Silver linings

Of course, it wasn't Wilson's racist thinking that was the problem, it was his globalism:

Princeton has stripped the name of 28th President Woodrow Wilson from a college and public policy school due to his 'racist thinking.'

Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber announced on Saturday the institution will remove Wilson's name from its public policy school and a residential college.

'On my recommendation, the board voted to change the names of both the School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College,' Eisgruber said in a statement.

He added: 'the trustees concluded that Woodrow Wilson's racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms.'

That's quite the responsibility for the alumni, given the obligations imposed upon them. It's got to be exhausting standing firmly against racism in all its forms every day.

Making room for Trump

It's only a matter of time before Teddy Roosevelt is removed from Mount Rushmore:

The American Museum of Natural History will remove a prominent statue of Theodore Roosevelt from its entrance after years of objections that it symbolizes colonial expansion and racial discrimination, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Sunday.

The bronze statue that has stood at the museum's Central Park West entrance since 1940 depicts Roosevelt on horseback with a Native American man and an African man standing next to the horse.

'The American Museum of Natural History has asked to remove the Theodore Roosevelt statue because it explicitly depicts Black and Indigenous people as subjugated and racially inferior,' de Blasio said in a written statement.

'The City supports the Museum's request. It is the right decision and the right time to remove this problematic statue.'

While I would prefer to keep statues where they are, it is good to know that there is going to be space on Mount Rushmore for the God-Emperor once he drains the Swamp.

Every year is Year Zero for the warriors of Social Justice.

ERRONEOUS!

Republicans see President Trump as the fourth-greatest president ever, on par with Ronald Reagan and just behind Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, according to a new survey.

Any serious historian will recognize that the God-Emperor should be regarded as the second-greatest president ever, behind only Andrew Jackson.

The Current Year is always Zero

HBO cancels Gone With the Wind as part of the ongoing campaign to erase America:

“Gone with the Wind” was pulled from HBO Max while the long-running TV show “Cops” was outright canceled, a sign that entertainment companies are re-examining the content they offer in the wake of nationwide protests for racial justice and against police brutality.

If you haven't recognized the Year Zero pattern yet, this is part and parcel with Ben Shapiro's attempt to redefine Western civilization as "judeochristian", his tribal predecessors' successful attempt to redefine the American nation as nothing more than an "idea" that belongs to everyone, the Khmer Rouge's policy of shooting everyone with eyeglasses, and the Temple of Reason erected by the French revolutionaries.

For the Prometheans, the Current Year is always Zero.

Back to the bipolar world

It's a bit ironic that David Goldman, who was once at the forefront of the planned Leap to China, has now turned in alarm to talking up a nonexistent "American" unity between Americans, Paper Americans, Fake Americans, and Not Americans, now that the US empire has squandered its brief period of global dominance on the invasion and occupation of a few of Israel's enemies.

There is a line of American commentary on China, argued most clearly and persistently by David Goldman at Asia Times (now apparently with Gordon Chang also on board) telling us that we Americans should consider ourselves to be in a Sputnik Moment: a moment in history where, if we don’t stop the fruitless squabbling and begin engaging in some serious, co-ordinated national effort, the ChiComs will eat our lunch, breezing past us in key technologies like artificial intelligence, big data, microchip fabrication, and quantum computing.

The problem with that prescription is that the original Sputnik Moment, to which America reacted with such spectacular success, occurred in 1957, a whole decade B.S.—”Before Sontag.”

White ethnomasochism was not entirely unknown in 1957, but it was restricted to tiny cliques of urban intellectuals.

We could make a united national response to Sputnik sixty years ago because we were a sufficiently united nation. You need that qualifying word “sufficiently” there because there was what people of the time called “the Negro Problem.”

White Americans didn’t think about black Americans any more than they absolutely had to, though, and the race issue didn’t split whites down the middle as clearly and angrily as in what I call today’s Cold Civil War.

Sputnik-wise, we were a sufficiently united nation—sufficiently to co-operate in a colossal national effort with a minimum of bickering.

The US empire is now about as well-equipped to withstand the Chinese challenge as the Austro-Hungarian military was ready to face the Russian army in 1914. No amount of talking up the value of words and ideology and paper identity is going to substitute for genuine nationalism.

A true homage

A millennial's quest to beat Tecmo Bowl:

In my Tecmo Bowl universe, Pickel was a combination of Reggie White, Joe Greene and Dick Butkus. He became integral to my new defensive strategy, which was to always select a running play since they’re so much harder to stop, then drop either of my linebackers (Matt Millen and Jerry Robinson) into coverage and follow one of the wide receivers in hopes of picking off a pass. Against teams that regularly featured the run (Bears, Cowboys, Browns) the AI-controlled Pickel was a fixture in the backfield, burying Payton, Kevin Mack and Herschel Walker. There’s a good chance he would have broken Pro Football Focus’ grading metrics with an estimated 400 tackles for loss.

Throughout the process, I wondered how frustrating this would be to read for legions of 40-somethings who had honed this strategy over long hours wrapping sore, calloused hands around the hard plastic rectangle controller. The real grinders who knew and loved Pickel long before I did. My hope is that they view this as an homage, and not another dangerously offensive action from a millennial out to destroy everything they love.

Fear not. This is the sort of thing of which Gen X gamers absolutely approve.

Impossible? Part IV

IV. Brave New World

To carry out a successful coup, four things are needed. First, a leader; as one of my professors used to say, would there really have been a Russian Revolution without Lenin? Second, a cause or ideology that will make others rally around him. Third, a polarized and paralyzed political system that will fail to act as quickly and as decisively as it should have. And fourth, a sufficiently large number of ordinary people sufficiently disgruntled with the existing state of things to tolerate an uprising. What I am suggesting is not that such a coup is right around the corner either in the U.S or in any other democratic country. Rather that, when the time comes, restoring the balance between men and women could well be a central part of the cause in question. One for which a growing number of men, dismayed by the countless privileges women are enjoying and feeling at risk by the Niagara of often false accusations feminists are directing at them, might rally and fight.

As Ms. Atwood says, the Bible, especially the Old Testament with its strong patriarchal bias, might well be used to provide such a coup with the religious sanction it needs. That applies both to the Old Testament (“a fitting helper for him”) and the new one (“let woman in Church keep silent”). If victory comes quickly, as it did in Brazil in 1964, Greece in 1967, Chile in 1970, and Argentina in 1976, then the rest will be relatively simple. But if—and in quite some countries this is the more likely outcome—it does not, then the sequel will be about as kind and as gentle as the French Terror under Robespierre. This in turn may escalate into full-scale civil war complete with widespread destruction, countless atrocities, and heavy loss of life. As, for example, happened in Russia in 1917-20 and in Spain in 1936-39. Opponents who do not surrender will be exterminated. If necessary, as Ms. Atwood, perhaps following Lenin’s own example, with the aid of poison gas.

Having won, she goes on, the rebels will set up a dictatorial/clerical government. Living standards will drop dramatically. Civil liberties and every kind of privacy will be abolished. So will the kind of courts that are responsible for safeguarding them; in their place, we shall see the growth of bodies much more like the KGB or the Gestapo. As far as women are concerned, the most important measure the new government will put into effect will be to prohibit them from taking on high-level work outside the home. Also, from owning bank accounts, inheriting property, and generally handling any but the trifling sums needed for running a household day to day.

Children over the age of six or eight will be educated separately, just as they have been throughout most of history. It may be that Ms. Atwood is exaggerating—as a novelist, that is her good right. Contrary to what she says, I think that women may still be allowed to study for occupations such as teaching, nursing, nutrition, all kinds of therapy, and the like. However, everything they do will be under male supervision and control. To prevent feminism from reemerging women will be barred from acquiring a higher education in the humanities, the social sciences, and, above all, the law. In fact both The Handmaid’s Tale and The Testaments point to female lawyers as the new regime’s worst enemies, most likely not only to be suspended from school but arrested and shot as well.

Still loosely following in Ms. Atwood’s footsteps, every woman will be assigned a male guardian. Either a relative—father, husband, brother, son—or, in the case of single women and widows and divorcees who do not have them, a Miniwowe (Ministry of Women’s Welfare) official. In case, which seems likely, there are more such women than bureaucrats, the outcome will be a modern form of polygamy. In whatever way it is done, inevitably the best-looking young women will be rounded up for the officers’ exclusive use. Whether as wives, or concubines, or baby-bearing machines—handmaids, to use Ms. Atwood’s terminology—or elite prostitutes. Or else, in case they do not have a man or a male bureaucrat to protect them, simply as prey. Of the kind that is seduced with presents if possible and violently hunted down if it is not. As to the rest, who cares? Let the Economen, as Ms. Atwood calls them, look after their Econowives as best they can.

The doctrine of separate spheres having been firmly reestablished in this way, another measure the Junta will definitely take will be to recruit some women as auxiliaries. Not so they can rule or wield weapons, as feminists demand; never at any time have men had much need of women to help them either to govern or to kill one another. But to help control the others while at the same time gaining legitimacy and putting it on show. A few of the women in question will no doubt be given high rank, at any rate on paper. In return they will be required not to appear, or behave, in too feminine a manner. No expensive jewelry to make other women jealous. No ballroom gowns, nor cleavages, nor hand kissing, nor all kinds of wiles women have always used and will always go on using to get their way. Think of Lenin’s wife, Nadezha Krupskaya. Think, too, of Stalin’s alleged mistress Alexandra Kollontai. Not to mention Hitler’s Reichsfrauenfuehrerin Gertrud Scholtz-Klink. All three paid for what modest power they wielded, and the privileged lives they led, by serving some of the most terrifying men who ever lived.

Of the remaining women, many will be herded into a quasi-military organization and made to wear uniform. Judging by what previous totalitarian regimes have done and are doing, the uniforms themselves will likely fall into two kinds. Either such as make their wearers almost indistinguishable from men, complete with camouflage patterns, Kevlar helmets, heavy boots, and similar items that will conceal their femininity and create the illusion that they are more than just half soldiers. Or else a more feminine type with brightly colored skirts, nylon stockings, a unique kind of headgear to make them look nice on parade, and what in some cases appear to be plastic guns. As Russian, Chinese and North Korean female soldiers, goose-stepping past their invariably male, benignly smiling, superiors already do.

Amidst all this, feminists who refuse to recant will have clamps (branks as, back in the seventeenth century, they used to be known) pushed into their mouths if they are lucky and be burnt as witches if they are not. Or else they will be sent to the camps, the colonies as Ms. Atwood calls them, from which few if any of them will ever return. What makes these measures more plausible is the fact that few of them are really new; quite some were implemented in the past. Not just among illiterate tribespeople in their natural habitat, but in the democratic and enlightened Athens so many of us claim as our spiritual ancestor. And not just ages ago, but in nineteenth-century Europe and North America. In the latter, the English economist Harriet Martineau reported, the very idea of his wife working was enough to make a man’s hair stand on end.

Writing in the late 1920s, Virginia Woolf described how a beadle, or security guard, prevented her from walking on the grass at “Oxbridge” university as male students did. As I know from my own experience, it was only in the mid-1970s that, in some Western countries, married women could so much as open a bank account under their own names. Not until 1976, when Swiss women were finally granted the vote, was the process of enfranchisement complete even in Europe. As I have seen with my own eyes, even today some Muslim women wear a bit-like piece of clothing, known as a battoullah, which makes it hard for them to speak. As Mao wrote, even a journey of ten thousand miles must start with a single step. In many countries, political polarization and right-wing populism are growing and democracy is in serious trouble already.

I. Introduction
II. The Road to Herland
III. Into the Breach
IV. Brave New World
V. Conclusion

Correcting the Fake Narrative

The Fake News has been attempting to retroactively establish a fake narrative about President Trump's robust response to Corona-chan:

One of the repeated lies of the anti-Trump media is that the president failed to do what was necessary to prevent the spread of this disease. We are told, by Democrats and the media, that President Trump “wasted” six weeks during which he should have been . . . Well, doing something more than what he did, which was actually quite a lot.

On Jan. 29, Trump announced the formation of his Coronavirus Task Force, headed by HHS Secretary Alex Azar, and including the CDC director Dr. Redfield, who retired from the Army medical service with the rank of colonel, and whose medical specialty is viruses. On Jan. 31, Trump announced a ban on travel from China, which was controversial at the time. The same day Trump announced the ban, Joe Biden, campaigning in Iowa, accused the president of “hysterical xenophobia,” saying Trump was leading with “fearmongering . . . instead of science.”

The claim that Trump is “anti-science” has become part of the media’s narrative about the COVID-19 outbreak. Supposedly, a bias against science explains why the president didn’t do whatever it was that his critics, with the benefit of hindsight, say he should have done. What he actually did, however, was entirely in keeping with what the medical experts would have advised, given the circumstances. With only six known coronavirus cases in the U.S., five of them were people who had just returned from Wuhan, and the sixth was a household member of one of these travelers. So the first thing to do, obviously, was stop the arrival of more infected people from China, where the pandemic began and at the time had just been recognized as a “global emergency” by the WHO.

OK, so what happened next? As of Feb. 26 — nearly a month after Trump had created the coronavirus task force — there were still only 15 known cases of the disease in the United States. It was on Feb. 28 that Case No. 16 was identified in Santa Clara County, California:

At that point — where the 16th case had just been identified — there was not a single known COVID-19 case in New York or New Jersey. The only known case on the East Coast up to that point, was a man who had recently arrived in Boston from Wuhan, China, in late January. At that time, Boston Public Health Commission director Rita Nieves said, “The risk to the general public remains low.” And this continued to be the case throughout February, so that if you want to cherry-pick quotes by President Trump during that time saying that he believed we had the problem under control, and that the Wuhan coronavirus posed no serious risk to Americans, so what? This was the consensus of the medical community at the time.

Let's not forget that when Trump declared the China travel ban nearly a month before the medical community decided that the virus posed a serious risk to Americans, he was castigated for doing this by the very same people who are criticizing him for not having done enough now.

But WHICH god?

This defense of Robespierre is fascinating, illustrating as it does that one of the architects of the French Revolution was very different than he is commonly portrayed today. He was certainly much more sound than the average intellectual today on atheists and atheism. But I am not so certain as the author of the article that the god of which he was speaking was necessarily the Christian God.

Robespierre castigated the irreligion that prevailed in the aristocracy and the high clergy, with bishops like Talleyrand openly boasting of lying every Sunday. A gap had widened between the clerical hierarchy and the country priests. Among the latter, many were responsible for drafting the peasants’ cahiers de doléances. The counter-revolutionary bishop Charles de Coucy, of La Rochelle, said in 1797 that the Revolution was “started by the bad priests.” For Robespierre, they were the “good priests” whom the people of the countryside needed.

Robespierre was inflexible against the priests who submitted to the pope by refusing to take an oath on the Civil Constitution (voted July 12, 1790). But he also opposed, until his last breath, any plan to abolish the funds allocated to Catholic worship under the same Civil Constitution. He also opposed, but in vain, the new Republican calendar, with its ten-day week aimed at “suppressing Sunday,” by the admission of its inventor Charles-Gilbert Romme.

Robespierre’s worst enemies were the militant atheists, the Enragés like Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette or Jacques-René Hébert, who unleashed the movement for dechristianization in November 1793, and started closing the churches in Paris or transforming them into “Temples of Reason”, with the slogan “death is an eternal sleep” posted on the gates of cemeteries. Robespierre condemned “those men who have no other merit than that of adorning themselves with an anti-religious zeal,” and who “throw trouble and discord among us” (Club des Jacobins, November 21 1793). In his speech to the National Convention of December 5, 1793, he accused the dechristianizers of acting secretly for the counter-revolution. Indeed, “hostile foreign powers support the dechristianization of France as a policy pushing rural France into conflict with the Republic for religious reasons and thus recruiting armies against the Republic in Vendée and in Belgium.” By exploiting the violence of militant atheist extremists, these foreign powers have two aims: “the first to recruit the Vendée, to alienate the peoples of the French nation and to use philosophy for the destruction of freedom; the second, to disturb public tranquility in the interior, and to distract all minds, when it is necessary to collect them to lay the unshakable foundations of the Revolution.”

Again in his “Report against Philosophism and for the Freedom of Worship” (November 21, 1793), Robespierre again castigated the grotesque cults of Reason instituted in churches by atheist fanatics:

“By what right do they come to disturb the freedom of worship, in the name of freedom, and attack fanaticism with a new fanaticism? By what right do they degenerate the solemn tributes paid to pure truth, in eternal and ridiculous pranks? Why should they be allowed to play with the dignity of the people in this way, and to tie the bells of madness to the very scepter of philosophy?”

Anyhow, it's a very good article that is well worth reading in its entirety.

These are NOT the end times

All End Times preaching is nothing more than narcisissm + false prophecy.  A reader writes:

A preacher that I know, who has preached the end of the world for 40 years, and has been wrong for 40 years, when asked about this current situation, said assuredly that this was not the end! He has always been wrong, so either it is the end, or, and this is my prediction, he will change his mind and start declaring it the end, or the beginning of the end. He, to a certain extent, and I dare say all end times preachers, are false prophets. That may be harsh, but if what they say does not come true are they not false? Would not my Dad, Uncles, Aunts, Grandparents, and Cousins been better served by a different message before they died. Were they living in the end times?

Every single person who states a firm opinion about any time being the end times is a false prophet and a liar. Every single one. I've been hearing Boomers pontificate about this since the end of the 1970s. I still remember the idiotic pamphlet "88 Reasons for 1988". Even at the time, I knew it was complete idiocy, given specious illogic like "1988 is the 100th U.S. Congress. Water boils at 100 degrees. Therefore, the world will end in 1988!"

In fact, Boomer eschatologists who breathlessly followed Hal Lindsay were one reason I rejected Christianity as a teenager. It was patently obvious even at the time that there was absolutely no truth in them, as events have subsequently confirmed. That being said, the one thing I will say for Mr. Lindsay is that he correctly predicted the rise of global Islam at a time when absolutely no one else did, and he did so on the basis of logic derived from the Bible.

Jesus made it very clear that even he didn't know the hour. So you don't either, and don't start appealing to how you're certain that it is "the season" either. Evil men that people were identifying as potential Antichrist candidates in 999 AD have been completely forgotten by history, and there isn't even a moderately plausible candidate today. So get over yourselves, forget the idiotic and entirely non-Biblical rapture nonsense, and deal with the fact that you're almost certainly going to have to deal with the fallen world as it is for the rest of your life.

Live, love, and leave off waiting for a deus ex machina.

"Easter" means "Resurrection"

A poster asked about Easter on SocialGalactic:

Why do churches say Easter? Isn’t Easter a pagan holiday? I’ve started to say Resurrection Sunday at church and ppl ignore me.

Easter is not a pagan holiday. That’s atheist nonsense that requires an almost-complete ignorance of literally every foreign language but one. While there is a possible etymological link to the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess named Eostre for whom there is absolutely no evidence outside of the writings of the venerable, but inventive Bede, but since the Germans use "Easter" too and English is partially derived from German, the word is much more likely linked to the old German word for resurrection, which is Erstehen.

One of the earliest appearances of "Easter" in English is in the Tyndale Bible, which actually refers to Ester. Remember, the conventional accusation about Easter being a pagan holiday concerned Ishtar, an Akkadian goddess of love and war, but that was never a viable explanation because none of the other European languages have any possible etymological link to a pagan holiday. Their Paschae, Pasqua, Pâques, Pascua, etc. all trace back to Passover.

So, the usual suspects dug around the history books and came up with Eostre, who was not a German goddess and for whom there is no evidence in the German linguistic record. But they did posit - or to put more clearly, made up - a nonexistent precursor goddess to a probably-invented goddess, whose nonexistent holiday could theoretically have been coopted by English and German Christians in the Sixteenth Century while celebrating the Erstehen on Paschae.

Needless to say, this makes absolutely no sense to anyone who is capable of understanding the conventional ordering of cause and effect. Note in particular that the first and only known reference to Eostre is in 725 AD, and the first known references to Ester and Passover, both of which are English neologisms popularized, if not necessarily coined by Tyndale, were in 1526 AD, centuries after Paskha (πάσχα) was first celebrated by Christians.

From Infogalactic's Eostre page: a Proto-Indo-European goddess of the dawn is supported both by the evidence of cognate names and the similarity of mythic representation of the dawn goddess among various Indo-European groups... all of this evidence permits us to posit a Proto-Indo-European *haéusōs 'goddess of dawn' who was characterized as a "reluctant" bringer of light for which she is punished.

Since Easter most likely means Resurrection, it is unnecessary, redundant, and more than a little spergish to make a point of trying to force "Resurrection Sunday" on others.

The Fourth Turning

Since the concept often comes when people are metaphorically beating up on Baby Boomers, it might be helpful to understand what is meant by the generational Turnings, which is a four-phase model of social change based on the interaction of the availability and demand for social order:

Fourth Turning

The Fourth Turning is a Crisis. Old Artists die, Prophets enter elderhood, Nomads enter midlife, Heroes enter young adulthood—and a new generation of child Artists is born. This is an era in which America’s institutional life is torn down and rebuilt from the ground up—always in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. Civic authority revives, cultural expression finds a community purpose, and people begin to locate themselves as members of a larger group. In every instance, Fourth Turnings have eventually become new “founding moments” in America’s history, refreshing and redefining the national identity. America’s most recent Fourth Turning began with the stock market crash of 1929 and climaxed with World War II. The generation that came of age during this Fourth Turning was the Hero archetype G.I. Generation (born 1901 to 1924), whose collective spirit and can-do optimism epitomized the mood of the era. Today’s Hero archetype youth, the Millennial Generation (born 1982 to 2004) show many traits similar to those of the G.I. youth, including rising civic engagement, improving behavior, and collective confidence.

In Parsons’ terms, a Fourth Turning is an era in which the availability of social order is low, but the demand for such order is high. Examples of earlier Fourth Turnings include the Civil War in the 1860s and the American Revolution in the 1770s—both periods of momentous crisis, when the identity of the nation hung in the balance.

I have to say, the Zoomers look a lot more like a Hero generation to me than do the Millennials. But, we'll see. Of course, the only two things the Boomers will take from this is a) prophet? I like the sound of that, and, b) see, it totally WASN'T our fault!

Why Christianity is vital to civilization

The Z-man inadvertantly explains the central importance of Christianity to Western civilization and Western societies:

Stupidity has a cost. Every society, even small ones, pay a stupid tax, a price for believing and repeating things that are false. Inevitably, all facts result in some action, so the falsehood, assumed to be fact, will lead to an action. That action, based in an untruth, will come with a price. Maybe the price will be small, like women wasting money on tarot card readers. Maybe it will be high, like putting women into positions of authority based on the lunacy of feminism.

Further, the stupidity of false notions is not universal. Dumb people believe in ghosts and magic, while smart people fall for things like libertarianism. Belief in ghosts may be silly, but it is generally harmless. Crackpot ideas like communism and libertarianism, on the other hand, are very dangerous. It turns out that who is passing around the counterfeit idea counts for as much as the idea itself. Smart people falling for dumb ideas is far more dangerous than dumb people being dumb.

Like money, there are at least two qualities popular nonsense. One is the volume of it in circulation and the other is its velocity. The volume seems pretty obvious. At the extreme, if everything people think is true is actually false, they will not be around very long before they act in such a way that ends their existence. An example would be the Xhosa cattle-killing movement and famine of 1856. There is an absolute limit to the amount of stupid any people can indulge.

The less a society is devoted to the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, the more it will subject itself to the inevitable and unavoidable costs of stupidity. The reason that the wicked always stumble in the end is that their rejection of the True is applied stupidity, and the acceptance of their self-serving falsehoods relies upon the very stupidity of the masses that prevents societies from functioning.

Far worse than you think

As I have repeatedly observed, no matter how outlandish their theories may be, the conspiracy theorists are reliably far too conservative, as the historical reality is almost always more horrifying than the average individual is capable of imagining or even admitting:

VICTIMS of a warped social experiment in Germany where authorities deliberately placed troubled kids with paedophile foster parents are set to win compensation. Between 1969 to 2003, these homeless boys aged between six and 14 were handed over to paedos  — because it was thought the vulnerable kids might benefit from their attention.

The twisted logic behind behind the "Kentler experiment"— named after the leading sexologist Helmut Kentler who spearheaded it — was that paedophilia could have "positive consequences". Astonishingly, in the late 1960s Kentler managed to persuade West Berlin's ruling Senate that homeless boys would leap at the opportunity to be fostered by paedophile dads. It was successfully argued they would be "head over heels in love" with their new father figures.

About this time Kentler was publicly lobbying for decriminalisation sex between adults and children in West Germany. The academic argued youngsters "almost always more seriously damaged" by their abusers being prosecuted than by the abuse itself.

Don't be surprised when similar projects in the USA and the UK are revealed. Adding P to the ever-growing sexual rights acronym has always been the end game of the human rights movement. The wicked will never, ever stop attempting to expand their so-called "rights" until they are able to legally a) have sex with, and, b) openly murder, children without fear of consequence or reprisal.

Once you understand that "the slippery slope" in this case is not a logical fallacy, but rather the straightforward observation of the step-by-step implementation of an oft-repeated process that has been attempted and resisted, implemented and eventually stamped-out, time and time again over the course of human history, you will understand why it should be stopped at the beginning of the process.

Mailvox: maybe I do have a point

A critic apologizes for assuming my nonexistent heresy:

I wrote you a letter concerning the trinity of God and I want to apologize for scolding you. I have come to understand the revelation of The Bible better these past few days and I admit I jumped the gun in criticizing your argument about the trinity. There are apparent contradictions between The Bible and the teaching about The Trinity like many believe it. I think this stems from the wrong interpretation that the catholic church presents about God. I also went over your argument again and admit that there is a contradiction between The Word of God and this belief in The Trinity as it is many times taught in different circles.

Accepted. As I frequently point out, any time an argument is reliant upon an observable falsehood or deception, it is usually being made in defense of a false position. The mere fact that I am frequently and erroneously criticized for not subscribing to "the Nicene Creed" when I am in fact the one subscribing to the actual Nicene Creed of 325 as opposed to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 that most Christians wrongly believe to be "the Nicene Creed" should be sufficient to give the average critic pause.

It is also worth noting that the third Ecumenical Council of 431 reaffirmed the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed and rejected the later pseudo-Nicene version. And finally, you may wish to consider the fact that Sir Isaac Newton independently came to the same conclusion that I did. As for me, I could not care less if all the modern theologians from all the modern sects and churches and denominations declare otherwise. Given their assertions on various other theological matters, I tend to rather like our odds of being the party more in line with the truth.

Move away, Swedes

It is their country now:

Two Muslim women with opposing views on a headscarf ban in schools clashed in a fierce TV debate in Sweden. The teacher told the politician that people uncomfortable with the veil should just leave the country.

The heated exchange between Naouel Aissaoui, a school teacher in the Swedish municipality of Skurup, and local politician Loubna Stensaker Goransson was over a ban on veils in public schools, which Goransson and other council officials enacted in December. The decision angered many educators, and Aissaoui is among those leading the pushback.

"Move away if it annoys you," Aissaoui said during a TV debate after her opponent said she disliked seeing little girls wearing the veil. "This is my country, too."

Move where? All they are going to do is follow you. Better to sink the ships, reject the refugees, end the subsidies, repatriate the immigrants, and stay where you are.

It is absolutely immoral to allow refugees to settle in your country. And the Bible is one long lesson about the horrific consequences of permitting even moderate numbers of foreigners to live among you, beginning with Egypt and Canaan.

Immigration is rather like free speech. Both are scams that are intended to convince the target to lower its natural defenses until the balance of power is sufficiently altered. Then the vital importance of minority feelings and cultural norms abruptly disappear.

Extremists vs moderates

The Z-Man explains a pair of natural divides. I point out a third.

Michelle Malkin is a good example of why civic nationalism must inevitably lead to someone like Ben Shapiro lecturing you about the creedal nation. Her speech was pretty much what Ben Shapiro says, except she strongly opposes immigration and what she calls globalism. For obvious reasons, Malkin must argue on ideological grounds, rather than from nature. Her brand of dissident politics must be open to everyone, who accepts the ideological points of her program.

It’s one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in reality it is impossible to police ideological borders. The Left has been trying to solve that puzzle since the French Revolution and it always ends in disaster. The right-wing effort at it led to Buckley conservatism and eventually David French. For now, ideology and argument are the tools required to win people to our side, but ultimately the goal must be boundaries that do not require constant maintenance…

Listening to Fuentes speak, I was thinking about how this spasm of white identity politics has mirrored previous iterations. The alt-right split in two. One group is seeking to operate above ground and gain legitimacy. The other group retreated into a self-imposed ghetto. The TRS crowd is really just a younger version of the old Stormfront community that formed up after the Buchanan movement. Go back further and it is a replay of the Bircher-Buckley split.

Fundamentally, these splits are over presentation. The “optics” side cannot fathom why the hardcore cannot understand the need to make a good presentation. The hardcore cannot understand why the optics guys don’t see the dangers of compromise. Both sides are right, but both sides have always failed. The hardcore ends up in something similar to a cult and the optics guys get gobbled up by the system. There really needs to be a different approach to this in order to avoid a repeat of the past…

The reality is that every successful movement requires both its extremists and its moderates. See Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army, or the Palestine Zionist Executive and the Irgun. In this case, the core problem that the moderates face is that no matter how flawless their optics might be, their position simply isn't a viable one. Like communism, like socialism, like secular humanism, civic nationalism has been thoroughly tried and tested. And it has failed, even more spectacularly than these other ideological catastrophes.

Of course, the one thing the political activists of every stripe never seem to grasp is that the political philosophers simply aren't interested in activism of any kind. In my case, both the activists and their enemies alike fail to grasp that I'm neither interested in joining a cult nor in being gobbled up by the system. I'm not interested in joining anything, least of all a mass movement. There are no shortage of opinion leaders who seek attention and influence in pursuit of their ideals, and that is well and good, but there should always be someone to observe the events and make sense of them in a historical context too.

Those who venerate Aristotle, Virgil, and Thucydides are seldom inclined to follow the paths of Alexander, Caesar, and Alcibiades.

Repatriation or war

Those are always just two options. And there is no guarantee the native population will win the latter:

An Indian minister known for fiery and inflammatory rhetoric has declared that India’s Muslims should have been shipped to Pakistan at the time of partition in 1947, arguing the move would have saved the country a lot of trouble.

The controversial comment came from Giriraj Singh, minister of Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries, during a recent address in Purnia. He suggested that widespread unrest over two contentious laws – the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and a proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) – could have been avoided had Indian Muslims been deported to Pakistan when the country was divided from present-day India.

“It is the time to commit ourselves to the nation. Before 1947, [Muhammad Ali] Jinnah pushed for an Islamic nation. It was a big lapse by our ancestors that we're paying the price for,” Singh said.

From Canaan to Byzantium to the USA to India, the lesson is the same: always, Always, ALWAYS sink the damn ships. As Australia can confirm, the rabbits are never good for the native species.

Conspiracy theory > mainstream news

No matter how outlandish the conspiracy theory, it is almost always more accurate than the mainstream news reporting of the official story:

The real owners of Crypto installed ‘backdoor vulnerabilities’ in its products which allowed the US and West Germany to eavesdrop on communications — from enemies and allies alike — which the senders believed had been successfully encrypted. We’re talking here about  top secret communications between leading government officials, spies, diplomats and military figures.

Just imagine that back in the 1970s or 80s you had claimed that the Crypto was a CIA front. You’d have been dismissed as a ‘crank conspiracy theorist, ’and/or ‘totally paranoid‘ by the gatekeepers of that time. But the rumours were true. Once again a ‘conspiracy theory’ has turned out  to be not as barmy as once depicted. Truth again proved to be stranger than fiction.

How much intelligence was gathered via Crypto is quite staggering. As RT has reported: “Throughout the 1980s — around 40% of all government transmissions analysed by the US National Security Agency (NSA) ran through Crypto‘s devices.”

As I have previously observed, the one and only version of events you can be absolutely certain is not true is whatever the official story happens to be.

Too stupid to maintain a car

And yet conservatives and civic nationalists expect non-Europeans to be able to maintain European civilization when they can't even keep their cars in working order:

Minneapolis police officers will no longer ticket motorists for broken headlights or turn signals, instead handing out vouchers to pay for vehicle repairs under a new department policy unveiled Wednesday.

The changes come roughly a year after a pitched debate at City Hall over a possible moratorium on certain traffic stops, with some council members seeing the move as a way to ease the racial disparities in rates of traffic stops. Others worried that it would only harm residents in poorer neighborhoods, where gun violence is prevalent. That debate came weeks after a community forum where residents aired their frustrations with what they saw as years of harassment and discrimination at the hands of police.

At the time, police Chief Medaria Arradondo said he would study the issue, and in the months since has been meeting with senior staffers, crime analysts and community leaders to hear their advice on what to do to revamp the policy without endangering public safety.

Under the new policy, instead of writing a ticket, officers will now have the option of issuing drivers a voucher from the Lights On! program — financed by the nonprofit group MicroGrants, which partners with local organizations to promote economic self-sufficiency among lower income residents, according to its website. The vouchers can be redeemed at participating auto shops to cover the costs of services such as replacing a bulb from a rear taillight. Exceptions include cases in which equipment violations result in a crash or “harm to another,” according to the new guidelines.

If, at this point, you still believe in equality, of any sort, you're a) an idiot and b) are not intelligent enough to be reading this blog. The fact that European civilization requires Europeans to maintain it is not merely a truth, it is a freaking tautology.

A white individual is no more capable of maintaining Chinese or Venusian society than a black individual is capable of maintaining American society. And yet, most Americans have been conditioned to believe that their historically unique society can be sustained and maintained by literally anyone with a pulse.