpower our biological programming. Most Americans are still having kids, even these days, and innately recoil at the visual scenes, which we've already been treated to - of unruly mobs headed for our own homeland. The instinct of normal people is to protect the children at all cost. It hardly matters to most what the demographics is. If a mob of Russians were working their way to our border we'd respond the same way. When presented with a real threat, the people will always choose the strongman willing to fight the intruders. Even the most wild-eyed feminist today would be begging for another Churchill figure if tomorrow actual Nazis were lobbing V2 rockets into the heart of San Francisco. The only real inoculation to that reality to invasion from the southern border is the belief that "well they won't be in my neighborhood", which might pacify east coast blue blood liberals, but you have to suspect that alcohol sales and Xanax prescriptions may be on the raise in places like southern California and Texas.

The caravan of hope ignores our other programming. Even civic nationalists, who really annoy far-right hate thinkers, will be triggered by images of Hondurans marching towards America (in itself okay because race and culture don't matter, so long as they agree to the civic contract) chanting their own national anthem while burning a US flag with a swastika painted on it. Civic nationalists have great sway over the swing vote, and they will not be impressed with this rejection of the implied civic contract of the American pseudonation.  The caravan is likely to succeed in its goal of uniting the base and dividing the opposition, but in favor of Trump, not the Democrats.

Unarmies

Scott Adams likes to remark that we can look at the same reality and view one of two or more different movies. The left have described a caravan of refugees. The right depict a horde of invaders. Which movie is correct? Well, they both are. Central Americans want to leave their shithole countries for greener pastures. In America they can get a career if they're hard-working, welfare if they aren't, and generally be worshipped for their skin tone. Any country that wants to wave cash around and say all are welcome is going to get takers, who can honestly be described as economic refugees. But they're also invaders. Many can't see it that we, because they picture an invasion as involving weapons and violence. By definition, armies are armed.

Consider unarmed armies, or unarmies. We note that when Napoleon invaded Russia, to pilfer resources and generally impose his political will, that he ordered his army to drag guns, artillery, and their ammunition with them the many hundreds of miles across Europe. They would have preferred to spare the burden and the expense, no doubt, but the use of weapons was required because the Russians did not consent to hand over their resources or sovereignty to the French. What if the Russians had instead promised not to resist the French claims on their country? Well, they could have forgone the arms entirely and engaged in a peaceful caravan towards the steppe. They could even burn Russian flags along the way if they wanted, because what would it matter? Of course, if such a scenario were realistic then we would be talking about the former Russians, long since vanquished.

Unarmies implies uncivilizations. And uncivilizations can't last long, or so we suspect. The only previous example seems to be Europe, whose caravans of peaceful un-invaders looked eerily like the current situation in the Americas. Same deal, with massive numbers of so-called refugees streaming northwards who seem to be funded by some organizing entity. And Europe still stands. For now, at least. The fastest growing parties are nativist, and yet Merkel is still the de facto leader of the EU. We suspect the EU is doomed and the chance of civil war on the continent inches ever higher, but we'll have to wait and see, because it is literally the only known example of a civilization throwing open its doors and saying, "c'mon in everyone, and have some money."

video reading & discussion: https://www.bitchute.com/video/C92LUHVk7XXK/

Monday, October 22, 2018

Proto Podcasts

I haven't gotten much feedback yet about the video I made, except that it isn't working for some people. I can confirm that, while it plays on my computer, it seems to never load on mobile. The issue seems to be with Bitchute itself, which uses webtorrent behind the scenes. Apparently the issue can be resolved by setting up a webtorrent client and seeding the video myself, although currently all I have is my laptop, so that isn't something I can fix up straight away. It's not clear to me why Bitchute would seed for non-mobile only, but that seems to be the deal. For now, the only way to view might be to use a computer.

I've begun using Bitchute a lot myself, and have seen the beauty of the vlog or podcast, which is that you can passively listen to it in the background while engaged in other tasks. I've been listening to the Jocko podcast while at the gym. The problem with the gym isn't so much that it's physically difficult as that it is mentally boring. Podcast fixes that. You don't have to be sedentary or nonproductive to listen. With Bitchute, I can play it in the background or even on my side monitor at work when engaged in more mundane tasks. Moldbug calls books proto-blogs, which were produced when publishing and printing were big undertakings. With free and instant online publishing, authors can focus on bit-sized segments, span a wider array of topics, and not have to worry - mostly - about kowtowing to advertisers or editors. Similarly, blogs are like proto podcasts and vlogs. (And even newer to the scene is the video livestream.) Why serialize human speech to text when we now have the power to deliver it directly? I resisted these newfangled techs and even mocked e-books, because it seemed like a confession of semi-literacy to need to have books read aloud. However, after giving it a try it became obvious that the human mind is designed for speech and we can focus and digest complicated thoughts more easily via audio. Text, ultimately, is a proxy for speech, and more demanding. Now you don't have to carve out a portion of your evening to learn why progressivism = communism. You can do so while driving, mowing the lawn (where I get a good number of blog ideas), or at the gym.

I plan to start doing videos of each of my posts, so that people can consume it however they like. For now, they will only be on Bitchute. I really hesitate to fall back to Youtube or Vimeo or any platform that engages in political censorship. If you have a specific request for format, or to put it on YouTube or a podcast service, feel free to comment or send me an email. As always, the diet starts tomorrow, and so do the video casts.

Friday, October 19, 2018

Constitution of Knowledge: A Critique

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/

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.

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.
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.

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.”
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.)

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.

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.