Saturday, December 31, 2016

What a shameless hypocrite

Angela Merkel has got to be the most shameless hypocrite in the world today.
Angela Merkel has told German citizens that the biggest challenge the country is facing is from Islamist terrorism. In her New Year message she tells Germans that their country is stronger than terrorism and the government will do everything to ensure 'security in freedom'.

In her annual televised message, which is being broadcast today, chancellor Mrs Merkel says 2016 has been 'a year of severe tests', the toughest of them Islamic extremist terror. But she adds, however, that she is 'confident for Germany'.

'It is particularly bitter and sickening when terror attacks are committed by people who claim to seek protection in our country,' Mrs Merkel, who has faced criticism for allowing large numbers of migrants into Germany in 2015, says in her address. But 'in going about our life and our work, we are telling the terrorists: you are murderers full of hatred but you will not determine how we live and want to live'.

'We are free, considerate and open,' she adds.
What Germans are is sitting ducks, helpless and restrained from defending themselves, their nation, and their culture, as long as this horrible, hypocritical woman is in power.

Labels: , ,

On cherishing extremists

People have asked me, repeatedly, if I am not violating my stated tactic of "protect and cherish your extremists" when I criticize those on the right for doing what I consider to be objectively stupid things. The answer is both simple and obvious: no.

You protect an extremist by refusing to criticize him when he does something extreme to the enemy in the interest of the cause. You protect an extremist by refusing to criticize the excessive tactics he utilizes in taking the battle to the other side. You do not protect an idiot by refusing to criticize him when he a) acts like a moderate and attacks someone on your side, b) does something idiotic and irrelevant, c) serves the interests of the other side by dancing for the media.

The latter really isn't that hard to understand. Look at how the media actually went so far as to pay for the KKK's wood and fuel just so they could create evidence to support their "stupid white people is raciss" narrative.
TIJAT producers went so far as to orchestrate more than one cross-burning ceremony in Pulaski, though it is presented in the documentary as if the KKK is actually hosting the event. “We’ve been allowed special access to film this secret induction,” reads a title card that precedes one of the cross-burning scenes.

“It was the producers who told me they wanted a cross-lighting,” recounted Nichols. “In fact they made two cross-lightings cause they wanted to reshoot some scenes. They bought everything—the wood, the burlap to wrap around the wood, the diesel and kerosene for my cross lighting. They even brought all the food for everyone.”
If you're dressed in a monkey suit and dancing for the media, you're not "playing 4d chess", you're not "mocking the media", you're not an extremist who merits defending, you're just a dancing monkey being used by ruthless hypocrites on the other side.
“They kept asking me, wanting me, to use the word ‘nigger,’” said Nichols, who alleged he was paid $600 per day by producers to participate. “I was sitting down being filmed and interviewed with the lights and the backdrop set up, and I said something and used the word ‘blacks.’ Then the producer interrupted me and said ‘No, no, no. We want him to use the word “nigger!”’’’
There is always demand for idiots who will play media patsy. And while there are people who can go boldly into the lion's den and make the lions do tricks, if your name is not "Donald Trump" or "Milo Yiannopoulos", you are not one of them. Trust me on this. I am smarter than you, I am better-educated than you, and as a three-time nationally syndicated columnist, I have far more media experience than you. And yet, even I can't do it reliably. That's why I limit my contact with the media to written questions, and that's why they don't run my answers when they interview me. I don't serve their narrative.

Turn your guns on allies and sympathizers instead of the enemy, and you lose all right to any cover or assistance or regard. I don't have much tolerance for idiots and I don't have any for those who attack my friends and allies. If you're going to attack Mike and Milo and Stefan and Roosh, you won't do it here and you will go immediately on my "ignore that idiot" list.

Labels: ,

Told ya

Remember when Ronda Rousey claimed she was good enough to not only fight Floyd Mayweather, but beat him? That was every bit as dumb as everyone who knows anything about women's martial arts capabilities said it was at the time:
Ronda Rousey was once again pummeled by a striker and lost her second consecutive bout. The former women’s bantamweight champion was completely outclassed in the striking game by Amanda Nunes, who stopped Rousey at 48 seconds of the first round to retain her women’s bantamweight championship in the main event of UFC 207 at T-Mobile Arena.

Nunes landed a big right just seconds into the fight that clearly hurt Rousey, who was fighting for the first time since a stunning defeat at the hands of Holly Holm on Nov. 14, 2015.

Rousey tried to throw punches with Nunes, but she had nothing to offer. Nunes was blistering her with combinations, hitting her with virtually everything she threw.
As I said at the time, Rousey not only couldn't last a round with Floyd, she couldn't last a round with me. Even trained women are weaker than 13 year-old-boys, they're much slower than 13-year-old boys, and they don't take punches as well.

Remember that. Every time you talk about how the latest female fighter du jour can take on a champion boxer or whoever, you're essentially claiming that a really tough 11-year-old can beat the man. It's not merely wrong to do so, it's stupid and dangerous.

And notice that Nunes landed 23 of 35 strikes on a largely defenseless Rousey, but still didn't put her down.


Friday, December 30, 2016

It's Milo's world

We're all just living in it. This is hugely amusing, because I was informed that some SF-SJWs were doing their usual narrative-spinning about how Milo's $250k book contract really wasn't that big, and tended to indicate that he wasn't really all that famous or important.

Then I noticed that SJWAL sales were spiking and I wondered why. This is why.

Hardcover: 320 pages
Publisher: Threshold Editions (March 14, 2017)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1501173081
ISBN-13: 978-1501173080

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Censorship
#1 in Books > Humor & Entertainment > Humor > Political
#1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Commentary & Opinion

So, congratulations, Milo, for hitting #1 on Amazon. And, well, thanks! Apparently it's not at all a bad thing to have the best-selling author in the world write the Foreword to your own little book.

Love the title. It quite suits him. He is dangerous,

Labels: ,

An illegitimate government

The Swedish government can no longer be considered legitimate:
Five Afghan teenagers have been convicted of gang-raping a boy in Sweden - but none of them will be deported because their homeland is 'too dangerous', it has emerged.

The victim, who is under 15, was filmed during the attack, which happened in woodland in Uppsala, south east Sweden. He was beaten and dragged out to the forest at knife-point before being subjected to an ordeal lasting more than an hour, prosecutors say.

After a trial, the teenagers were found guilty of aggravated rape - but despite requests by prosecutors, they will not be expelled from Sweden because of their age and the dangers they would face in their homeland.
Who gives a damn about either their age or the state of their homeland? The Afghan teenagers should either be a) repatriated, or failing that, b) executed. There is no place for them in any civilized Western society.

The first function of government is to protect the nation it governs. Any government that cannot, or will not, do that first and foremost, is illegitimate.

WTF happened to the Vikings? Why do they tolerate this? All all Swedish males now men without balls or backbones?

Labels: , ,

The myth of the Cold War

Paul Craig Roberts addresses the common misconception that Ronald Reagan sought to break the Soviet Union and win the Cold War rather than end it.
The myth is widespread that President Reagan won the cold war by breaking the Soviet Union financially with an arms race. As one who was involved in Reagan’s effort to end the cold war, I find myself yet again correcting the record.

Reagan never spoke of winning the cold war. He spoke of ending it. Other officials in his government have said the same thing, and Pat Buchanan can verify it.

Reagan wanted to end the Cold War, not win it. He spoke of those “godawful” nuclear weapons. He thought the Soviet economy was in too much difficulty to compete in an arms race. He thought that if he could first cure the stagflation that afflicted the US economy, he could force the Soviets to the negotiating table by going through the motion of launching an arms race. “Star wars” was mainly hype. (Whether or nor the Soviets believed the arms race threat, the American leftwing clearly did and has never got over it.)

Reagan had no intention of dominating the Soviet Union or collapsing it. Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, he was not controlled by neoconservatives. Reagan fired and prosecuted the neoconservatives in his administration when they operated behind his back and broke the law.

The Soviet Union did not collapse because of Reagan’s determination to end the Cold War. The Soviet collapse was the work of hardline communists, who believed that Gorbachev was loosening the Communist Party’s hold so quickly that Gorbachev was a threat to the existence of the Soviet Union and placed him under house arrest. It was the hardline communist coup against Gorbachev that led to the rise of Yeltsin. No one expected the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US military/security complex did not want Reagan to end the Cold War, as the Cold War was the foundation of profit and power for the complex. The CIA told Reagan that if he renewed the arms race, the Soviets would win, because the Soviets controlled investment and could allocate a larger share of the economy to the military than Reagan could.

Reagan did not believe the CIA’s claim that the Soviet Union could prevail in an arms race. He formed a secret committee and gave the committee the power to investigate the CIA’s claim that the US would lose an arms race with the Soviet Union. The committee concluded that the CIA was protecting its prerogatives. I know this because I was a member of the committee.
It's kind of hard to argue with an eyewitness in the bureaucratic inner circle.

Labels: ,

Latest reviews of A SEA OF SKULLS

At Castalia House, we are intent on building gradually, on the strong foundations of well-loved series of novels rather than chasing one-off hits. Amazon has listed Arts of Dark and Light as a series now, and the reviews for the latest installment continue to be gratifyingly positive.

Epic Fantasy done right

Vox Day has a gift. He is exceptionally skilled at crafting viewpoints that are reasonable, relatable, emotionally compelling, and completely opposed to each other. This serves him well in the genre of epic fantasy, as it enables him to ensure the reader is fully invested in all the many pieces that make up the puzzle of a great fantasy epic.

Not only do his characters feel realized, his plot is suitably grand. From labyrinthine schemes, to an army that has yet to show its true terror, and a pervading presence of evil that threatens all of Selenoth, our heroes have quite the obstacles to overcome. With these first two books we've been shown small pieces of the disaster that is to befall Selenoth, and I for one, cannot wait for the next installment.

Simply Amazing

Head and shoulders above its predecessor, which is no mean feat! It manages to have multiple characters with completely different viewpoints without a) becoming a confusing mess or b) being disappointing when subbing in an uninteresting character for an interesting one, since all the characters were genuinely interesting. All were fully fleshed out and heroic in their own way. Amazing world-building also really made the story come alive, everything had a real sense of place. A fantastic read, and I can't wait for the next book in the series!

The Saga of Selenoth Grows and Gains Momentum

One of my favorite, all-too-brief parts of Lord of the Rings was the brief view of things we get from an orcish perspective when Sam is temporarily bearing the ring on Frodo's behalf; not with guilty pleasure because the orcs were bad, but because it gave us a glimpse of the world of Middle Earth and War of the Ring from such a different point of view. A Sea of Skulls, the second installment in the Arts of Dark and Light trilogy pentalogy set in the world of Selenoth--a fantasy realm where elves and dwarves, orcs and goblins, have been partially displaced by a Catholicized Roman Empire exerting powerful influence through the iron discipline of its legions--gives us that and much more.

If you've ever wondered what it would be like for Roman infantry, with their centurions and balllistae, to stand their ground against goblin hordes, war pigs, and orcish shamans (or have now begun to wonder), the world of Selenoth is for you, and the Arts of Dark and Light trilogy pentalogy  tells a complex and engaging story of war and intrigue set in that world as the various races of Selenoth are manipulated and set against each other by powerful actors in the shadows....

This is grown-up fantasy which makes for a decent study of human (or orcish, for that matter) nature, not to mention Roman military chain of command, and entertains questions like how the seemingly inevitable decline of an advanced but decadent elven civilization could possibly be reversed, and how dwarves unexpectedly stuck in their own tunnels might feel about it. The violence depicted is quite explicit, both in the grim reality of war and especially in the opening scene of a brutal orc raid on a human village, but not exulted in, and one manages to understand the comradery-in-arms of warriors on every side of the struggle, human or otherwise.

But speaking of trilogies that are not trilogies, let's not forget the first quarter of John C. Wright's excellent Moth & Cobweb series. The final book of The Green Knight's Squire have also been getting excellent reviews.

Fantastic modern, yet traditional fantasy

If you like the old tales of elves, heroes, Arthurian legends, men and monsters and great deeds, then you will enjoy this modern retelling. Highly enjoyable and recommended.

A Fine Conclusion to an Excellent Adventure Trilogy

Swan Knight's Sword is a fitting end to the story of Gilberec Moth, an idealistic teenager out of place in the human world who gradually becomes a brave, worthy, Christian knight....The same elements present in the earlier works are apparent here. Swashbuckling adventure featuring lavish description of mystical beings and surroundings as well as full-blooded, desperate combat. A strong sense of Christian morality. Many newly revealed secrets of both Gil's past and the elf world.

As with the second book, there are a myriad of references, both Christian and pagan, expertly blended together. I was particularly amused by the one to a character of Edgar Rice Burroughs, an author all modern adventure writers owe a debt of gratitude to. Or the use of Roland's horn.

However, this installment also introduces several new wrinkles. There is a more varied, consistent use of humor. Much of it comes from Ruff, Gil's trusty dog whose barks he can understand. In fact, all the interaction with Gil talking to animals is funny. John C Wright evidently discovered the same comedic truth that Ricky Gervais has; personifying animals is always funny. There is also verbal humor and some absurdist situations.

Swan Knight's Sword features an especially strong conclusion, being the culmination of Gil's transformation from a strange boy into a righteous, mighty man. While it satisfyingly ends this tale of Gilberec Moth, it promises more adventure for both him and the world at large.

A worthy ending, a tantalizing beginning

Swan Knight's Sword is the best in this trilogy. A beautiful paean of adventure, courage, honor, loyalty and love. This book reminds me of the stuff I read in my youth, before the fantasy genre was a cesspool of pornography and meaningless nihilistic violence. I laughed, I cried, I wished I had a sword. But of course one does not simply walk into MordorMart and buy a sword, one must be bequeathed a sword by a father, or win one in a heroic quest. And sometimes one must hunt down and confront the magically invulnerable sasquatch that stole your father's sword. This is one of those times...

Labels: , ,

Make California Not-America

It's gone completely off the deep end and is not conducive to national greatness:
Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.

SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

This terribly destructive legislation was written and passed by the progressive Democrats who control California's state government with a two-thirds "supermajority." To their credit, they are sincere in their belief that decriminalizing underage prostitution is good public policy that will help victims of sex trafficking. Unfortunately, the reality is that the legalization of underage prostitution suffers from the fatal defect endemic to progressive-left policymaking: it ignores experience, common sense and most of all human nature — especially its darker side....

Unfortunately for Californians, SB 1322 isn't an outlier — it's only the tip of the liberal iceberg. 2017 will see the Golden State subjected to wave after wave of laws taking effect that are well-intentioned but disastrous embodiments of progressive utopianism.

One such new Democratic-authored law throws open the door to even greater government dependency on the part of the poor by rolling back proven reforms. In 1996, welfare reform was one of the greatest social legislation achievements of the last century, ending the lifetime welfare system and putting millions of Americans on the road to self-reliance and self-respect. In its wake, California lawmakers passed a law barring increased payments to women who have more children while still on welfare, in order to encourage women to achieve independence before having more children.

It's a tough provision that works — which was apparently irrelevant to Gov. Jerry Brown, who just signed a bill repealing that prohibition. Henceforth, no matter how many children someone has while on welfare, the state government will ratchet up payments with each child, with no limit.
I think it is giving California's lunatic left entirely too much credit to assume they are sincere in any beliefs. So, here is a three-step plan for the God-Emperor to Make America Great Again.

  • Relocate all post-1965 non-Americans and dual citizens to California. Settle them on the copious national parkland there.
  • Declare California independent. 
  • Build the Wall with California on the other side.
He can even sweeten the deal by letting California off the hook for their pro-rata share of the national debt. 


Thursday, December 29, 2016

End of the monopolar world

Russia is succeeding where the USA failed:
Labelled an international pariah only months ago by Boris Johnson, and warned he would be stuck in a Syrian quagmire by a patronising Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin ends 2016 if not as the undisputed victor, then at least as the man at the centre of decision making.

It is Moscow and not Washington that is calling the shots in the Middle East.

Reeling from its cold war defeat and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet empire, Moscow was unable to save Yugoslavia from what it termed western aggression.

But in the case of Syria, it can claim it has recovered its self-respect. In the process, it has built a brutal reputation for sticking by its friends, understanding the dynamics of the region better than America, and knowing how to use military power to forge diplomatic alliances.

The US, by contrast, ends 2016 out in the cold, holding a postmortem into the failure of its peace drive with Israel.
That's the difference a leader who puts interests of his nation first versus one who wants to transform his nation into something it is not can make.


Brainstorm tomorrow

We'll have a Brainstorm tomorrow, December 30, at 7 PM Eastern. Invites will be out in the AM. Closed event.


Possibly the greatest thing I have seen in my life

I wouldn't have thought anything could top NIPPON MANJU, and then came Babymetal. But this... this is just something else entirely. It is three minutes and twenty-five seconds of unmitigated awesome.


Anti-Christian hate crime

Israeli parliamentarian destroys the New Testament and declares that Christianity "belongs in the garbage can of history".
MK Michael Ben Ari (National Union), a member of the Israeli parliament tore up a copy of the New Testament and threw it in the trash, an act that was apparently caught on camera. Ben Ari and several other Knesset members received by mail on Monday a copy of the New Testament, sent by the Bible Society in Israel, an organization that distributes religious books.

In the letter sent with the book, director of the Christian organization Victor Kalisher wrote that the new edition “sheds light on the Holy Scriptures and helps understand them."

“We hope the book will help you and illuminate your way,” Kalisher furter wrote.

However, while most MK's chose to ignore the book or return it to its sender, the rightist lawmaker chose to term the book a "provocation," tore it up into shreds and then threw it out.

“This abominable book (the New Testament) galvanized the murder of millions of Jews during the Inquisition and during auto da fe instances,” Ben Ari said adding that “Sending the book to MK's is a provocation. There is no doubt that this book and all it represents belongs in the garbage can of history.”
Imagine the outrage if a U.S. Congressman tore up a copy of the Talmud and denounced Judaism on camera.

There is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity. It does not exist. There are no "Judeo-Christian values", any more than there are "Islamo-Christian" or "Hindu-Shinto" values.

What many naive Christians need to understand is that many Jews absolutely hate Christians and Christianity. Such Jews are neither our friends nor our allies, but our overt enemies.

That does not mean that all Jews are enemies of Christianity. It doesn't even mean that most of them are. It simply means that they are a distinct people with their own distinct interests, a nation who should neither be favored nor trusted on the sole basis of their religious or ethnic identity. And like everyone else, Jews should be judged as individuals, on the basis of their individual statements and actions.

As for Israel, the USA should support it to the extent it is in American interests to do so. As a regional power in the volatile Middle East, Israel is much more useful to Americans as an ally than as an enemy. But Christians nevertheless need to understand that many Israelis, including some Israeli political leaders, are their open and avowed enemy.

Now, I realize there are more than a few Jews and Christians alike who would prefer to bury all signs of this Jewish enmity for Christians and Christianity for one reason or another. This is understandable, and it may even be well-intentioned. But if you are inclined to knowingly keep the deceived in the dark, I think you really need to ask yourself whom you are serving in that regard.

Labels: ,

How Putin influenced the US election

The Saker explains how Vladimir Putin really did influence the recent US presidential election:
I will dare to speculate that Russia did play a role in the election of Trump. No, not by hacking emails or by recruiting Ron Paul (!!!) as an agent of Russian propaganda, but by openly and firmly confronting the USA on all fronts and showing that Russia would not bend her knee before the AngloZionist Empire. As I have written many times, Russia has been preparing for war for years now and while Russians were (and still are) afraid of war, they are also ready and willing to fight it if forced to do so. In his latest press conference Putin specifically referred to the will of the Russian people as a key element in Russia’s ability to defeat any aggressor when he said,

We are stronger than any potential aggressor. I have no problem repeating it. I also said why we are stronger. This has to do with the effort to modernise the Russian Armed Forces, as well as the history and geography of our country, and the current state of Russian society

and he is absolutely right. Sure, Hillary was probably stupid enough to try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, but the 200 or so generals and admirals who expressed their support for Trump probably understood what that kind of folly would entail. Furthermore, it appears that quite a few Americans are sympathetic to Russia and Putin himself. Again, in his latest press conference Putin referred to this and made some very interesting comments:

I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy. (…) It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win.

Putin puts it down to values, common values, between the Russian and the American people.

Personal sidebar: for whatever this is worth, I regularly interact with Americans who support Putin on the grounds that "he stands for American values unlike the SOBs in Washington".

But how did the Americans become aware of what values Putin and Russia stood for if not for the ceaseless efforts of Putin himself and the alternative media to convey these values to the general public? I think that by OPENLY denouncing the total hypocrisy of the AngloZionist Empire and by OPENLY offering a different civilizational model, Putin and Russia did have an impact on the public opinion in the West. To put it simply: Russia has scored an ideological victory over the AngloZionist imperialists. In other words, the Russian policy of standing firm against the Empire while openly challenging it on its ideological foundation was the correct one and it probably did have an impact upon the outcome of the election in the USA.

Labels: ,

By any means necessary

George Soros is pulling out all the stops to try to impede the God-Emperor's rule while saving the EU from itself. But I find this article by the aged string-puller, entitled "Open Society Needs Defending", to make for very satisfactory reading indeed.
Well before Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, I sent a holiday greeting to my friends that read: “These times are not business as usual. Wishing you the best in a troubled world.” Now I feel the need to share this message with the rest of the world. But before I do, I must tell you who I am and what I stand for.

I am an 86-year-old Hungarian Jew who became a US citizen after the end of World War II. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of political regime prevails. The formative experience of my life was the occupation of Hungary by Hitler’s Germany in 1944. I probably would have perished had my father not understood the gravity of the situation. He arranged false identities for his family and for many other Jews; with his help, most survived.

In 1947, I escaped from Hungary, by then under Communist rule, to England. As a student at the London School of Economics, I came under the influence of the philosopher Karl Popper, and I developed my own philosophy, built on the twin pillars of fallibility and reflexivity. I distinguished between two kinds of political regimes: those in which people elected their leaders, who were then supposed to look after the interests of the electorate, and others where the rulers sought to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’ interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the first kind of society open, the second, closed.

The classification is too simplistic. There are many degrees and variations throughout history, from well-functioning models to failed states, and many different levels of government in any particular situation. Even so, I find the distinction between the two regime types useful. I became an active promoter of the former and opponent of the latter.

I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. How could this happen? The only explanation I can find is that elected leaders failed to meet voters’ legitimate expectations and aspirations and that this failure led electorates to become disenchanted with the prevailing versions of democracy and capitalism. Quite simply, many people felt that the elites had stolen their democracy.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole remaining superpower, equally committed to the principles of democracy and free markets. The major development since then has been the globalization of financial markets, spearheaded by advocates who argued that globalization increases total wealth. After all, if the winners compensated the losers, they would still have something left over.

The argument was misleading, because it ignored the fact that the winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers. But the potential winners spent enough money promoting the argument that it prevailed. It was a victory for believers in untrammeled free enterprise, or “market fundamentalists,” as I call them. Because financial capital is an indispensable ingredient of economic development, and few countries in the developing world could generate enough capital on their own, globalization spread like wildfire. Financial capital could move around freely and avoid taxation and regulation.

Globalization has had far-reaching economic and political consequences. It has brought about some economic convergence between poor and rich countries; but it increased inequality within both poor and rich countries. In the developed world, the benefits accrued mainly to large owners of financial capital, who constitute less than 1% of the population. The lack of redistributive policies is the main source of the dissatisfaction that democracy’s opponents have exploited. But there were other contributing factors as well, particularly in Europe.

I was an avid supporter of the European Union from its inception. I regarded it as the embodiment of the idea of an open society: an association of democratic states willing to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the common good. It started out at as a bold experiment in what Popper called “piecemeal social engineering.” The leaders set an attainable objective and a fixed timeline and mobilized the political will needed to meet it, knowing full well that each step would necessitate a further step forward. That is how the European Coal and Steel Community developed into the EU.

But then something went woefully wrong. After the Crash of 2008, a voluntary association of equals was transformed into a relationship between creditors and debtors, where the debtors had difficulties in meeting their obligations and the creditors set the conditions the debtors had to obey. That relationship has been neither voluntary nor equal.

Germany emerged as the hegemonic power in Europe, but it failed to live up to the obligations that successful hegemons must fulfill, namely looking beyond their narrow self-interest to the interests of the people who depend on them. Compare the behavior of the US after WWII with Germany’s behavior after the Crash of 2008: the US launched the Marshall Plan, which led to the development of the EU; Germany imposed an austerity program that served its narrow self-interest.

Before its reunification, Germany was the main force driving European integration: it was always willing to contribute a little bit extra to accommodate those putting up resistance. Remember Germany’s contribution to meeting Margaret Thatcher’s demands regarding the EU budget?

But reuniting Germany on a 1:1 basis turned out to be very expensive. When Lehman Brothers collapsed, Germany did not feel rich enough to take on any additional obligations. When European finance ministers declared that no other systemically important financial institution would be allowed to fail, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, correctly reading the wishes of her electorate, declared that each member state should look after its own institutions. That was the start of a process of disintegration.

After the Crash of 2008, the EU and the eurozone became increasingly dysfunctional. Prevailing conditions became far removed from those prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty, but treaty change became progressively more difficult, and eventually impossible, because it couldn’t be ratified. The eurozone became the victim of antiquated laws; much-needed reforms could be enacted only by finding loopholes in them. That is how institutions became increasingly complicated, and electorates became alienated.

The rise of anti-EU movements further impeded the functioning of institutions. And these forces of disintegration received a powerful boost in 2016, first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional reforms.

Democracy is now in crisis. Even the US, the world’s leading democracy, elected a con artist and would-be dictator as its president. Although Trump has toned down his rhetoric since he was elected, he has changed neither his behavior nor his advisers. His cabinet comprises incompetent extremists and retired generals.

What lies ahead?

I am confident that democracy will prove resilient in the US. Its Constitution and institutions, including the fourth estate, are strong enough to resist the excesses of the executive branch, thus preventing a would-be dictator from becoming an actual one.

But the US will be preoccupied with internal struggles in the near future, and targeted minorities will suffer. The US will be unable to protect and promote democracy in the rest of the world. On the contrary, Trump will have greater affinity with dictators. That will allow some of them to reach an accommodation with the US, and others to carry on without interference. Trump will prefer making deals to defending principles. Unfortunately, that will be popular with his core constituency.

I am particularly worried about the fate of the EU, which is in danger of coming under the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose concept of government is irreconcilable with that of open society. Putin is not a passive beneficiary of recent developments; he worked hard to bring them about. He recognized his regime’s weakness: it can exploit natural resources but cannot generate economic growth. He felt threatened by “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. At first, he tried to control social media. Then, in a brilliant move, he exploited social media companies’ business model to spread misinformation and fake news, disorienting electorates and destabilizing democracies. That is how he helped Trump get elected.

The same is likely to happen in the European election season in 2017 in the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. In France, the two leading contenders are close to Putin and eager to appease him. If either wins, Putin’s dominance of Europe will become a fait accompli.

I hope that Europe’s leaders and citizens alike will realize that this endangers their way of life and the values on which the EU was founded. The trouble is that the method Putin has used to destabilize democracy cannot be used to restore respect for facts and a balanced view of reality.

With economic growth lagging and the refugee crisis out of control, the EU is on the verge of breakdown and is set to undergo an experience similar to that of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Those who believe that the EU needs to be saved in order to be reinvented must do whatever they can to bring about a better outcome.
The article is riddled with lies, but even so, it is clear that the globalists are getting increasingly worried. And well they should. The rising tide of nationalism is going to kill their evil utopian dreams as dead as the League of Nations. The European nations will be greatly blessed if they are so fortunate as to find leaders half as effective, and half as genuinely devoted to their nations, as the Russians are to have Vladimir Putin.

What Soros calls "the open society" is a fraud being marketed by the globalist elite to mask their true objectives of rule by an international aristocracy. There are few institutions more openly anti-democratic than the EU, which subverts even democracies that don't belong to it. If the US was genuinely interested in spreading democracy abroad, its first order of business should be to invade Brussels.

History never ended. Liberal democracy - especially in its bizarrely contorted limited modern form - has completely failed.  The immigrant-riddled US political system is one financial failure away from collapse. How painful it must be to be reaching the end of one's road in the knowledge that all of one's works will be undone within a single generation.

The Saker has some relevant comments:
Poor “EUans” (my own word for the European zombies who believed in the Bilderberger’s European Union): they are now, how shall I put it politely, totally “frigged”? Not only did the British people defy the Empire and vote for a Brexit, but now the Imperial Homeland has “backstabbed” them by electing a patriot who is not interested in maintaining the global empire (or so he says, at least for the time being). At the same time, the so-called “refugee crisis” is bringing several crucial EU nations to the brink of a civil war (France for example) while all the efforts of the elites to blame Russia for it all end up in abject failures. Just check out this hilarious article in the British Sun which accuses Russia of, I kid you not, “organizing sex attacks in Germany“!! True, we already had the “Serbian Chetniks using rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing” and “Gaddafi distributing Viagra to his soldiers to rape opposition supporters” but Putin ordering refugees to rape women in Germany is the best, so to speak. And just in case the unthinkable happens in Germany, the Germans have already warned that Russian hackers might steal the election in Germany. If this was not so utterly disgusting it would be hilarious. The bottom line is this: the entire EU project is morally completely bankrupt, each EU member state is now in a deep political crisis and the so-called “elites” are scrambling to find a response to what appears to be an inevitable collapse of the EU-order over Europe. 

Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

I don't care

For future reference, this will be my response to all future queries concerning whether I heard about X doing, or saying, anything, and what I think about X doing, or saying, Y, about Z.

I don't care. I'm not interested.

My friends are my friends. Castalia authors are Castalia authors. I don't give an airborne rodent's posterior if they happen to do or say something that offends your ideological, religious, ethnic, national, or racial sensitivities.

I realize this won't stop the occasional idiot running to me with "did you hear what X did" like a teenage girl who just heard the rumor that the head cheerleader cheated on her boyfriend with the math teacher, but for the record, that will be my response.

I don't care. I'm not interested.

And if you have a problem with that, then please leave and find some other corner of the Internet in which to reside. It's a big place. Take your crusade, whatever it might be, elsewhere. You've got no shortage of options. And I'm not interested in your opinion of me or anyone else. Talking about me, or about someone else, rather than the subject of the post, is an excellent way to get yourself banned here.

This is not, and has never been, a free speech zone. I'll cheerfully ban you for annoying me or trying to waste my time. And I have a low tolerance for gammas, particularly gamma midwits.

I'm done trying to talk sense into the senseless, or to explain rationales to the irrational. You'd think I, of all people, would know better.


Thomas Sowell: 10 great quotes

1. "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance."

2. "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."

3. "Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."

4. "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late."

5. "The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is: he confuses it with feeling."

6. "The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state."

7. "The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites."

8. "I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."

9. "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind."

10. "People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything."


Israel at war with New Zealand and Senegal

Among others. The Israeli prime minister doesn't appear to understand the concept of diplomacy:
The Israeli government stepped up its running battle with the Obama administration on Tuesday, saying it had proof that the United States had orchestrated a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning settlement activity.

“We have ironclad information that emanates from sources in the Arab world and that shows the Obama administration helped craft this resolution and pushed hard for its eventual passage,” ­David Keyes, a spokesman for ­Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told reporters. “We’re not just going to be a punching bag and go quietly into the night.”

State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner denied that the administration had “precooked” the resolution. But the U.S. explanation did little to quell fears in Israel that another Security Council censure may be forthcoming, even though U.S. officials insisted that no more U.N. resolutions are expected....

In Israel, the newspaper Haaretz reported that Britain, not the United States, appears to have been the driving force behind the resolution after Egypt, which had initially sponsored the resolution, withdrew. It described Netanyahu being sharp and caustic in a phone call to New Zealand’s foreign minister, Murray McCully, calling the resolution “a declaration of war.” Haaretz said that Netanyahu vowed to recall Israel’s ambassador to New Zealand but that McCully rebuffed the threat.
If the resolution is a declaration of war, Israel is now at war with:

  • China
  • France
  • Russia
  • the United Kingdom
  • Angola
  • Egypt
  • Japan
  • Malaysia
  • New Zealand
  • Senegal
  • Spain
  • Ukraine
  • Uruguay
  • Venezuela

The diplomatic incontinence on display by the Israeli government is a little startling. My impression is that neither the US Jews nor the Israelis understand yet that the Holocaust card on which they have relied so heavily for so long is played out due to the migrant invasion of the West.

No one feels sorry for the rich and powerful, and no one believes that a nuclear power occupying conquered territory is a helpless victim. And no nation has the luxury of being concerned about the fate of other nations when its own fate is in question.

Labels: ,

Difensor occidens

An excellent and insightful speech by Vladimir Putin, which illustrates very clearly why the globalists and the anti-Western media are so desperate to attack both him and Russia.
A further challenge for the national Russian identity is connected to the processes we observe outside of Russia. They include foreign policy, moral, and other aspects. We see that many Euro-Atlantic states have taken the way where they deny or reject their own roots, including their Christian roots which form the basis of Western civilization.

In these countries, the moral basis and any traditional identity are being denied - national, religious, cultural, and even gender identities are being denied or relativised. There, politics treats a family with many children as juridically equal to a homosexual partnership; faith in God is equal to faith in Satan. The excesses and exaggerations of political correctness in these countries indeed leads to serious consideration for the legitimization of parties that promote the propaganda of paedophilia.

The people in many European states are actually ashamed of their religious affiliations and are indeed frightened to speak about them. Christian holidays and celebrations are abolished or "neutrally" renamed, as if one were ashamed of those Christian holidays. With this method one hides away the deeper moral value of those celebrations.

And these countries try to force this model onto other nations, globally. I am deeply convinced that this is a direct way to the degradation and primitivization of culture. This leds to deeper demographic and moral crisis in the West.

What can be better evidence for the moral crisis of human society in the West than the loss of its reproductive function? And today nearly all "developed" Western countries cannot survive reproductively, not even with the help of migrants.

Without the moral values that are rooted in Christianity and other world religions, without rules and moral values which have formed, and been developed, over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity and become brutes. And we think it is right and natural to defend and preserve these Christian moral values.

One has to respect the right of every minority to self-determination, but at the same time there cannot and must not be any doubt about the rights of the majority.

At the same time as this process plays out at a national level in the West, we observe on an international level the attempts to create a unipolar, unified model of the world, to relativise and remove institutions of international rights and national sovereignty. In such a unipolar, unified world there is no place for sovereign states. Such a world needs merely vassals.

From a historical perspective, such a unipolar world would mean the surrender of one's own identity and of God-created diversity.
No wonder they hate and fear him so. He is a true nationalist who is not afraid to stand up in defense of both Christianity and the West... and he has nukes. For those casting about for the true leader of the Alt-Right, there is a strong candidate.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Moths drawn to the media flame

There has been a fair amount of drama of late surrounding the Deploraball, Mike, Milo, Baked Alaska, and perhaps a few others for all I know. I am not involved with it, I am not attending it, I know nothing about it, nor have I spoken to anyone about any of it. I haven't even been on Twitter.

However, I suspect I may understand the core issues underlying whatever the various details might be. Basically, there are people who understand the difference between social media and mainstream media and there are people who don't. There is also a fairly significant difference between those who seek to get any attention they can and those who are under incessant scrutiny by enemies looking to discredit and disqualify. Having been one of the latter for the last 15 years, I understand what many of those who have never been subjected to a media blitz simply can't grasp until they experience it for themselves.

The fact is that if you run around using vulgar language, throwing Roman salutes, wearing bedsheets, denying the Holocaust, publicly soiling yourself, denigrating Christianity, declaring your intention of attacking an elected official, expressing your attraction to a minor, putting naked pictures of yourself online, or threatening to commit violence on another individual, you are not ready for prime time. It doesn't matter who you are, or what else you might have to say, you have rendered yourself completely vulnerable to a public neutering courtesy of the media. Just ask Anthony Weiner... and he's on their side.

Moreover, those who are dealing with a hostile mainstream media on a regular basis simply don't have either the time or the inclination to defend your stupid, attention-seeking antics. If you don't have enough respect for yourself or your public image to put on your big boy pants and play by the observable rules, there is no reason for anyone else with anything at stake to maintain a connection to you. You're not worth it.

If you want to publicly neuter yourself, go ahead. If you want to defecate all over yourself in the name of principle, courage, the Third Reich, or sheer bloodymindedness, that is absolutely your prerogative. Do as you see fit. But you should not expect anyone else to stand passively by you and allow you to splatter your self-destructive shit all over them.

This isn't about SJW attacks, where one minor violation of the Narrative results in a media-driven SJW witch hunt. This is about attention-seeking provocateurs failing to grasp the difference between social media memes and real-world public relations, and in doing so, creating both distractions and potential headaches for others.

Look at how the New York Times came to me, then vanished into thin air when I answered their questions and pointed them to the 16 Points of the Alt-Right. They don't want the public to see an intelligent and sophisticated political philosophy of nationalism that has ever-increasing global appeal, they want toothless hillbillies, psychotic racists, and retarded neo-Nazis to dance for them and bolster their false Narrative of "Hey Look, KKK Nazi Squirrel!"

Anyone who is determined to play dancing monkey for the mainstream media and provide support for the media's false Narrative is of less than zero utility to the Alt-Right, to the Alt-Lite, and to the Trump administration, no matter who they are, no matter what they have done. So get serious and stop dancing.

It's fair to criticize Mike, or Milo, or me for things we have done, for words we have written, and for public positions we have taken. It is fair to criticize those who are self-serving cowards and refuse to stand up for putative allies who are attacked unjustly. But it is simply stupid to expect us, or anyone else, to devote any time and effort to defending the willful stupidity of others. And to say that any of us are afraid of being attacked is even more ridiculous when a simple Google search will reveal hundreds of vituperative and defamatory attacks on any of us.

FFS, why play into the media's default script for those they would dearly love to destroy?

UPDATE: Mike Cernovich has posted his side of the story.

Labels: ,

RIP Richard Adams

The author of the great novel, Watership Down, is dead at 96. As you've probably already heard, Carrie Fisher, aka Princess Leia, has also died, at 60.


Mailvox: get over your cognitive capabilities

Some Guy is trying to learn how to stop thinking that being smart is somehow worthy of accolades:
I am and have been in the VHIQ spectrum for the majority of my life. About 2 years ago a situation in my marriage sent me reeling into therapy and I have spent a little over a year in a special form of therapy.

The reason that I bring this up is that although I have a relatively high IQ, I naturally attach too much personal worth to my intelligence and the imagined respect that it brings to me. After having dealt with a few, but by no means all of the underlying issues, I am now at a place where (even though I still react the way a VHIQ would reflexively) I can at least back up and see the situation for what it is when I review new information.

In our therapy, we refer to these as "programs" that are installed at an early age, and that run without any cognitive thought occurring. These are mostly self-defeating tendencies that plague people like me our entire lives. It has indeed made a qualitative difference in my ability to understand information, because I am not emotionally invested in the outcome (although I have to try very hard for this to occur most of the time). Do you think this could account for some of the difference you are noticing between the two groups?
Nearly everyone wants to be smarter, better-looking, wealthier, healthier, more athletic, more popular, and sexier. (Virtually no one is willing to actually do much about any of those things either, but that's neither here nor there.) And yet, for some reason, smart people seem to have an incredible amount of trouble understanding that the "respect" they are due for being more intelligent is about as significant as the amount of respect they harbor for someone else being more attractive, more athletic, or more popular.

My first piece of advice for anyone who is intelligent is this: get over it.

Intelligence will get you nothing but a free ride at a US university if you're sufficiently good at taking tests. That's it. It means that you've got a larger caliber intellectual gun than most, but if your ammunition (education) is deficient, you don't know how to aim it (discipline), where to aim it (wisdom), or you're unwilling to pull the trigger (laziness or fear of failure), your intelligence means precisely nothing.

Part of the problem, I think, is that high intelligence manifests itself during the formative years, and therefore tends to become an intrinsic aspect of one's self-identity in a way that pther characteristics that require more time to take shape do. I think of it in much the same context that the girls who are unusually pretty when they are little girls; they tend to still believe they are great beauties even when they are overweight or surpassed by later bloomers.

One of the most valuable things anyone ever told me wasn't actually addressed to me, but to a smart girl I knew, who told another girl that she felt like she had all these great thoughts circling through her head, but she just couldn't articulate them. The other girl told her that she didn't have any great thoughts, she just had a feeling. One's thoughts, such as they are, don't mean anything and cannot be judged until they are articulated, preferably in writing.

So, no one should be enamored of one's intelligence or proud of it. Be proud of what you have done with your intelligence, if you have actually accomplished anything, instead. That doesn't mean one should engage in false modesty or hesitate to wield one's intelligence as a weapon if the situation calls for it, only that one should be aware that it is nothing more than one of the many tools at one's disposal.

As for programs, Mike Cernovich discusses this in MAGA Mindset. The self-narration with which provide commentary on our own thoughts and actions tend to have a powerful effect on the results we produce. Mike makes use of particular mantra he explains in the book; I don't have a particular mantra, but I do have a set of phrases to which I turn from time to time when I need motivation. Mine probably would not work for most people, since I thrive on negative and competitive motivation, but they are a similar form of cognitive self-programming.

But no, these programs do not account, in any way, for the differences I have observed between the conventional high IQ mind and the unconventional high IQ mind. It's akin to asking if someone who is color-blind can motivate himself into seeing green properly.

Labels: ,

Thomas Sowell lays down his pen

The conservative economist retires his column at 86:
Back in 1962, President John F. Kennedy, a man narrowly elected just two years earlier, came on television to tell the nation that he was taking us to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, because the Soviets had secretly built bases for nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles from America.

Most of us did not question what he did. He was president of the United States, and he knew things the rest of us couldn’t know – and that was good enough for us. Fortunately, the Soviets backed down. But could any president today do anything like that and have the American people behind him?

Years of lying presidents – Democrat Lyndon Johnson and Republican Richard Nixon, especially – destroyed not only their own credibility, but the credibility which the office itself once conferred. The loss of that credibility was a loss to the country, not just to the people holding that office in later years.

With all the advances of blacks over the years, nothing so brought home to me the social degeneration in black ghettos like a visit to a Harlem high school some years ago.

When I looked out the window at the park across the street, I mentioned that, as a child, I used to walk my dog in that park. Looks of horror came over the students’ faces, at the thought of a kid going into the hell hole that park had become in their time.

When I have mentioned sleeping out on a fire escape in Harlem during hot summer nights, before most people could afford air-conditioning, young people have looked at me like I was a man from Mars. But blacks and whites alike had been sleeping out on fire escapes in New York since the 19th century. They did not have to contend with gunshots flying around during the night.

We cannot return to the past, even if we wanted to, but let us hope that we can learn something from the past to make for a better present and future.

Goodbye and good luck to all.
Dr. Sowell is a good man and he wrote many a fine opinion column. I enjoyed several of his books and considered him to be among the more thoughtful conservative columnists. His ideas were always worthy of consideration.

25 years of syndicated columns is an amazing achievement and testimony to the man's intellectual stamina; I didn't last half that long myself. Congratulations to Dr. Sowell, and I hope he enjoys more than a few years of relaxed retirement.


TIA in audio

On one side of the argument is a collection of godless academics with doctorates from the finest universities in England, France, and the United States. On the other is THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST author Vox Day, armed with nothing more than historical and statistical facts. Day strips away the pseudo-scientific pretentions of New Atheism with his intelligent application of logic, history, military science, political economy, and well-documented research. The arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michel Onfray are all methodically exposed and discredited as Day provides extensive evidence proving, among other things, that:
  • More than 93 percent of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion
  • The Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over professing Jews, Muslims, or atheists, and executed fewer people on an annual basis than the state of Texas
  • Atheists are almost four times more likely to be imprisoned than Christians
  • "Red" state crime is primarily in "blue" counties
  • Sexually abused girls are 55 times more likely to commit suicide than girls raised Catholic
In the twentieth century, atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined. THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST provides the rational thinker with empirical proof that atheism's claims against religion are unfounded in logic, fact, and science.

Now in audio from Castalia House, TIA clocks in at just under 10 hours and is narrated by Jon Mollison. You can listen to a sample from the audiobook at Audible. You may also wish to note that ON THE EXISTENCE OF GODS is also available in audiobook format.

Also, in case you might be interested in more Selenoth, THE LAST WITCHKING is free on Amazon today.

Labels: , ,

Those fine people at Facebook

These are the people who believe they are worthy to define what is real news and what is fake news.
Senior Facebook Employee Arrested For Allegedly Soliciting Unprotected Sex From Underage Girl

Dov Katz, the head of computer vision at Oculus VR, was arrested near Seattle on December 21 for allegedly soliciting sex from an underage girl. According to charging records, Katz allegedly attempted to pay $350 to have unprotected sex with someone he thought was a 15-year-old girl.

Katz, 38, has been charged with attempted commercial sexual abuse of a minor. According to the charging documents, Katz wasn’t actually texting a 15-year-old girl, but an undercover agent from the Tukwila Police Department. Katz, an Israeli citizen living in America, has since been released on $125,000 bail according to the King County jail website.
Apparently we can look forward to a lot more stories about how 15 is the new 21, lollipops are sexy, and pedophiles are people too.


Monday, December 26, 2016

The IQ delta and the Last Man

As I mentioned in a previous post, reading Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man helped me articulate the difference between the smart and the brilliant, or to use the terms that are less easily confused, the VHIQ and the UHIQ.

The Fukuyama text is in blockquotes, my observations are bullet-pointed.

From By Way of an Introduction:
The distant origins of the present volume lie in an article entitled "The End of History?" which I wrote for the journal The National Interest in the summer of 1989. In it, I argued that a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism. More than that, however, I argued that liberal democracy may constitute the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution" and the "final form of human government," and as such constituted the "end of history." That is, while earlier forms of government were characterized by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions. This was not to say that today's stable democracies, like the United States, France, or Switzerland, were not without injustice or serious social problems. But these problems were ones of incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty and equality on which modern democracy is founded, rather than of flaws in the principles themselves. While some present-day countries might fail to achieve stable liberal democracy, and others might lapse back into other, more primitive forms of rule like theocracy or military dictatorship, the ideal of liberal democracy could not be improved on.
  • Remarkable consensuses are reliably incorrect.
  • Liberal democracy absolutely does not constitute the end point of mankind's ideological evolution or the final form of human government. 
  • It would not be unreasonable to use "the end of history" to describe a genuine such end point and final form, given the Hegelian-Marxian context. Fukuyama is clearly using History in the progressive intellectual sense, not the prosaic sense. It's actually a rather clever title in that regard.
  • It's also a ludicrous and anti-historical idea, albeit one certain to prove seductive to men of influence for precisely the same reason that Keynesian economics and Ricardian trade theory have.
After dealing with the midwit critics who have had trouble dealing with the idea of a History that is not wholly synonymous with history, he plants his flag; an act I suspect he has come to regret.
The present book is not a restatement of my original article, nor is it an effort to continue the discussion with that article's many critics and commentators. Least of all is it an account of the end of the Cold War, or any other pressing topic in contemporary politics. While this book is informed by recent world events, its subject returns to a very old question: Whether, at the end of the twentieth century, it makes sense for us once again to speak of a coherent and directional History of mankind that will eventually lead the greater part of humanity to liberal democracy? The answer I arrive at is yes, for two separate reasons. One has to do with economics, and the other has to do with what is termed the "struggle for recognition."
  • Fukuyama clearly declares that he believes in a specific, directional Marxian-style History which will eventually come to a predictable end. 
  • Given the context of the article, Fukuyama is definitely declaring that liberal democracy constitutes the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution" and the "final form of human government".
  • He's wrong. I don't know his economic reasoning or his "struggle for recognition" yet, but I know that he is wrong and I know that I will be able to prove it. I can even disprove the first prt to my own satisfaction: given that he is not an economist, his economic argument must be entirely based on 1990s economic orthodoxy, which is already in tatters and was insufficient to support the philosophical case in the first place.
And here is where the tendency towards binary, or at least limited, thinking on the part of the VHIQ betrays itself.
In the course of the original debate over the National Interest article, many people assumed that the possibility of the end of history revolved around the question of whether there were viable alternatives to liberal democracy visible in the world today. There was a great deal of controversy over such questions as whether communism was truly dead, whether religion or ultranationalism might make a comeback, and the like. But the deeper and more profound question concerns the goodness of liberal democracy itself, and not only whether it will succeed against its present-day rivals. Assuming that liberal democracy is, for the moment, safe from external enemies, could we assume that successful democratic societies could remain that way indefnitely? Or is liberal democracy prey to serious internal contradictions, contradictions so serious that they will eventually undermine it as a political system? There is no doubt that contemporary democracies face any number of serious problems, from drugs, homelessness, and crime to environmental damage and the frivolity of consumerism. But these problems are not obviously insoluble on the basis of liberal principles, nor so serious that they would necessarily lead to the collapse of society as a whole, as communism collapsed in the 1980s.
  • A prediction about the future obviously revolves around both currently viable alternatives as well as potentially viable alternatives that are not visible today.
  • The deeper and more profound question does not concern the goodness of liberal democracy, but rather the existence of self-destructive internal contradictions in liberal democracy. Systems fail due to their internal contradictions; communism failed because the impossibility of socialist calculation slowed economic growth vis-a-vis capitalism. SJWism always fails due to the impossibility of social justice convergence preventing the converged organization from performing its original function. Liberal democracy - or as it is more properly termed - limited democracy - fails for much the same reason that communism does; it creates perverse incentive systems.
  • No, we cannot assume that successful democratic societies could remain that way indefnitely.
  • Yes, liberal democracy is not only prey, it is prone to internal contradictions so serious that they will eventually undermine it as a political system. Forget eternity, this is already visible everywhere from California to Switzerland.
  • Yes, these problems these problems are obviously insoluble on the basis of liberal principles. Not only that, but they are so serious that they will necessarily either lead to the collapse of liberal democracy or the collapse of society as a whole.
Keep in mind that these are my initial thoughts about the book by page xxi of the introduction. The clean room, as I have termed it, is already splattered with mud. Fukuyama is an erudite, thoughtful, intelligent and educated man. And yet, his enthusiasm for his potentially significant idea blinded him to its obvious flaws? This is the distinction between the VHIQ and the UHIQ. Compare this with SJWAL or Cuckservative, both of which are considerably more modest in scope.

How many potential errors can you find in either that even begin to compare with the obvious errors in this bestselling work of vast socio-political influence, which is so riddled with flaws that the author has, apparently, felt the need to blatantly lie about his original thesis?

Labels: ,

The Jewish veto is over

The God-Emperor Ascendant team makes it clear that Israel First will not be the Trump administration's motto:
A senior member of President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team and a delegation of US Republican and European lawmakers canceled a briefing Thursday with Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely over a refusal to allow a Swedish far-right member of the group into the meeting, The Times of Israel has learned.

Becky Norton Dunlop, deputy to the senior adviser on Trump’s transition team for policy and personnel, is in Israel as part of the three-day Jerusalem Leaders Summit, a gathering of conservative parliamentarians from the US and Europe.

As one of the high-level briefings organized for the group, the delegation was due to meet Wednesday morning with Hotovely in the Knesset.

Just hours before the briefing, the group was informed that Kristina Winberg, a member of the European Parliament for the Sweden Democrats, would not be allowed to join.

In protest, the entire group, including Dunlop, decided to boycott the meeting with Hotovely, according to a representative for the group. A spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry said the decision to exclude Winberg was made due to her party’s far-right and ultra-nationalist positions.
Boycotting the meeting was the right move. The Trump team should also inform the Israeli foreign ministry that any future attempts to interfere with American foreign policy discussions will meet with future US abstentions from UN Security Council resolutions.

And Israel is certainly not paying sufficient attention to events in Sweden; they should be praying that the Sweden Democrats come to power in the next ten years and do everything possible to ensure that they do. If the Sweden Democrats don't, the party that will eventually arise in its place will almost certainly make them look cute, cuddly, and tolerant by comparison.

Labels: ,

Conservatism is dead

And National Review killed it. Josh Gelernter provides the nail in the coffin with "A Conservative Defense of Transgender Rights":
Kentucky governor Matt Bevin said last week that he hopes the Kentucky legislature won’t consider a transgender-bathroom bill in the upcoming legislative session; according to Bevin, “the last thing we need is more government rules.” He’s absolutely right, and I think it’s worth offering a conservative defense of transgender rights — which ought to be a conservative issue.

On the American political spectrum, conservatism is the mind-your-own-business ideology. I know smoking is unhealthy, but I enjoy smoking, and my health is none of your business. I know motorcycles can be dangerous, but I like the wind in my hair; whether or not I wear a helmet is none of your business. I realize that fireworks can blow up before they’re supposed to, but they’re fun and my fingers are none of your business. Don’t tell me what sort of car to drive, or what kind of light bulb I can buy, or what kind of milk I can drink, or how to raise my kids.

There’s a reason, when push comes to shove, most libertarians vote Republican. The Republican party is — more often than not, and should invariably be — the party of individual liberty. So conservatives have to ask, is it a good idea to empower the government to start lifting up people’s skirts?

The response, from many conservatives, is that it’s not a question of interfering with personal freedom — the freedom to live one’s own life however he’d like — but of preserving personal freedom — that is, the freedom to go to the bathroom among only people of the same biological sex. Allowing mixed-biological-sex bathrooms risks making adults uncomfortable, and risks opening the door to child predators, or so the argument goes. I’m afraid neither of those positions strikes me as well thought-out. Certainly not from a conservative point of view.
Well, if something doesn't strike JOSH GELERNTER - THE Josh Gelernter of NATIONAL REVIEW - as "well thought-out", then obviously it is wrong!

After all, what is conservatism if not doing whatever one wants at any time, without the slightest possible concern for the possible consequences to oneself or anyone else?

Conservatism is dead. Conservatism has conserved nothing, not even itself. If you want to live, if you want America to be reborn, if you want Western Civilization to survive, you have no choice but to support the Alt-Right.

The best response was this comment:

YIH says:    
December 26, 2016 at 7:42 am GMT
“A Conservative Defense of Transgender Rights”

Labels: , ,

The IQ delta

It has been observed that the exceptionally intelligent think differently than those with conventional minds, even those which most people would consider to be highly intelligent. The difference is qualitative, not merely quantitative, in nature, and is akin to the difference between the genuinely mathematical mind and the non-mathematical mind. It is, to use one acquaintance's example, the difference between the minds that can ascend the mountain by the winding path or by climbing straight up, and the mind that takes a helicopter ride directly to the peak.

I have been asked on more than a few occasions to explain what the qualitative differences are and to provide some perspective on how the different thought processes work. Now, obviously I am somewhat handicapped in explaining this because I have never not thought the way that I do now, but I do have the advantage of observing considerably more conventional thinkers than any conventional thinker, no matter how intelligent, has been able to observe non-conventional thinkers. However, upon beginning to read Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, I believe I may finally able to articulate a few of these differences.

There are a few observations I have made over the years that are of limited utility in differentiating between what I think of as "very smart" vs "brilliant". The terms themselves are meaningless and entirely subjective here, to put it in terms the quantitatively minded can accept, let's call them VHIQ vs UHIQ for the time being, with the understanding that what applies to the VHIQ also applies to midwits and average minds, whereas what applies to UHIQ does not.

And FFS, if you're reading this and think something might apply to you, please understand that is not a signal to decide that you are an unconventional thinker or exceptionally intelligent and share that fascinating observation with everyone. That very reaction is a pretty reliable indicator that you're not. If you can't fathom that, go ask a very tall person how excited he was this morning about discovering that he was tall.

Keep in mind that these are tendencies, not iron-clad laws. If they don't make sense to you, don't worry about it. On average, the responses will fall into six categories:
  1. Huh?
  2. Hmm.
  3. Vox just wants to talk about how smart he is again.
  4. Vox is right/wrong because [x].
  5. OT: Something off-topic because IMPORTANT. Link goes to the Drudge Report, which no one reads.
  6. Hey, I can use this as an excuse to talk about ME!
  • VHIQ inclines towards binary either/or thinking and taking sides. UHIQ inclines towards probabilistic thinking and balancing between contradictory possibilities.
  • VHIQ seeks understanding towards application or justification, UHIQ seeks understanding towards holistic understanding.
  • VHIQ refines the original thought of others, UHIQ synthesizes multiple original thoughts.
  • VHIQ rationalizes logical conclusions, UHIQ accepts logical conclusions. This is ironic because VHIQ considers itself to be highly logical, UHIQ considers itself to be investigative.
  • VHIQ recognizes the truths in the works of the great thinkers of the past and applies them. UHIQ recognizes the flaws in the thinking of the great thinkers of the past and explores them.
  • VHIQ usually spots logical flaws in an argument. UHIQ usually senses them.
  • VHIQ enjoys pedantry. UHIQ hates it. Both are capable of utilizing it at will.
  • VHIQ is uncomfortable with chaos and seeks to impose order on it, even if none exists. UHIQ is comfortable with chaos and seeks to recognize patterns in it.
  • VHIQ is spergey and egocentric. UHIQ is holistic and solipsistic.
  • VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force.
  • VHIQ attempts to rationalize its errors. UHIQ sees no point in hesitating to admit them.
  • VHIQ seeks to prove the correctness of its case. UHIQ doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the jury.
  • VHIQ believes in the unique power of SCIENCE. UHIQ sees science as a conceptual framework of limited utility.
  • VHIQ seeks to rank and order things. UHIQ seeks to recognize and articulate concepts.
  • VHIQ is competitive. UHIQ doesn't keep score.
  • VHIQ asks "how can this be used?" UHIQ asks "what does this mean?"
This obviously doesn't explain how a UHIQ thinker thinks per se, but it might provide some perspective concerning the qualitative differences between conventional high IQ thinkers and unconventional high IQ thinkers previously observed by others. For example, when I read something, even something about which I am inherently dubious, I do so in what is essentially an intellectual clean room. I am not merely open to being persuaded, I am, in the moment, fully believing whatever the author is saying.

However, upon encountering an obvious falsehood, non sequitur, bait-and-switch, or erroneous leap of logic, the clean room is muddied. The more mud that accumulates, and the more rapidly it is accumulated, the more certain that I am of the text containing errors. I don't know exactly what they are yet, because I'm not reading critically, and I don't retain more than a general sense of where on the page the mud is, but I know where to go and look for it, and perhaps more importantly, I know with almost 100 percent certainty that I will find something there. Every now and then I pick up a false reading, but that doesn't happen more than 2-3 times per year.

I'll demonstrate this in action in a longer post about Fukuyama's book, specifically, the introduction, in a few hours. In the meantime:
The topics of genius and degeneration are only special cases of the more general problem involved in the evaluation of human capacities, namely the quantitative versus qualitative. There are those who insist that all differences are qualitative, and those who with equal conviction maintain that they are exclusively quantitative. The true answer is that they are both. General intelligence, for example, is undoubtedly quantitative in the sense that it consists of varying amounts of the same basic stuff (e.g., mental energy) which can be expressed by continuous numerical measures like intelligence Quotients or Mental-Age scores, and these are as real as any physical measurements are. But it is equally certain that our description of the difference between a genius and an average person by a statement to the effect that he has an IQ greater by this or that amount, does not describe the difference between them as completely or in the same way as when we say that a mile is much longer than an inch. The genius (as regards intellectual ability) not only has an IQ of say 50 points more than the average person, but in virtue of this difference acquires seemingly new aspects (potentialities) or characteristics. These seemingly new aspects or characteristics, in their totality, are what go to make up the "qualitative" difference between them [9, p. 134].

Wechsler is saying quite plainly that those with IQs above 150 are different in kind from those below that level. He is saying that they are a different kind of mind, a different kind of human being.

Labels: ,

The superiority of nationalism

And more evidence that Francis Fukuyama was absolutely and utterly wrong about the final triumph of liberal democracy as well as the benefits of multiculturalism and diversity.


Sunday, December 25, 2016

RIP George Michael

It is being reported that George Michael died peacefully at home today. He was 53.

The star, who launched his career with Wham in the 1980s and later continued his success as a solo performer, is said to have "passed away peacefully at home".

Thames Valley Police said South Central Ambulance Service attended a property in Goring in Oxfordshire at 13:42 GMT.

Police say there were no suspicious circumstances.


An introduction to Selenoth

In case you're wondering what all the discussion of the various Selenoth-related books is about, or if some of the superlatives being cast about could be even remotely justified, you can now dip your toe into the epic fantasy waters at neither risk nor cost to yourself, as A MAGIC BROKEN is free on Kindle today.

The ebook is a novella in which is related the brief intersection of two perspective characters from A THRONE OF BONES and A SEA OF SKULLS prior to the events of either book. I think those who are fans of the Arts of Dark and Light series would agree that it is a reasonably fair warning of what the reader can expect from immersion into what is now, according to Amazon's most recent Kindle Normalized Page Count, a cumulative 3,053 pages of epic high fantasy.

Anyhow, if you haven't read it yet, I'd encourage you to download it and check it out. Even if fantasy isn't really your thing, it's more than a bit of a spy thriller as well.

Labels: ,

Merry Christmas!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
- John 1:1-5

This is the true hope and promise of Christmas. The light shines, even in the darkness that engulfs the world today, and the darkness will not overcome it.

Whether you are surrounded with love and family and decorations and presents, or whether you find yourself in a motel surrounded by nothing more festive than a wi-fi connection and few empty cans of beer, you are not alone today. You are part of the great celebration of the miracle, the great golden net of believers that reaches all the way around the world and binds the Church together.

Because at its heart, Christmas is not about togetherness or silver bells or snow. It is about the Word becoming flesh and coming to dwell among us, the spark that lit the fire in the hearts of men that will never be extinguished.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Labels: ,

Saturday, December 24, 2016

The Alt-Right is the future

There is no hope in the Left. There is no hope in the conservative Right. There is only one place where there is genuine hope for the future of the West, and that is by placing one's trust in God first and Nation second:
Sébastien Faustini's decision to skip the firework display at the beach not only potentially saved his life — it steered his politics toward the far right. The soft-spoken 18-year-old stayed home with his cousin and watched the Bastille Day display on TV, instead of heading to the Nice promenade as they'd planned on July 14.

A truck was driven into the crowd that night, killing 86 people.

Sebastien Faustini at the National Front's headquarters in Nice, France. Lauren Brigitte Chadwick
"We could have been there," said Faustini, who is now forced to pass by the scene of attack daily on his way to university. "Every day that hits me."

Three weeks ago, he joined France's far-right National Front.

"Certain media organizations stigmatize members of the National Front calling them fascists, insults that have nothing to do with the party's program," Faustini told NBC News.

Faustini is far from alone. Many millennials are embracing the National Front — which boasts a founder who had been fined repeatedly for racism and anti-Semitism. They say recent terrorist attacks across Europe and high unemployment levels validate their personal views and the party's anti-immigration stance.


According to a report released by polling organization Odoxa on Dec. 16, the National Front is the political party with the most support among French people aged 18-34. Roughly one-in-five back it.
Ignore the converged institutions and corrupt organizations. They are all irrelevant. Ignore those who falsely call themselves "Christians" and "Americans" and "Europeans". They have no truth in them. God created the nations. He's not going to allow them to be Babelized, no matter how determined the servants of the Prince of This World are to make themselves gods.

All we need is twelve. All we need is the Word.

When you are attacked and scorned and slandered for speaking the truth, by whom are you opposed? When you are hated by the world for speaking the truth, whom do you serve?

Labels: ,

A dangerous parting shot

The Washington Post belatedly begins to understand that perhaps those crazy people saying Obama is, at the very least, pro-Muslim, weren't necessarily so crazy after all:
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S decision to abstain on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements reverses decades of practice by both Democratic and Republican presidents. The United States vetoed past resolutions on the grounds that they unreasonably singled out Jewish communities in occupied territories as an obstacle to Middle East peace, and that U.N. action was more likely to impede than advance negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

The measure, approved 14 to 0 by the Security Council Friday, is subject to the same criticism: It will encourage Palestinians to pursue more international sanctions against Israel rather than seriously consider the concessions necessary for statehood, and it will give a boost to the international boycott and divestment movement against the Jewish state, which has become a rallying cause for anti-Zionists. At the same time, it will almost certainly not stop Israeli construction in the West Bank, much less in East Jerusalem, where Jewish housing was also deemed by the resolution to be “a flagrant violation under international law.”

By abstaining, the administration did not explicitly support that position, which has not been U.S. policy since the Carter administration. In explaining the vote, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power pointed out that the council was sanctioning Israel even while failing to take action to stop a potential genocide in South Sudan or the slaughter in Aleppo, Syria. Yet in failing to veto the measure, the Obama administration set itself apart both from previous administrations and from the incoming presidency of Donald Trump, who spoke out strongly against the resolution.

Israeli officials charged that the abstention represented a vindictive parting shot by Mr. Obama at Mr. Netanyahu, with whom he has feuded more bitterly than he did with most U.S. adversaries. The vote could also be seen as an attempt to preempt Mr. Trump, who appears ready to shift U.S. policy to the opposite extreme after naming a militant advocate of the settlements as his ambassador to Israel. Whatever the motivation, Mr. Obama’s gesture is likely to do more harm than good.
It boggles the mind how the American Left fails to understand that importing people from countries where the population is anti-Israel was always going to move the US in an anti-Israel direction.

Labels: ,

Newer Posts Older Posts