Tuesday, April 24, 2018

The dysgenic city

Freeman Dyson explains why cities, and indirectly, interracial relationships, are inherently dysgenic:
If a small population is inbreeding, the rate of drift of the average measure of any human capability scales with the inverse square root of the population. Big fluctuations of the average happen in isolated villages far more often than in cities. On the average, people in villages are not more capable than people in cities. But if ten million people are divided into a thousand genetically isolated villages, there is a good chance that one lucky village will have a population with outstandingly high average capability, and there is a good chance that an inbreeding population with high average capability produces an occasional bunch of geniuses in a short time. The effect of genetic isolation is even stronger if the population of the village is divided by barriers of rank or caste or religion. Social snobbery can be as effective as geography in keeping people from spreading their genes widely.

A substantial fraction of the population of Europe and the Middle East in the time between 1000 BC and 1800 AD lived in genetically isolated villages, so that genetic drift may have been the most important factor making intellectual revolutions possible. Places where intellectual revolutions happened include, among many others, Jerusalem around 800 BC (the invention of monotheistic religion), Athens around 500 BC (the invention of drama and philosophy and the beginnings of science), Venice around 1300 AD (the invention of modern commerce), Florence around 1600 (the invention of modern science), and Manchester around 1750 (the invention of modern industry).

These places were all villages, with populations of a few tens of thousands, divided into tribes and social classes with even smaller populations. In each case, a small starburst of geniuses emerged from a small inbred population within a few centuries, and changed our ways of thinking irreversibly. These eruptions have many historical causes. Cultural and political accidents may provide unusual opportunities for young geniuses to exploit. But the appearance of a starburst must be to some extent a consequence of genetic drift. The examples that I mentioned all belong to Western cultures. No doubt similar starbursts of genius occurred in other cultures, but I am ignorant of the details of their history.

West’s neglect of villages as agents of change raises an important question. How likely is it that significant numbers of humans will choose to remain in genetically isolated communities in centuries to come?
You know the current situation is becoming entirely unsustainable when both the traditional religious perspective and the secular scientific perspective are increasingly in alignment concerning the pressing need to eliminate big cities.

Ironically, despite the 20th century being known for eugenicism, it may prove to be the biggest experiment in dysgenics that Man will ever know. The Alt-Right is not only scientodific, it is apparently necessary for future human achievement, if not survival.

Labels: , ,

The dangers of Facebook dating

That is clearly the important lesson women should take from this British woman's harrowing ordeal:
A British woman held as a sex slave in Italy and raped repeatedly by three men managed to escape after calling her family for help, police say.

The victim, from the north of England, originally met Mamadou Jallow, a migrant from Burkino Faso, on Facebook and travelled with him to Rosarno, south-west Italy. But when she arrived, Jallow, 37, held her against her will, took away her mobile phone and then raped her repeatedly. Two more men, from Mali, also abused her at the house, it has been claimed.

The victim, 39, was only able to escape when she managed to get access to her phone and made a secret call to her family for help. Eventually she escaped through a window and made her way to safety with the help of police.

Jallow had met the woman though Facebook and travelled to Germany to live with him. But she revealed that he was forced to flee the country after knifing a rival during a drugs dispute and they ended up in Italy, local media reports.
Well, at least she can't say he was boring, right? This is a really irresponsible article, as I think we can all agree that the real danger here is that women might become afraid to date migrants from Burkina Faso. That would be racist and we all know there is nothing worse than that.


Monday, April 23, 2018

Terror attack in Toronto

  1. 9 dead, 16 injured after van strikes pedestrians in Toronto, sources say suspect is Alek Minassian.
  2. Minassian is an Armenian name.
  3. Armenia's opposition leader has demanded a snap parliamentary election in the wake of former Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan's resignation over widespread anti-government demonstrations.
  4. Why was Armenia mentioned recently? Clowns losing control. Q
Which makes me wonder if the Toronto attack could be revenge for Sargsyan being forced from office. Then again, it may be just another case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

Labels: ,

What we're up against

It's hard not to be stirred by the new SJW anthem, THIS IS ME. It hits all the right rhetorical chords. Only if you understand what the composer and lyricist are doing, and what their underlying purpose is, can you grasp the pure and unapologetic evil of the song. It is literally a celebration of sin and an assault on Western civilization.

And yet, most of those who consider themselves firmly anti-SJW will be tempted to deny the possibility of any ill-intent and to defend it, in much the same way they defend Hamilton, Let It Go, and other weapons of cultural mass destruction, despite the fact that the message of hatred, defiance, and opposition is openly declared.

Another round of bullets hits my skin
Well, fire away 'cause today, I won't let the shame sink in
We are bursting through the barricades and
Reaching for the sun (we are warriors)
Yeah, that's what we've become

My first response to hearing the song and seeing the video was to feel the profound and programmed emotional stirring. My second response was to put that emotional effect in intellectual context, and think, kill it with fire. And my third response was to reflect upon how good these evil rhetoricians are, and realize how far we have to go in order to effectively counteract their influence on the mass culture.

Don't be surprised if you find yourself feeling oddly defensive of the song. That defensiveness you are feeling is testimony to the power of the rhetoric. But review the lyrics and analyze the imagery. It is powerful cultural programming, but it loses its power and becomes transparent when viewed through coldly dialectic analytical eye. "Reaching for the sun" indeed.....

Just remember that we're the ones with the guns. We're the side with no reason for shame. We are servants of the King and the defenders of the West. They know they are guilty, they know they are damned, and they are openly flaunting their sin. They are warriors and they are at war with our God, our civilization, our faith, and our nation.

I knew nothing about the lyricist, so I looked him up. Disney, check. Gay, check. Jewish, check. He even admits that "we were tasked with writing an anthemic identity song." Quelle surprise.

Whatever. Their satanic hymns will not save them. Deus vult.

Labels: ,

In defense of the Deep State

Even its proponents are now admitting its existence and are worrying that it might have gone too far:
America doesn’t have coups or tanks in the street. But a deep state of sorts exists here and it includes national security bureaucrats who use secretly collected information to shape or curb the actions of elected officials.

Some see these American bureaucrats as a vital check on the law-breaking or authoritarian or otherwise illegitimate tendencies of democratically elected officials. Others decry them as a self-serving authoritarian cabal that illegally and illegitimately undermines democratically elected officials and the policies they were elected to implement.

The truth is that the deep state, which is a real phenomenon, has long been both a threat to democratic politics and a savior of it. The problem is that it is hard to maintain its savior role without also accepting its threatening role. The two go hand in hand, and are difficult to untangle.

The deep state has been blamed for many things since Donald Trump became president, including by the president himself. Trump defenders have used the term promiscuously to include not just intelligence bureaucrats but a broader array of connected players in other administrative bureaucracies, in private industry, and in the media.

But even if we focus narrowly on the intelligence bureaucracies that conduct and use information collected secretly in the homeland, including the FBI, National Security Agency (NSA), and National Security Council, there is significant evidence that the deep state has used secretly collected information opportunistically and illegally to sabotage the president and his senior officials – either as part of a concerted movement or via individuals acting more or less independently.

As deep state officials get a taste for the power that inheres in the selective revelation of such information, and if the leaks are not responded to with severe punishments, it is easy to imagine the tools that brought down Flynn being used in other contexts by national security bureaucrats with different commitments and interests.

Even the most severe critics of Trump should worry about this subtle form of anti-democratic abuse. The big loser in all this will probably be the national security bureaucracy itself and, to the extent it is weakened, the security of the American people.
This is just a Stage One admission. "Yes, it's real, but it's not that bad, and besides, it means well." That means we still have a few stages to go before everyone understands that the Deep State is the Praetorian Guard of New Babel, acting to preserve the secrets and the rule of the the elite Satanist pedophiles.


Right Ho, Jeeves #3

Right Ho, Jeeves #3: Bertie at Bay is now available in Kindle format.

BERTIE AT BAY is the third issue in the RIGHT HO, JEEVES series, which tells of the travails of the inimitable Bertie Wooster, summoned from the comforts of #3A Berkley Mansions, London to Brinkley Manor by his imperious Aunt Dahlia. Love is in the air and Wodehousian shenanigans are afoot, as Wooster's well-meaning attempts to help out his friends sort out their romantic difficulties only leads to one hilarious disaster after another.

Adapted from the classic Wodehouse novel by comics legend Chuck Dixon and drawn by SAVAGE SWORD OF CONAN illustrator Gary Kwapisz, BERTIE AT BAY is issue #3 of 6 in the RIGHT HO, JEEVES series

But that is not all. There is more good news on the Castalia front. Both Hitler in Hell and The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon are now available in paperback editions. The former is 472 pages in our standard demi-octavo size, the latter is 550 pages in royal octavo. Due to our desire to keep them under the $19.99 price point on Amazon and the discount structure required to do that, both books are slightly more expensive on the Castalia Direct Store.

We do our best to keep our prices down and are continuing our efforts in that vein. This sometimes leads to anomalies, such as the $3 comic price and the occasional higher price on the direct store.

Labels: ,

Beyond irreproducibility

As I observed in my most recent Voxiversity, Why the West Needs Christianity, the most serious challenge now facing science is the historical decline in the percentage of scientists who are Christians, and the concomitant decline in the personal and professional ethics of scientists that has inevitably resulted from this demographic change. And this lack of ethics is having a profoundly negative effect on science, including some unanticipated consequences.  In his book Who We Are and How We Got Here, David Reich laments the decreasing willingness of American Indian tribes to permit their DNA to be studied by genetic scientists as a result of bad behavior and broken promises by previous scientists.
Modern genomics offers an unexpected way to recover the past. African Americans—another population that has had its history stolen as its ancestors descend from people kidnapped into slavery from Africa—are at the forefront of trying to use genetics to trace roots. But if individual Native Americans often express a great interest in their genetic history, tribal councils have sometimes been hostile. A common concern is that genetic studies of Native American history are yet another example of Europeans trying to “enlighten” them. Past attempts to do so—for example, by conversion to Christianity or education in Western culture—have led to the dissolution of Native American culture. There is also an awareness that some scientists have studied Native Americans to learn about questions of interest primarily to non–Native Americans, without paying attention to the interests of Native Americans themselves.

One of the first strong responses to genetic studies of Native Americans came from the Karitiana of Amazonia. In 1996, physicians collected blood from the Karitiana, promising participants improved access to health care, which never came. Distressed by this experience, the Karitiana were at the forefront of objections to the inclusion of their samples in an international study of human genetic diversity—the Human Genome Diversity Project—and were instrumental in preventing that entire project from being funded. Ironically, DNA samples from the Karitiana have been used more than those of any other single Native American population in subsequent studies that have analyzed how Native Americans are related to other groups. The Karitiana DNA samples that have been widely studied are not from the disputed set from 1996. Instead, they are from a collection carried out in 1987 in which participants were informed about the goals of the study and told that their involvement was voluntary. However, the Karitiana people’s later experience of exploitation has put a cloud over DNA studies in this population.

Another strong response to genetic research on Native Americans came from the Havasupai, who live in the canyonlands of the U.S. Southwest. Blood from the Havasupai was sampled in 1989 by researchers at Arizona State University who were trying to understand the tribe’s high risk for type 2 diabetes. The participants gave written consent to participate in a “study [of] the causes of behavioral/medical disorders,” and the language of the consent forms gave the researchers latitude to take a very broad view of what the consent meant. The researchers then shared the samples with many other scientists who used them to study topics ranging from schizophrenia to the Havasupai’s prehistory. Representatives of the Havasupai argued that the samples were being used for a purpose different from the one to which its members understood they had agreed—that is, even if the fine print of the forms said one thing, it was clear to them when the samples were collected that the study was supposed to focus on diabetes. This dispute led to a lawsuit, the return of the samples, and an agreement by the university to pay $700,000 in compensation.

The hostility to genetic research has even entered into tribal law. In 2002, the Navajo—who along with many other Native American tribes are by treaty partly politically independent of the United States—passed a Moratorium on Genetic Research, forbidding participation of Navajo tribal members in genetic studies, whether of disease risk factors or population history. A summary of this moratorium can be found in a document prepared by the Navajo Nation, outlining points for university researchers to take into account when considering a research project. The document reads: “Human genome testing is strictly prohibited by the Tribe. Navajos were created by Changing Woman; therefore they know where they came from.”
However, David Reich manages to completely miss the point and fails to learn the obvious lesson of not lying to people and failing to deliver on one's promises.
Scientists interested in studying genetic variation in Native American populations feel frustrated with this situation. I understand something of the devastation that the coming of Europeans and Africans to the Americas wrought on Native American populations, and its effects are also evident everywhere in the data I and my colleagues analyze. But I am not aware of any cases in which research in molecular biology including genetics—a field that has arisen almost entirely since the end of the Second World War—has caused major harm to historically persecuted groups. Of course, there have been well-documented cases of the use of biological material in ways that may not have been appreciated by the people from whom it was taken, not just in Native Americans. For example, the cervical cancer tumor cells of Henrietta Lacks, an African American woman from Baltimore, were distributed after her death, without her consent and without the knowledge of her family, to thousands of laboratories around the world, where they have become a mainstay of cancer research.

But overall there is an argument to be made that modern studies of DNA variation—not just in Native Americans, but also in many other groups including the San of southern Africa, Jews, the Roma of Europe, and tribal or caste groups from South Asia—are a force for good, contributing to the understanding and treatment of disease in these populations, and breaking down fixed ideas of race that have been used to justify discrimination. I wonder if the distrust that has emerged among some Native Americans might be, in the balance, doing Native Americans substantial harm. I wonder whether as a geneticist I have a responsibility to do more than just respect the wishes of those who do not wish to participate in genetic research, but instead should make a respectful but strong case for the value of such research.
Yeah, attempting to justify ethical lapses and avoid the responsibility to obtain consent on the grounds that you're ultimately doing more good than harm isn't exactly convincing when the argument is being presented by a group of godless, amoral individuals who are already known to be corrupt, untrustworthy, and ethically challenged.

Labels: ,

Sunday, April 22, 2018

That explains the lack of investigation

Apparently English paedos are not inclined to interfere with Pakistanis who share their interests:
Social services chief is one of three politicians exposed as paedophiles as Telford child sex grooming scandal grows. County councillor Graham Bould groomed 15-year-old he met at a church group. He chaired Shropshire social services department when abuse in town was rife.

The shocking revelation comes just a week after authorities in the Shropshire town voted to commission an independent inquiry into child abuse after years of inaction. Up to 1,000 children are feared to have been groomed and abused by predominantly Asian paedophile gangs.

Now it has emerged that former county councillor Graham Bould groomed a 15-year-old boy in the early 1980s after meeting him at a church group. The 60-year-old is the third politician to be exposed as a convicted child sex offender in the West Midlands town.
The disclosures are only going to get worse and more serious. These are the third- and fourth-tier predators that they're rounding up now.

Labels: ,

The skinsuits come off

The Hollywood Lawyer who has been playing a Fake Republican for over a decade has finally left the GOP. Of course, (((Jennifer Rubin))) is also a Fake American, so it probably won't be long before she leaves the USA as well. Good riddance on both accounts.
Hours after Paul Ryan announced his retirement last week, President Donald Trump tweeted a photo of the House speaker and the rest of the GOP congressional leadership at dinner together at the White House. All did the traditional Trump-style smiling thumbs-up—a big show of unity to rebut anxiety about the party collapsing.

What Jennifer Rubin saw while looking at that photo: a Republican Party that “has become the caricature the left always said it was—the party of old white men. And that has become more so in the age of Donald Trump, when he is actively courting and stoking white resentment.”

Trump’s use of identity politics, Rubin told me in an interview for the latest episode of POLITICO’s Off Message podcast, “is a dead end for the party. It’s a dead end because it’s immoral and anti-American to base an entire political movement on one racial group, and it’s a dead end because that’s not America and what America is becoming.”

For Rubin, author of the Washington Post’s “Right Turn” blog, it’s been a fast trip from conservative apostle to apostate.

Rubin was hired in late 2010 to be a forceful conservative presence, the counterpart on the right to the Post’s liberal blogger, Greg Sargent. But since Trump’s election, she’s been one of the president’s most strident critics, attacking him multiple times a day as an “arrogant fool” and “flat-out racist.” In the process, she’s becoming a leading voice for a group of conservative intellectuals who don’t fit comfortably in either political party.
Conservatives are so dumb that they actually looked to a Hollywood lawyer from Berkeley as one of their opinion leaders because she told them she was one of them. Talk about controlled opposition! I wonder how long will it be before the Littlest Chickenhawk removes his Republican skinsuit in favor of this Fake Right party?

Labels: ,

The Fake Right is collapsing

And yet, the Alt-Right remains inevitable. Now that it is of no further use to them, the media is finally killing off its cartoon parody of the Right. But the Right is not, and never was, based on races or states, but rather, on nations. The material distinction between nationalism and imperialism is the easiest way to distinguish between true Right and Fake Right. Meanwhile, the genuine nationalists are growing steadily in popularity and influence, and taking over entire nations:
Eight months after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia ended in the death of a counterprotester, the loose collection of disaffected young white men known as the alt-right is in disarray.

The problems have been mounting: lawsuits and arrests, fundraising difficulties, tepid recruitment, widespread infighting, fierce counterprotests and banishment on social media platforms. Taken together, they've exhausted even some of the staunchest members.

One of the movement's biggest groups, the Traditionalist Worker Party, dissolved in March. Andrew Anglin, founder of the Daily Stormer, the largest alt-right website, has gone into hiding, chased by a harassment lawsuit. And Richard Spencer, the alt-right's most public figure, cancelled a college speaking tour and was abandoned by his attorney last month.

"Things have become a lot harder, and we paid a price for what happened in Charlottesville. . . . The question is whether there is going to be a third act," said Spencer, who coined the name of the movement, which rose to prominence during the 2016 presidential campaign, advocates a whites-only ethno-state, and has posted racist, anti-Semitic and misogynistic memes across the internet.
This is why it is vital for nationalists to adhere religiously to the philosophical truth rather than to various dogmas and ideologies. Any departure from the truth and the media will adroitly exploit that gap and use it to discredit and disqualify you. Speak the clear and unvarnished truth and they will fear to even mention your name because there is little they can do to effectively spin what you are saying into something that it observably is not. They really, really, really do not want to permit any discussion of which narrative is closer to the observable truth, because that calls their own veracity and legitimacy into question.

Reject the Fake Right. Reject the neoconservatives. Reject the cuckservatives. Reject the conservatives. They are all fakes. They are all frauds. None of them are able to speak the truth reliably, and that is why the media is always able to successfully exploit the vulnerabilities exposed by their dishonesty.

UPDATE: Yes, in the unlikely event you still take any of them seriously, reject the libertarians, the communists, and while we're at it, the Whigs.

Labels: , ,

The myth of Jewish intelligence

Allow me to demonstrate why it is a bad idea to try to bullshit those who are considerably smarter than you are. We are often told that Jews are the smartest ethnic group in the world and that this explains their current position of cultural and socio-economic dominance in the United States. However, the core claim is observably false, and readily and conclusively disproved.

First, what is the basis for the claim that Jews are highly intelligent?
Researchers who study the Ashkenazim agree that the children of Abraham are on top of the IQ chart. Steven Pinker – who lectured on “Jews, Genes, and Intelligence” in 2007 - says “their average IQ has been measured at 108-115.” Richard Lynn, author of “The Intelligence of American Jews” in 2004, says it is “only” a half-standard higher: 107.5.  Henry Harpending, Jason Hardy, and Gregory Cochran, University of Utah authors of the 2005 research report, “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence,” state that their subjects, “score .75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ of 112-115.” Charles Murray, in his 2007 essay “Jewish Genius,” says “their mean is somewhere in the range of 107-115, with 110 being a plausible compromise.” A Jewish average IQ of 115 is 8 points higher than the generally accepted IQ of their closest rivals—Northeast Asians—and approximately 40% higher than the global average IQ of 79.1 calculated by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in IQ and Global Inequity.
First, you will note the usual definitional switch we've learned to anticipate. A subset - Ashkenazim - is substituted for the full set of Jews. Second, if one takes the trouble to look up and read these studies that are often referenced but never cited, one is immediately struck by the fact that the studies are a) misrepresented, b) old and outdated, c) invariably authored by those with an observable bias, and d) the samples reported are always limited to a very small subset of the subset of the set. For example, the primary source of the "115 IQ" claim appears to be a 1957 study by Boris Levinson entitled "The Intelligence of Applicants for Admission to Jewish Day Schools" published in Jewish Social Studies,Vol. 19, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1957), pp. 129-140.

Right in the study, which reported a 114.88 mean IQ for the 2083 students sampled, the author notes its intrinsic limitations.
This study is limited to applicants for Day Schools adhering to the principles of the National Commission for Yeshiva Education. This sampling does not claim to represent the entire Jewish school population or even those children attending yeshiva Day Schools with a different educational emphasis. 
Levinson further admits that the students sampled only represented 38 percent of the 5494 students attending the 16 Day Schools, raising the possibility that the sampled scores were cherry-picked. Now, are we seriously expected to believe that the mean of a partial subset of a wealthy private school subset of a half-European subset is even remotely representational of the average of the complete population set? This is so utterly absurd on its face that for the logically inclined, it alone should suffice to conclusively refute the claim.

In the study, Levinson refers to a 1956 study by Robert D. North concerning American fourth-graders from 16 independent private school, and noted the following:
Many of these schools select their pupils on the basis of mental ability and achievement. Because these schools charge tuition fees, most of their pupils come from higher socio-economic levels. These children had a mean IQ of 119.3.
Shall we therefore conclude that the average white American is more intelligent than the average Jew because one very small group of elite private-schooled white Americans outperformed another very small group of elite private-schooled Jews? Of course not, that would be nonsensical, right? The samples are not representative, right? There are numerous other statistical idiosyncracies that demonstrate the irrelevance of these post-WWII IQ studies to average population IQs; for example, one study reported that the average IQ of the boys was 112.8 and of the girls was 113.6. If we are to take these particular IQ studies as definitive, then we must conclude that girls are more intelligent than boys, all other subsequent studies and observations to the contrary.

Third, given the average reported Israeli IQ of 95, and the average reported Jordanian IQ of 84, the claim of an average 115 IQ for Ashkenazi Jews would necessarily require all other Jews to have an average IQ of 83.9. This means that even if Ashkenazi Jews did have a mean IQ of 115, then the average Jewish IQ would be 106.7. However, on the basis of the original studies pointing out that the reported IQ scores are not indicative of mean or average Ashkenazi IQ, we can be 100 percent certain that this estimated 106.7 IQ is higher than the real Jewish average.

For example, if Lynn is correct and the Ashkenazi mean is 107.5, then the average Jewish IQ is 103.1. Not bad, certainly, but considerably lower than 115 and an insufficient foundation on which to construct a believable narrative of intellectual superiority and inevitable success.

There are many other reasons to be dubious of the myth of Jewish intelligence. Consider Israel, for example. It is a successful quasi-European society, superior in most respects to the lower-IQ Arab societies surrounding it, but it is no more technologically advanced or socio-economically successful than most Western or East Asian societies, and it remains economically dependent upon regular handouts from Germany and the USA. Even after 70 years, it is not the advanced society that one would expect a uniquely high average IQ society to be. The reason, of course, is that it is not.

Moreover, where was this disproportional high-IQ success in Roman times, in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance? Where was it in the Napoleonic era? Why did it only appear when and where a sufficient degree of societal influence in certain societies had been obtained? And most of all, how did various European countries observably benefit so greatly from reducing their average IQs through the various expulsions?

The good news for those who are interested in the truth is that despite the reproducibility crisis in science, the relentless advancement of scientage means it is no longer possible to utilize dishonest citations of biased studies of limited relevance from 62 years ago to deceive the general public. The advancement of genetic science and the confirmed links between genetics and intelligence will soon scientifically explode this outdated and self-serving myth that has been relentlessly pushed upon the unsuspecting American public along with similar myths such as the Zeroth Amendment, "a nation of immigrants", "the melting pot", and Judeo-Christianity.

Now, it is remotely possible that I am wrong and there is a factual basis to the myth. More likely, however, we will learn that Flynn is too generous and the correct average is below 103. Regardless, the facts of the subject will soon be known and they will be beyond the possibility of reasonable dispute. If I am right, however, you can expect to see the previous link between average IQ and societal success to be played down, just as Ivy League admissions officers are now attempting to play down the importance of test scores and merits in the university admissions process.

Labels: ,

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Inadvertent special edition

We made a minor error and a slightly more serious one on the initial printing of the Rebel Dead Revenge teaser. You can see the former in this photo from a happy Arkhaven supporter. Another Arkhaven supporter shared his thoughts.
The postman took his sweet time, but I am finally able to comment on the second issue of Arkhaven's Dixon/Kwapisz adaptation of Wodehouse, and I continue to be impressed. Margins are better this time out (my only quibble last time, IIRC), coloring remains marvelous (no page 1 credit for the colorist, or is that Gary doing double duty?), Chuck's script hits all the right notes, and Gary's art is absolutely delightful. I think I may prefer Cartoony Gary to Representational Gary - the exaggerated body language is fantastic. There's a meatiness to these comics - I don't sail through them like I used to with a Mark Millar Wolverine (a three-minute read, maybe), and they're worth going back over. And of course - Gold Logo. Can't beat owning a collector's item. Or three.
Now, if you look at the gold logo on RDR in the picture linked above, you can see there is a sliver of the main image in between it and the black border. That is a mistake and we corrected it almost immediately, but 64 copies were sold and shipped before we caught it. The image now on the store, and on Amazon, correctly displays the cover the way it is now.

That initial set also printed with a slightly higher than optimal ink density, which can cause some very slight warping or wrinkling on the interior pages. This has also been fixed. In any event, if you've got one of them, you now have confirmation that you own one of the first 64 copies of Rebel Dead Revenge.


The Storm approaches

It is safe to assume that the arrest of this Trudeau associate and the arrest of Smallville actress Alison Mack are not unrelated.
A former London lawyer who left the legal world more than 30 years ago to become an expert in international humanitarian work with street children has been arrested in Nepal on suspicion of sex crimes against children.

Reports out of Kathmandu say Peter Dalglish, the 60-year-old founder of Street Kids International, was taken into custody last weekend on suspicion of pedophilia.

Dalglish, who has worked with the United Nations on child poverty issues, was arrested at a home about 50 kilometres north of Kathmandu on April 8. Two girls aged 12 and 14 were also found in the home. Authorites said they suspect there may be other children involved.

Dalglish, a graduate of California’s Stanford University, has been operating the Himalayan Community Foundation for two years, helping to educate and support children.

He has been working in Nepal for decades after being drawn to humanitarian work in 1984 during the Ethiopian famine. His journeys made him a leading expert on street kids, child labour and child soldiers — and a subject of admiration in his hometown, London.

In 2002, he became the United Nations adviser on child labour in Nepal while working for a non-government organization called NGO Terre des Hommes. He was also involved with programs to send millions of laptop computers to children in Third World countries.
Remember, we've been told that this thing is much bigger, and the evil is far more widespread, than the average individual is going to be able to easily credit. That, I suspect, is why we've been seeing these arrests taking place on a regular basis, without too much media attention. But if you've noticed, the names, and the names to whom the arrested individuals are connected, just keep getting bigger and more recognizable.
Peter Dalglish appointed to the Order of Canada
January 5, 2017

His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, announced 100 new appointments to the Order of Canada just before the start of the new year.

Peter Dalglish (LLB’83, LLD’08) is among the 75 new Members of the Order (C.M.) to receive one of Canada’s highest honours. Residing in London, Ont., Dalglish was appointed “for his efforts to alleviate child poverty worldwide, notably by establishing and leading Street Kids International.”

Labels: ,

A festive evening and a false alarm

This season has been a difficult one for me so far. Four games (including two friendlies), two starts, no goals. I had a horrible game last week, which was of some concern to me because it's the first time I felt as if I was playing like a fragile old man afraid to go in and win a contested ball. One thing I've noticed with age is that it's harder to play in cold weather and that one tends to become more contact-avoidant for fear of injury. Then again, the last time we played our most recent opponent, one of our defenders snapped the leg of an attacker like a twig with a late tackle, so it could be argued that this is more late-onset wisdom than cowardice. It also doesn't help that I'm now playing at 180 instead of 190, which helps with the speed and endurance, but puts you at a distinct disadvantage when going shoulder-to-shoulder with a 200-pound defender.

Anyhow, I had a distressingly bad game last week. Even when I am overmatched in terms of speed or fitness I can usually keep at least the defensive half of my wing under control, but the left defender and I were completely out of sync and allowed two crosses that led to goals, at least one of which should have never happened. We both stood there, waiting for the other to close on the guy with the ball, and gave him the opening he needed to cross it. In fairness, I probably shouldn't have been playing at that point, as I'd already taken myself out of the game earlier after receiving a hard knee to the thigh that left me limping for three days afterward. But still, I had told the captain I was okay to go back in, so that was entirely on me.

The problem was that the bruise slowed me down just enough to inhibit me from trying to move the ball forward myself, and we had changed our stopper from an attack-minded player to a defensive-minded one, so when I received the ball on the wing, I looked to pass it in to the middle right away rather than pushing it up myself. This would normally have been all right, but with our new stopper, instead of advancing the ball he invariably passed it back to one of the other defenders. More than once, I ended up with the ball again, which meant our attacks were going precisely nowhere.

It was probably one of the worst games I've ever played, and my on-field plus-minus was uncharacteristically negative at net -1, but fortunately we were playing a weak team so we ended up winning 5-3 anyhow. The problem was that our next game was against the second-best team in the league, and one which we have always had to be on our game in order to beat. And, of course, at my age, there is always the looming possibility that one simply can't play anymore.

At practice, I played hard for more than two hours despite the bruised thigh, finished fourth in the team penalty kick competition, and that served to get my mindset back to normal, more or less. However, on game night I knew we were in trouble when two of our three best players showed up but did not suit up due to injury, and was even more alarmed when the captain started me at attacker despite last week's debacle. I like playing up front, but not when both our starting wings are more inclined to push forward and assist the attack than getting back to help out the defense. Sure enough, despite controlling the ball for most of the first 10 minutes, we went down 1-0 on their first serious attack coming from the wing. We produced little in the way of chances, except for a header on a corner that just missed and one cross that I put just inches too deep in front of our other striker. At halftime were down 2-0 on a beautiful free kick that struck the underside of the far corner and banked in. It wasn't even one of their best players taking it either; these guys are really good. Not even Buffon at his best could have saved that one.

I was out for a while, and we went down another goal, but they were starting to wear down a bit, and I went back in on the left wing, which helped us start putting pressure on both wings. I burned the defender on the side once, but my pull-back pass into the box was too fast for our captain to put in the net, although he scored a beautiful goal on the following post-corner chaos. The ball came low and hard, bounced off my shins on the far side, and ricocheted off a defender. As they pushed forward on the clearance, our captain retrieved it, turned, and shot high just as the goalie was moving up, catching him completely off-guard. 3-1.

We kept attacking, but that was all we managed and that's how it ended. It was a good game, all in all, and they deserved to win. We get along with them well despite last season's unfortunate incident, and there were two or three amusing "here, it's your ball - no, really, it's your ball" situations after someone went down and both sides called for a halt in play. It was a festive evening, as Ender's team was playing on our other field and won their game 5-2. It was fun to introduce him afterwards to one of the former pros who plays for the team that beat us, as Ender has a lot of respect for the retired pros and internationals, and they are always pleased to be recognized by the younger generation of players.

So, false alarm on the age front. The former pro and I were talking about the challenges our years pose, as we are of an age, and he figures we can both play until at least 55. My original goal was to make it to 50, but I am happy to revise that in view of his professional opinion.


"Cuck!" they cucked, cuckingly

David French urges conservatives to refrain from going on the offensive against a left-wing professor. It would be unseemly, don't you know.
No, Conservatives Shouldn’t Try to Punish Radical Professors for Offensive Speech

We’re reaching a disturbing point in American discourse where increasingly both sides of the national debate (it’s not the Left that’s driving the firestorm against Jarrar) are looking for ways to justify and rationalize censorship and suppression of offensive views. If the censorship comes through a public employer or government entity, then the Twitterati transforms into a squad of hapless law students, hunting through the results of hasty Google searches to find just the right exceptions to the relevant First Amendment jurisprudence — exceptions that allow for the infamous phrase, “I believe in free speech, but . . .”

If the suppression comes through private employers, then it’s easier to justify. From the left — “Sure, The Atlantic can fire a conservative.” From the right — “Get those damn football players off their knees.” Both sides eagerly obliterate the culture of free speech in the quest to cleanse the marketplace of ideas we don’t like.

But culture drives law, and law drives culture. Every time that we refuse to tolerate offensive expression, we incentivize the culture of crocodile tears. We motivate government officials to expand state power over speech until the silencing exceptions swallow the free-speech rule. California’s recent efforts to compel crisis-pregnancy centers to advertise for free or low-cost abortions represents what happens when the people, to borrow my friend Greg Lukianoff’s excellent phrase, “unlearn liberty.” Periodic conservative efforts to expel radical professors from the academy demonstrate the pernicious effects of a “fight fire with fire” mentality. In both cases, a culture of coercion triumphs and liberty loses.

Here’s an alternative: Leave the trolls alone. Let the radicals rant. Then, rebut the bad speech with better speech, or — sometimes better yet — rebut it with silence. Does anyone really care what Randa Jarrar thinks of Barbara Bush? Or is she now mainly useful as a foil, as clickbait, as the latest pawn in the culture war? I think we know the answer.

If you truly hate the offensive speech in question — if you truly believe it’s hurtful — why share it far and wide? Why amplify the offensive voice? Arguably, the worst rebuke for a troll, the worst punishment for the self-promoting radical, is indifference. I have my own standard for engaging bad ideas — First, I wait. I ask myself: Are these ideas gaining traction? Do they threaten to make a material difference in the marketplace of ideas? If the answer is yes, then I engage. If the answer is no, I let the offensive speech die a natural death.

But killing an idea through censorship? That’s not what free people do.
Actually, it's what people who are not free, but would like to be free, have to do. It's called "reprisal". It's remarkable how these cuckservative idiots are still relying on the same tactics that have uniformly failed for the last 50 years. Why, it's almost as if they want to fail....

Rod Dreher, of course, agrees that nothing should be done. The most important thing when the Left attacks is to not respond, not in kind, and not in any way. Because as long as you keep your eyes shut and pretend it isn't happening, it will eventually stop.
My job here at TAC involves opinion writing. I have been paid for most of my career to state my opinion. Yet no employer of mine — no newspaper, no magazine — would keep me on if I tweeted something as vile as what Jarrar tweeted. It would be devastating to the institutional reputation of these newspapers and magazines. TAC would lose donors left and right, and would take a real hit in terms of its credibility. Any magazine or publication would. I would never abuse the privilege I have. With that privilege comes responsibility.

So, today, I am much less sympathetic to Randa Jarrar than I was when she first spouted off. I still lean towards not firing her. But boy, is she ever a poster child for left-wing academic privilege and arrogance. If the university president fires her for pranking the crisis hotline, I won’t be sorry.
That will show her! Now, I can't help but wonder, do these two gentlemen of principle and champions of free speech also counsel indifference to the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement?

Labels: ,

Friday, April 20, 2018

Re-opening the closed door

How immigrants and their allies conspired to end the national origins system that made America great in the 20th century.
The demographic consequences of ending the open door cannot be known with certainty, since no one can be sure what immigration would have been in the absence of restriction. Demographer Leon Bouvier has estimated that, assuming no restriction and pre-war levels of one million a year for the rest of the century, the American population would have reached 400 million by the year 2000. This would have meant 120 million more American high-consumption lifestyles piled upon the roughly 280 million reported in the census of 2000, making far worse the dismal figures on species extinction, wetland loss, soil erosion, and the accumulation of climate-changing and health-impairing pollutants that are being tallied up as the new century unfolds.

The chief goals of the national origins system, shrinking the incoming numbers and tilting the sources of the immigration stream back toward northern Europe, were less decisively achieved. Numbers entering legally but outside the quotas (“non-quota immigrants,” mostly relatives of those recently arrived and Europeans entering through Latin American and Caribbean countries) surprised policymakers by matching and in time exceeding those governed by quotas. Yet with overall numbers so low, ethnic composition did not agitate the public.

International economic maladies, war, and the new American system of restriction had thus combined to reduce immigration numbers to levels more in line with the long course of American history, and to some observers seemed to have ended the role of immigration as a major force in American life. Apparently the nation would henceforth grow and develop, as Thomas Jefferson had preferred, from natural increase and the cultural assets of its people.

The curbing of the Great Wave created a forty-year breathing space of relatively low immigration, with effects favorable to assimilation. The pressures toward joining the American mainstream did not have to contend with continual massive replenishment of foreigners.

The new immigration system was widely popular, and the immigration committees of Congress quickly became backwaters of minor tinkering or inactivity. The 1930s arrived with vast and chronic unemployment, and the American people wanted nothing from immigration. War in Europe would bring unprecedented refugee issues, but dealing with these — or avoiding them — did not require any rethinking of the basic system for deciding on the few thousand people who would be given immigration papers.

But American immigration policy in the postwar years attracted a small but growing body of opponents. The political core of a coalition pressing for a new, more “liberalized” policy regime was composed of ethnic lobbyists (“professional immigrant-handlers,” Rep. Francis Walter called them) claiming to speak for nationalities migrating prior to the National Origins Act of 1924, the most effective being Jews from central and eastern Europe who were deeply concerned with the rise of fascism and anti-semitism on the continent and eternally interested in haven. Unable by themselves to interest many politicians or the media in the settled issue of America’s immigration law, these groups hoped for new circumstances in which restrictions could be discredited and the old regime of open doors restored. The arrival of the Civil Rights Movement thrust (racial) “discrimination” into the center of national self-examination. The enemy everywhere at the bottom of virtually every national blemish seemed to be Discrimination, the historic, now intolerable subordinating classification of groups on the basis of inherited characteristics. The nation’s national origins-grounded immigration laws could not escape an assault by these reformist passions, and critics of the national origins system found the liberal wing of the Democratic Party receptive to their demand that immigration reform should be a part of the civil rights agenda.

Who would lead, and formulate what alternatives? Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy cautiously stepped out on the issue in the 1950s, sensing that a liberalization stance would gather vital ethnic voting blocs for his long-planned run for the presidency. His work on a refugee bill caught the attention of officials of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, who convinced Kennedy to become an author of a pamphlet on immigration, with the help of an ADL supplied historian, Arthur Mann, and Kennedy’s staff. The result was A Nation of Immigrants, a 1958 bouquet of praise for the contributions of immigrants and a call for an end to the racist, morally embarrassing national origins system. The little book was initially ignored, but its arguments would dominate the emerging debate. The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-semitism, had made a golden alliance. John F. Kennedy was no crusader on immigration (or anything else), but he was an activist young President by 1961, comfortable with immigration reform as part of his agenda, elected on a party platform that pledged elimination of the national origins system.
What comes next? The USA is again on course to reach 400 million imperial subjects sometime between 2043 and 2051, depending upon which UN report you credit. Its population is unlikely to ever reach that size, of course, but it should be apparent that the forty-year breathing space created by the national origins system is the primary reason the empire has not collapsed already.

Barring a mass repatriation program for all post-1965 immigrants and their descendants, which appears extremely unlikely at the moment, the political breakup should begin by the early 2030s. Every empire is destroyed by immigration of one sort or another in the end, but it is the cultural decadence and lack of confidence that permits such immigration to take place that is the true cause of the collapse.

Had American politicians possessed the wisdom to arrest and deport the seditious ethnic lobbyists who agitated for ending the national origins system, the collapse of the empire would not be rapidly approaching. Now the necessary surgery is even more difficult and considerably less politically palatable. So, we can safely conclude that it will not be performed.

Labels: ,

SJWs in SF: Sad Puppy version

Sarah Hoyt laments the ejecting of John Ringo from something called ConCarolinas:
It’s been known for years – as long as I’ve been published in SF/F – that conservatives get invited to be guests of honor at conventions far less often than leftists in SF/F and infinitely less than red-diaper-babies in SF/F, but ConCarolinas seemed like a weird place for a conflagration of snowflakism.

I went over to John Ringo’s page and read about it.  As far as I could tell, a bunch of people on Twitter had been badgering both the con-committee and the other (very leftist) guest about inviting someone who was… what the heck was he?  I don’t know.

In the beginning, the accusation against him was that he was “Puppy Adjacent.”

For those of you wanting to follow this at home, the score card is this: Five years ago, my friend Larry Correia started a movement called Sad Puppies, which was a half joking attempt to get books not of solid leftist bent (not even right wing, just not preachy left) nominated for the Hugo, which used to be one of the most prestigious fan awards in science fiction.

When Larry tired of the game after two years, my friend Brad Torgersen took it over…

It was supposed to be me, but a cancer diagnosis and emergency surgery stopped it.

Brad ran it creditably, suggesting fan-favorites who had never got nominated (over the last decade, the Hugos have become a log-rolling club of leftists.) He got people who’d never before nominated to nominate, increasing the number of people involved by three fold.  And we got practically everyone on our suggestions list on the ballot.  (Ours because I was involved both in planning and defending the guys, as was my friend Kate Paulk and my friend Amanda S. Green.)

Imagine our surprise when we found out that:
  1. We’d promulgated an immutable slate, that had to be voted for in order. We must have managed that by cleverly telling people to read and vote for those they liked, or add others, or whatever, just get involved.
  2. We were against the participation of women, people of color, and people of different gender identification and orientation in science fiction and fantasy. (How we were supposed to divine all that except perhaps women, is beyond me.  And even there, there are gender neutral names.)  The fact that three of us, in the “inner council” were women made no difference.  Since we’re not leftists, we’re obviously not “real women.” Oh, by the way, we also nominated women, people of color, and I think at least one gay person for the Hugo.  That most of those recused themselves had nothing to do with us, and was a function of the attacks by the left, who threatened to destroy careers of those who stayed on the ballot, or promised them they would get nominated by them next.  (On the eve of never, I’ll wager.)
  3. We’d done this to oppress people by being gatekeepers. Note our coalition was one best selling author (Larry Correia), a promising beginner (Brad Torgersen), a midlist author (me), and two indie authors (Kate Paulk and Amanda S. Green).  None of us had or had ever had gatekeeping powers.  In fact, the people who called calumnies against us to Entertainment Weekly (who later retracted) and other national publications were gatekeepers, since everything points to their working for TOR.
Anyway, that was the conflagration called Sad Puppies.  After our nominees were treated horribly at the 2015 Hugos, after leftists bought memberships by the dozen for the express purpose of voting “no award” over people they proudly admitted they’d never read, we thought there was no point.  My friend Kate Paulk, probably the most conciliatory woman in the world, ran it the next year and did everything the left said they wanted done.  They still attacked her.  I and Amanda claimed the right of succession, but never took it, because it was obvious the Hugos were dead, their reputation destroyed and only academics seeking tenure could be interested in them.  The only reason we claimed them was to prevent a few deluded people from trying to ride a movement they had nothing to do with to fame.

So.  This is now three years later.  There have been no Sad Puppies for two years.  And by the way, John Ringo’s extent of involvement in this was to be our friend and to joke about giving Larry and Brad the Don Quixote award.

But he was “puppy adjacent” and the deranged game of post office on the left adduced to him all the things they said we were.  You know the drill: racisss sexisss homophobic.  (They really need to come up with a more sibilant word for that.)
I find this rather fascinating for what it omits. The Baen cum Sad Puppies crowd is in an uncomfortable position not terribly different from that of Never Trump and the cuckservatives. They are accustomed to being the sole opposition to the SJWs in science fiction, and viewing themselves as the proper and respectable opposition, so they really don't know what to do about the Rabid Puppies or the considerably less accommodating opposition that is now represented by Castalia House, Arkhaven, and Dark Legion. Nor do they understand how various trends favor the growth of our influence, in part at their expense.

So, they push a narrative to the public in which we don't exist, even though without us, Sad Puppies would have remained what it was prior to our involvement, a minor bump in the road that didn't even require any suppression outside of the usual routine. This is not to say that what they did was not admirable, and indeed, their construction of the Dragon Awards will likely prove to be more significant in the long run than our demolition of the Hugo Awards. I merely observe that their efforts would have been insufficient in our absence.

But unlike the SJW narrative, the Sad Puppy narrative does not harm us at all. I am content to let them push it in peace; after all, they are not the enemy. Right now, we are marshaling our forces and preparing to engage in offensives on multiple fronts, some of which are known and others which will prove to be unexpected.

Understand that many people are going to become exhausted. Others are going to fall away for one reason or another. Friends will become allies, and allies will become neutrals. All of that is fine. None of that gives us any cause for concern nor should any such transitions be discouraged or criticized. The core remains stronger than ever, and our focus and our efforts remains relentlessly targeted at the enemy.

Let the others trail in our wake at their own pace. As long as they refrain from either attacking us or getting in our way, they are not part of the problem. They are trying to be part of the solution, even if they go about it in different and suboptimal ways.

Speaking of the SJW narrative, the crazy never ends.
I liked The Hobbit. A lot. But while Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books are influential as exercises in world building, as novels they are barely readable. It never seemed to me that Tolkien cared about his story as much as he cared about rendering, in minute detail, the world he built. Why not instead read Ursula K. Le Guin's magnificent (and as beautifully rendered) stories and novels surrounding Earthsea? Le Guin captures the world of Earthsea through a powerful, dark, gorgeous kind of storytelling that is irresistible. Perhaps Le Guin's work—along with an entire universe of fantasy fiction—wouldn't have been possible without Tolkien's influence behind it, but in its time, Le Guin's books are more influential and make for better reading.
—"21 Books You Don’t Have to Read", GQ
Only on Planet SJW are Ursula Le Guin's tedious and tedentious books deemed more influential and better reading than Tolkien's.

Labels: ,

The 11 percent metric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the great irony is that scientistry now stands condemned by its beloved scientodific metric. The New Atheists reasoned that religious faith must be false on the basis of presuming the eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence to the contrary being false, but now we actually know, we do not merely reason, that it is faith in science that is false due to irreproducibility.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, April 19, 2018

The nonexistent principles of Never Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: ,

A win-win

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

Labels: ,

A reliable evil-detector

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

Labels: ,

Mailvox: Googlers exit Google

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: , ,

Disavowing the blank slate

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

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

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

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

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

No one is happier than the satan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: ,

An AD who can catch

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

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


Answer: in every possible way

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: , ,

Sadiq is murder

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: ,

Conservatism and immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: ,

Older Posts