Tech conservatives move Alt Right        
My free trade debate opponent, Dr. James Miller, has published a piece on Business Insider about the way in which conservatives like himself are gravitating towards the Alt Right under the growing pressure from SJWs in technology.
Many Business Insider readers won’t trust an anonymous Breitbart interview, but for what’s relevant to this article, please do trust that this Googler’s views accurately reflects how many on the right think about SJWs.

Vox Day, a leader of the alt-right, wrote a book called “SJWs Always Lie” with the explicit goal to “show you how SJWs operate, teach you how to see through their words, explain how to correctly anticipate their actions, and give you the weapons you need to successfully thwart their inevitable attempts to disqualify you, discredit you, and destroy your reputation.”

Damore’s firing is probably going to cause many Silicon Valley Republicans to prepare themselves by reading this book.

The key difference in tactics between the alt-right and traditional right is that the alt-right doesn’t place much value on playing fair, and they mock conservatives’ seeming desire to lose honorably. On a recent Periscope video Vox said that his supporters in tech companies (which he claims are numerous) should “be the second or third most enthusiastic SJW in your group.”

He considers SJWs to be the enemy that’s beyond reason. When a commentator suggested that publically supporting SJW views might give them legitimacy, Vox said “F--- legitimacy. You are thinking like a conservative…”

It will be poisonous if the tech right feels compelled to not only hide their beliefs but also to actively pretend to believe in progressive diversity values. This pretending will embitter them, probably pushing many to the more radical alt-right.... Business works best if different political tribes don’t seek to crush others when they have a temporary upper-hand. If, however, the right perceived that SJWs are after them, it’s understandable (if regrettable) that they will treat SJWs likewise when they have the power.

Although the left greatly outnumbers the right in tech, if the right uses stealth tactics and the left doesn’t, the right might eventually gain an advantage in the career-destroying game because they will more easily locate high-value targets.

As a free market Republican, I dislike most of the alt-right policy views. But my kind are not inclined to fight an underhanded company by company dirty political war, while the alt-right is. If SJWs force the tech right into these fights, they will push them into the eager arms of the alt-right.
People have no use for the McClellans and the parade ground generals once the shooting starts. They need Grants and Shermans and Pattons, and they know it. The Alt Right is the only right that fights. That is why it is the only Right that will command any allegiance from all the various right-leaning, pro-Western, pro-Christian, pro-freedom, pro-white, and pro-nationalist populations.
          History and the limits of SJW dishonesty        
Don't bother looking for the limits of SJW stupidity or dishonesty. You will not find them. In an astonishingly inept attempt to defend the BBC and "historian" Mary Beard, one English SJW actually put forward the following defense, accompanied by a screenshot.

Dave Tooke‏ @burstdrum
I answered your question. Even though it was a straw man. No one ever said mixed race families were typical (majority) of Roman Britain.

Dave Tooke‏ @burstdrum
The BBC cartoon did not say "typical". It merely suggested one such family as possible. Which it was.

This was the screenshot attached to the second tweet.


In fairness, the SJW was undermined by the dishonesty of the BBC, which is the more significant aspect of this little story. You see, this was how the video was described 5 days ago, before BBC "historian" Mary Beard tried to school Paul Joseph Watson and was caught bullshitting by NN Taleb. Emphasis added.

Original BBC Two description
Life in Roman Britain is shown through the eyes of a typical family nearly 2000 years ago. The Romans bring towns to Britain, and also roads, forts, and Hadrian’s Wall, to keep out the Picts. The father is supervising the building of Hadrian’s Wall, while the son manages to lose his father’s special military scarf, or focale. This incident is used to explore Roman beliefs and religion, food and entertainment.

Current BBC Two description
Life in Roman Britain as seen through the eyes of one family nearly 2000 years ago. The Romans bring towns to Britain, and also roads, forts, and Hadrian’s Wall, to keep out the Picts. The father is supervising the building of Hadrian’s Wall, while his son manages to lose his father’s special military scarf, or focale. This incident is used to explore Roman beliefs and religion.

You see, with SJWs, it's Fake News and Fake History all the way down. You can NEVER trust anything they say. Because - all together now - SJWS ALWAYS LIE.
          Google takes a stand        
It's a bold move by Sundararajan. We'll see how it works out for him. It was inevitable, because SJWs always double down, but the irony of Pichai Sundararajan, a high-caste Tamil Brahmin, firing an employee for expressing his belief in biological inequality, is practically off the charts.
Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo that ascribed gender inequality in the technology industry to biological differences. James Damore, the engineer who wrote the memo, confirmed his dismissal saying that he had been fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes," in an email to Reuters on Monday. Damore said he is exploring all possible legal remedies.
As I observed after reading the Google CEO's memo, Damore was doomed because Sundararajan had to mollify his insane SJW employee base, which right now is dancing and celebrating its own inevitable demise. Damore will be fine; he's better off out of the SJW-converged madhouse and has already been offered jobs by Gab's Andrew Torba and WikiLeaks's Julian Assange. But Google will not be, because this is a clear signal to the key engineers in Search and AdWords that it is Time To Go.

DH, who is one of the Dread Ilk's expert data guy's, explains.
All of Google is kept afloat by one thing only. Adwords. They have no other significant source of income after a decade or more of trying to diversify. Every other business is borderline trivial when compared to AdWords. All the moonshots have failed. All the R&D has failed. It's. All. AdWords.

The money-making core of Google is a tiny speck of its workforce, a tiny core of people who make AdWords work. The fear is not that 2/3 are SJWs, it's that one or two or three of the key engineers, who are working on the next version of Search and Adwords, who are actively fighting and hardening against existential threats to the product, might walk, or even just do a slightly less great job.

Google is actually a very fragile company. They are ripe for disruption from a new player, or alternatively, to be drained from a few deep pocketed rivals. The entire bubble of online advertising stems from a belief that is often irrational that online advertising is effective at certain definitions of cost effectiveness.
In other words, as the AdWords model fails, which is already happening, Google's massive market cap is going to rapidly decline with it because all of its other businesses have failed to find traction. The company has observably entered the ideological death spiral that is the inevitable result of the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence.
          Dear Yes-at-Googlers        
Welcome to the home of the Evil Legion of Evil.

I, Vox Day, the Supreme Dark Lord of said ELoE, am your humble host. Benvenuti. You need not worry about your physical safety being at risk, the Vile Faceless Minions are chained in their kennels, and muzzled, and have been provided sufficient SJW bones upon which to chew.

Let me assure you that as the bestselling author of SJWs Always Lie, I am perfectly aware that you have been lied to by your fellow Googlers about me and this site. This is not a site that incites harassment, quite to the contrary, as an American Indian who is regularly attacked and misraced and misrepresented and lied about, I am often a victim of SJW harassment.

Since I have been receiving death threats from your kind since 2001, when I first became a political columnist, you will forgive me if I am less than entirely impressed with your preening and posturing about the imminent danger that public exposure supposedly poses you. And before you attempt to engage in the usual toothless social justice rhetoric here, you may wish to keep in mind that I literally wrote the book on the subject.

As you were belatedly informed, your newsletter, of course, does not endorse the content here, so let this welcome serve as your trigger warning that here you will encounter people who:
  • do not agree with you
  • are actually more intelligent than you
  • are better-educated than you
  • and frankly find you to be tediously predictable and rendered functionally stupid, if not delusional, by your foolish social justice convergence.
But if you are polite and civil, I expect the Dread Ilk will treat you in a similarly polite and civil manner. And if you choose otherwise, well, as our guests, we are happy to permit you to establish the rules of engagement.

In certain confidence of the ultimate victory of the Legion, I am,

VD,
SDL
ELoE

Since absolutely no one here has any idea what I'm talking about, I refer to the following excerpts from Google's internal SJW newsletter, to which I of course subscribe. Apparently making it known that Google employees are threatening people with violence, threatening to silence those with differing opinions, refusing to work with each other, spying on each other, and making blacklists is, somehow "putting Googlers' physical safety at risk".

I would have thought it was putting their employment at risk, but perhaps Google's executives want their employees engaging in that behavior. I don't know, and really, I don't care. And if you think the best way to move forward is lobbying your bosses to delete this blog, well, all I can say is that it certainly would make for one HELL of a chapter in my forthcoming SJWs Always Double Down.




          Convergence at AirBNB        
I don't use AirBNB. But if I did, I would stop.
This Saturday, Virginia’s Lee Park is slated to be the meeting place of the Unite The Right rally, a much-publicized gathering of far-right personalities and their sycophants. With less than a week to go, Airbnb has taken active measures to delete the accounts of some members the company believes to be staying in Charlottesville for the rally... According to screenshots shared on Twitter, the users have apparently been banned for violating Airbnb’s Terms of Service.
"Violating Terms of Service" is SJW speak for banning badthinkers and thought criminals. And their list of badthinkers and thought criminals is growing every single day.

Meanwhile, at Google, you can expect to discuss diversity, and nothing but diversity, should you happen to interview there. The middle managers want to make sure they hire nothing but SJWs. At this rate, Google's eventual crash-and-burn promises to rival Yahoo's.



          Attacking dissent at Google        
An anonymous Googler is providing evidence at Gab that various employees at Google are openly attacking James Damore, the author of the document dissenting from the SJW diversity doctrine there, and actively lobbying the executives to fire him, despite the fact that more than one-third of Googlers surveyed tend to agree with his dissent.
Paul and Sitaram are managers. Colm is a director with 101 full-time employees in his organization. Dave is a director with 242 full-time employees in his organization. These posts are from the internal version of the Google+ social network, which is limited to Googlers only.

Dozens of managers emailed their teams to smear the document's author for raising his concerns in the paper. Subsequently, the author received all manner of hate mail and threats from thousands of other employees. It was a coordinated mob attack and numerous managers were deliberately stoking the flames in order to punish him.

The pie charts show that a large share of Googlers agreed with James' points on an anonymous survey.  Hence the grave importance of maintaining control over the Narrative.
Google Leak #1
Google Leak #2
Google Leak #3
Google Leak #4
Google Leak #5
Google Leak #6
Google Leak #7

If anyone is going to be fired as a result of this, it should not be James Damore, who has a PhD in Biology from Harvard and therefore is unlikely to be opining in ignorance, but rather, the SJW co-workers who are demonstrating their complete lack of corporate professionalism. Nor is Damore alone in his rather mild criticism of the SJW excesses there. As always, the SJWs overestimate their strength, even in one of their most influential strongholds.

It should be mentioned, however, that at least up to this point, Google's response has been reasonable. The VP of Diversity has issued a statement that the organization stands by its insane SJW principles, which is a surprise to no one, but has also observed that "fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions". On the other hand, the caveat "that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws" does provide cover for anti-free speech action.

So, we'll see if Google wants to roll the dice by going full SJW while under fire from European governments and anti-trust scrutiny from the Trump administration. The smartest thing for them to do would be to do nothing, as they are not responsible for the personal or professional opinions of their employees, but their internal SJWs may not make that possible given the sheer number of them Google has collected.



UPDATE: More evidence that this is Best Timeline.

Julian Assange@JulianAssange
Identity politics 2.0 wars come to Google. Oh no. But mass spying is fine since its equal opportunity predation.


UPDATE: Welcome, Yes-At-Googlers

Welcome to the home of the Evil Legion of Evil.

I, Vox Day, the Supreme Dark Lord of said ELoE, am your humble host. Benvenuti. You need not worry about your physical safety being at risk, the Vile Faceless Minions are chained in their kennels, and muzzled, and have been provided sufficient SJW bones upon which to chew.

Let me assure you that as the bestselling author of SJWs Always Lie, I am perfectly aware that you have been lied to by your fellow Googlers about me and this site. This is not a site that incites harassment, quite to the contrary, as an American Indian who is regularly attacked and misraced and misrepresented and lied about, I am often a victim of SJW harassment.

Since I have been receiving death threats from your kind since 2001, when I first became a political columnist, you will forgive me if I am less than entirely impressed with your preening and posturing. And before you attempt to engage in the usual toothless social justice rhetoric, you may wish to keep in mind that I literally wrote the book on the subject.

As you were belatedly informed, your newsletter, of course, does not endorse the content here, so let this welcome serve as your trigger warning that here you will encounter people who:

  • do not agree with you
  • are actually more intelligent than you
  • are better-educated than you
  • and frankly find you to be tediously predictable and rendered functionally stupid, if not delusional, by your foolish social justice convergence.

But if you are polite and civil, I expect the Dread Ilk will treat you in a similarly polite and civil manner. And if you choose otherwise, well, as our guests, we are happy to permit you to establish the rules of engagement.

In certain confidence of the ultimate victory of the Legion, I am,

VD,
SDL
ELoE
          Dissent at Google        
This is the document being circulated among those Googlers dissenting from the converged regime there. Needless to say, it has resulted in utter outrage among the SJWs there and the inevitable witch hunt. It will be interesting to see what happens when the culprit is revealed and what excuse is given for his firing. One hopes he has read SJWAL, or at least the SJW Attack Survival Guide.

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases
  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases
  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.



Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

  • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

  • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
  • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
  • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

  • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
  • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
  • Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

  • Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
  • There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
  • These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
  • I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

  • We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
  • We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
  • Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

  • I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

  • Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
  • Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

  • Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

  • We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
  • Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
  • Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.
          Election Night SJW Meltdown        
I mean, really - I tots was feeling this girl on Tuesday night, as the returns rolled in...





          The Batons of Christopher Hitchens; The natural underpinnings of social conservatism; Jordan Peterson's work        
Recently I engaged in a debate with a muckety muck in the Church of Sam Harris regarding Jordan Peterson. The man is highly upset at my 'slander' regarding Harris.

Some people fancy themselves as the quintessential sons-of-Christopher-Hitchens. They have their profile photos permanently set as a cartoon of a cigarette smoking Hitch, and they never change that photo to something else, ever.

From my perspective the batons of Hitch have passed to several people, and several of those people are on the current right-side of the political spectrum, much the chagrin of fervent Church of Harris believers.

Partial list of people who've been the recipients of a Hitchian baton: Andrew Breitbart, Douglas Murray, Mark Steyn, Gad Saad, and even Dinesh D'Souza.

List of people who're traitors to the legacy of Hitch: Sam Harris; Church of Sam Harris priests who get upset at 'slander' against Harris; and all atheists who voted for Her.

One person interviewed by Saad is Jordan Peterson. Peterson recently engaged in a discussion with Harris, and Harris could not wrap his brain around what Peterson was saying. Understandable for more reasons than one.

Peterson speaks valuably against social constructivism and Marxism (as does Saad). He also speaks valuably regarding the nuclear bomb level impact of artificial birth control upon the human animal. And even before I heard of Peterson, I wrote the exact same type of thing.

https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2016/02/lies-present-in-conservative-religion.html

Regarding Peterson's religiospeak, it's important (and mostly required) to interpret the totality of it within an enlightened naturalistic framework.

Dennett's 'dangerous' idea regarding religion being natural cuts several ways. One way it cuts is that fully evolved human moral codes are couched within religious contexts. Another is that every single syllable emitted from the vocal orifice of Jordan Peterson needs to be interpreted within context.

A highly valuable project: more accurately (and without leftist SJW prejudice) describing the inherent, evolved, and high value to enlightened social conservatism, and naturalistically articulate evolutionary psychology.

Peterson approaches such a merging more than Gad Saad, in his own way Petersonian way.

Thus a great thanks to Peterson for opposing Marxism and social constructivism, on campus and off. And thanks to him for revolutionarily speaking the truth regarding one specific concern of social conservatives (widely available artificial birth control).

Valuable and fully natural scientific work.

-----------

The Harrisian (Sam Harris and his aficionados) brain has problems grasping many things. For example:

1.) That free will fully exists within the human animal, in a natural, reasonably adequate, and compatiblist sense. Dennett is right. Harris is a myopic hack on this front.

2.) That consciousness is not an ineffable humming glow.

3.) That male circumcision is highly abhorrent.

4.) That there was high utilitarian value to voting for Trump.

5.) That voting for Hillary was a huge betrayal to the legacy of Hitch. The crooked racketeering Team Rape versus a pro-American and thus pro-Enlightenment good-hearted businessman who used His Own Money to block the raping racketeering Clintons.

Also Harris engaged in malpractice regarding his psychological diagnosis of Trump, one which was petty, shallow, moronic, analy retentive, boring, stupid, and obtuse - and fully on par with most Harrisian projects and pronouncements.

So thanks to Peterson, Gad Saad, and others.

Saad is a social liberal. Peterson seems to be a moderate. When more scientists get some balls and brain cells, and finally see value to fully evolved social conservatism, then there'll be progress. But until then, the pro-eugenics pro-death nihilistic hacks aren't scientists but rather they're just worse than worthless nihilists.

At least Saad is willing to entertain conservative ideas without becoming an utter nutter. And Peterson is closer to the truth of the evolved situation, in his own Petersonian way.

What evolutionary process is involved when decidedly childfree denialist abusively permissive SJW leftists just want want want to import admittedly also abusive Muslims to breed on their behalf?

The SJW children of let-it-all-hang-out 60s hippies love forcibly-hijabbed women and abusive Islamic Puritanism and Islamic large families.

Whodatthunkit.

Yes Islam warps natural evolved processes in highly wrong headed ways.

A better course would be for children of the Enlightenment to wake up, reject baby killing and artificial birth control, and breed themselves rather than to import rapey barbarian savages to breed on their behalf.

In any case Harrisian logic is rather like a weak cog in a half baked pie, to mix a metaphor. Krausian logic isn't any better by the way.

------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from an exchange with a Church of Harris priest (COHP) on all the above:

"Peterson's ideas are only valuable inasmuch as one is willing to take his epistemologically foolhardy presuppositions for granted."

My response:

Hardly. No more than one must assume the god believer does everything in his life >because< his god is a 100% actual fact, as opposed to a perceived fact - one which exists within the required/knowledge support structure of the meme-gene system in which he exists.

Why do people do the things they do? A combination of biology, biological history, genes and memes, which all inseparably play off each other.

Biology, evolution, life, and ideas which are rooted in various aspects of being alive, and a processing machine which can (by happenstance and not) be used for other purposes also. But even those other purposes tie into the fundamentals of existence.

For example the mathematician and physicist usually want humanity to survive, and they can be driven to use their realms of knowledge for fully biological-imperative type purposes.

How does the world work, and thus by extension how do humans work.

Peterson is concerned about what happens when humans toss the baby of morality with the bath water of religion.

Since religion is a fully natural memetic-encasement of evolved morality, it's reasonable to add 'evolved' as a preface word to the terms 'religion' and 'morality.'

COHP: "Again, his epistemology is predicated on an exceptionally precarious conceptual foundation"

Response:

It's a fundamental fallacy and also myopic to assume that expressed-views are only valid if the person expressing them can articulately state a reasonable fully-scoped foundation for those views.

Peterson uses religiospeak which must be taken within a naturalistic context. There's no other context which is reasonable. And a lack of understanding on the part of the naturalistic evaluator can lead to fundamentally flawed conclusions.

Aside from the terms he uses, Peterson has concerns about the state of humanity, concerns which do directly relate to Dennett's dangerous idea regarding religion being natural, Peterson's concerns are highly relevant, telling, and apparently factual.

The baby of evolved human morality tossed with the bath water of evolved and fully natural mysticism.

There's big costs and impacts.

COHP: "His entire philosophy collapses beneath the weight of its own incoherence."

Response:

He seems pretty coherent to me. His concerns are highly valid and valuable to make note of.

The memetic bathtub he's in is interesting and nuanced, and must and can only be understood within an enlightened naturalistic context.

COHP: "an epistemology anchored to an ontological fact is conceptually unsustainable."

Response:

How does the world work.

How do humans work.

What is human nature.

Why do humans do what they do.

Why are we here.

How can we survive.

The noob atheist, the rebellious leftist and weed smoking libertarian, all assume that without (the concept of) a god everything is permitted. Such people, and their abusively permissive and denialist meme sets, simply do not understand how the world and humans work.

COHP: "It's based on essentially circular logic"

Response:
You're stuck in the weeds of philosophical word games and forced paths which fully fail to understand what's going on, with Peterson and with religious believers in general.

Idea sets which are inadequately contextualized need not be 100% self consistent nor 100% 'reasonable' to be 'valid.' 'Valid' meaning having naturalistic causes, and meme sets which can result in reasonable naturalistically-rephrased ideas and natural material useful facts.

As for circularity, humans are evolved animals, and many aspects of human nature circle back to this fact and the general facts of how the human animal works.

COHP: "any truth claim he makes atop that foundation instantly fails."

Response:

...only for those who lack a fully contextualized and enlightened materialistic understanding of what's going on.

COHP: "It's important that one's conception of truth can at least sustain itself."

Response:

Religions do sustain themselves via and for natural reasons.

COHP: "Peterson's truth eats its own tail in a million different ways."

Response:

Not that I've seen. And the truths within religions need to, and can only be, properly understood within natural contexts.

COHP: "If his definition of truth ultimately leads to the extinction of the human race..."

Response:

He wants us to survive, and rightly so.

COHP: "...does that mean that it was never true?"

Response:

Properly contextualized truth, yes.

COHP: "It makes absolutely no sense."

Response:

He makes sense to me.

Marxism: Peterson observed highly negative impacts. He doesn't like what he saw. He doesn't want a repeat.

One of Peterson's points is that rejecting traditional religion can lead to errors in thinking, and to incredibly high levels of abusiveness, denialisms, and moronity, as was and is the case with Marxism. The utter stupidity continues on campus today.

COHP: "The soviet union"

Response:

...was an anti-human-nature identitarian leftist utopian totalitarian evil corrosive human spirit destroying dead-end endeavor. Peterson knows this.

COHP: "It was the result of disillusionment in the church..."

Response:

...which led to something far worse. And the Soviet Union was a de facto religion, as is Marxism.

Visit most any atheist (or humanist or Unitarian Universalist) group in America.

State to them that you enjoy Duck Dynasty, and that you're a pro-life anti-gay-"marriage" atheist. See how long it takes for them to boot you: faster than a Mormon Bishop. A de facto religion with dogma, doctrines, heresy trials, and excommunication.

COHP: "Most Nazis were devout Christians."

Response:

Fascism is a left spectrum endeavor. National Socialism.

There is identitarianism in both Marxism and fascism. Group rights and group blames. Utopianism. De facto eugenics. Racism. Dogmas. Doctrines. Heresy trials.

Yes I see that Communism/Marxism and fascism all have corrosive tribalistic elements and religious ones too. Peterson rightly points out negative impacts.

COHP: "You've COMPLETELY misconstrued Dennett..."

Response:

Many hours listening to Dennett.

COHP: "Sam's positions."

Response:

Ditto.

Harris is a myopic hack.

https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/sam%20harris

...on many fronts.

No Hitch-honoring Hitch-appreciator could or ever would vote for a Clinton.

The micro differentiations between spandrels and other effects are weedy sticky mud, regarding arguing about differences between what's one and what another. False choices based on myopathy. Why? Because here's the situation as previously noted:

Religion is a natural phenomenon which couches evolved traits.

There's synergies between memes and genes.

Not all religions are equal regarding positive and negative impacts.

Harrisian woo (Chamlers and Harris):

https://youtu.be/qi2ok47fFcY

https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-woo-of-sam-harris-consciousness.html

Harris didn't learn from:

Dennett.
Hitchens.
Gad Saad.
Jordan Peterson.
Me, whom he censored.

------------------------------------------------------------ end of quote of direct exchange

Am I a quintessential 'son of Hitch?' Hitch isn't more important than my family & I don't claim he was correct on all issues. During his tenure I was partially swayed to the pro-Iraq-war side, but now I'm much more skeptical regarding the value of it. Moron Bush and even-worse moron Obama screwed up the place big time.

Time for Trumpian pragmatism now. But Hitch did free many brains from dogma, especially from leftist dogma.
          Leaving the Fascist Marxist Left        

As per Berkeley, the fascism is on the left now. And really it always was. Name of the Nazi party: National Socialist German Workers. Thus a left spectrum endeavor.

Marxists and fascists only differ regarding the groups they love & the groups they hate. Group rights. Group blames. A hierarchy of group rights and group blames. Neither are conservative based ideologies.

Up until very recently, smart people on 'the left' defended free speech. Those (now increasingly vanishing & very hard to find) 'smart people' have been fully sidelined and silenced by mobs of entitled jack booted brownshirted moron proto-nazi youth.
In response, many are leaving the fascist Marxist left. Waking up from the cult. Milo attracts many such people. Trump also.


Dave Rubin and Gad Saad and Dennis Prager are generally helping. Mark Steyn. Douglas Murray. Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Also the people Saad and Rubin tend to interview.

All people referenced including Trump are implicitly or explicitly Western Enlightenment advocates, and America is they best cradle of Enlightenment values.

The Berkeley Brownshirted fascist-Marxists are violent. The angry traitorous seditious beta males and violent SJW lesbians. So the gays are involved in the war also.

Free speech wars (Rubin):

Leaving the left (Rubin):

Fighting social constructivism (aka reheated denialist abusive fact-free Marxism) on campus:

Saad with Michael Rectenwald:

Saad with Philip Carl Salzman:
https://youtu.be/GLGzkC1w_Xc

Elbert Guillory on the current fascist left:

Examples of the fascist left:
http://www.breitbart.com/tag/uc-berkeley/
...people were also beaten unconscious, clubbed with bats, and maced. And there was over $100,000 in property damage. One of the fascist groups involved: http://www.bamn.com
Another: Berkeley antifa. Brownshirt leftists. The Nazi Youth, of today.

-----
My Journey to Conservatism:
https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2016/09/my-journey-to-conservatism.html

          Old fart establishment Republicans are against Trump.        

Old fart establishment Republicans are against Trump.

Trump wants to do populist trade changes which should make hipster Bern supporters happy.

The more establishment rightists which come out against Trump, the more I realize he must be in.

He's not an Xtian fundie.

He's not a slimy raping (murdering?) Clinton.

And he's got some good big foreign policy balls.

Plus the soldiers like him most. And for flipping once the people who defend America should be given deference on such matters.

Response received:
Q: Clinton is raping & worse?
Q: Trump has been accused of rape. What about that?
Q: Doesn't having big foreign policy balls mean we'll just nuke everyone?

My responses:
Yes the Clintons have raped, and probably worse.

Christopher Hitchens
on Hillary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrzyVt1lbpo


More:

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/every-clinton-sex-assault-victim/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/28/media-ignores-bill-clinton-double-rape-bombshell/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/05/11/ann-coulter-every-rape-victim-deserves-heard-except-hillary-clinton/

No one left to lie to, interviews:Charlie Rose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_RqyXT5bt4

cspan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ6oY4dMeYo

And worse probable crimes of the Clinton crime family:

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/hillary-clinton-murder-list-shawn-lucas-seth-rich-victor-thorn-other-mysterious-deaths-2395504.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php

http://www.infowars.com/evidence-indicates-michael-hastings-was-assassinated/

You know those tin pot hat righties who we all just chuckled about? Oh boo haa haa - Alex Jones, what a kook!

But, as OJ implied, if the gove fits, you must not aquit.

And Paul Joseph Watson is a mutch better representative of that section of the alt-right.


Hitch (on Iraq). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp4U3garYSs

Milo Y. https://www.youtube.com/user/yiannopoulosm

PJW https://www.youtube.com/user/PrisonPlanetLive

Douglas Murray https://www.youtube.com/user/DouglasMurrayArchive
It takes a Britisher to remind Americans about key unique American values worth honoring.

In any case regarding the Clintons: apply the same moral compass you use for all things leftist. All the things you obsess about, to your current party leaders.

Oh pith. What's a little rape? Well, that's just "natural."

She "stood by her..." raping husband.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/27/roger-stone-pets-killed-tires-slashed-late-night-phone-calls-to-silence-bill-clintons-sexual-assault-victims/

"Stand by your raping husband...." to the tune of the song by Tammy Wynette, in a half drunk cornball country tone with a twang twang twang...

As for Trump:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436890/did-donald-trump-and-jeffrey-epstein-rape-13-year-old-girl

ce upon a time, I was a lib-chump.

In 1998, I was more of a full-on one. A morbidly obese virgin with no children, living in his parent's basement.


--------------- quote of: September 21, 1998 letter sent to a nephew, quoting from a letter I sent to congress

The more people that do what Ms. Lewinsky & Clinton physically did with each other the better. While I agree that Clinton lying to his wife was probably bad - his responses are to be expected. Why? Because when you force humans into a puritanical culture where their natural inherent proclivities cannot be properly exercised, what else do you expect to happen?

--------------- end of quote of: September 21, 1998 letter sent to a nephew, quoting from a letter I sent to congress

...and the above naive and stupid statement I made back then shows how stupid I was.

Cheating in marriage destroys marriages & families, and ruins childrens' lives. So shaming for cheating is also natural, and that's the type of natural that should take precedence in such cases.

But by 2008, I had wised up a bit:

--------------- quote of the file: note for hillary clinton - may 16, 2008.txt

May 16, 2008

To the DNC from Jonathan Higbee.

Hillary Clinton has on her web site a petition about "counting the votes in Florida and Michigan." These attempts on her part to change the rules of the game are dishonest, unfair, conniving, and not helpful.

The "votes" in Florida and Michigan should >not< count in the primaries. Why? Because Obama promised not to campaign there & Hillary broke her promise. So the "votes" are tainted.

Do not give in to the unfair, conniving, and the end run type of approach Hillary is trying. Obama is the nominee. Period. Move on - and let's now win against McCain.

Sincerely,

Jonathan
in Portland, Oregon


----------------------- end of quote of my message to the DNC

A further note for Ms. Clinton:

Your tactics in this campaign have been in the style of Karl Rove and George Bush, and they have been highly disturbing, corrosive, and racist.

Earlier in the race I could have gone either way between yourself & Obama. But your actions these past few months have fully convinced me that Obama is the most suitable President. I frankly feel that you've shown yourself to be unstable, and completely unsuited to the Presidency of my country.

Furthermore, the rose coloring of my proverbial glasses relative to yourself and your husband has now been lifted. When your husband was in office I supported him. Now I feel as if I were hoodwinked.

I know many republicans were disturbed by the actions of your husband when he was in the White House. In those days I supported him and yourself. But after what I've witnessed and learned about these past few months, I can now finally see why so many republicans were upset with you both. And I say this as a person who is politically a United Kingdom style Green.

You've now embraced the "politics of personal destruction" by being an advocate for it. In the past you and your husband rejected this type of politics, supposedly. Now it's your primary modus operandi. So it's sad to see this.

This is an honest message.

Sincerely,

Jonathan
in Portland, Oregon


--------------- end of the file: note for Hillary Clinton - may 16, 2008.txt

Now, as a finally married man with kids, I've wised up even more. A man with a wife and kids naturally becomes more socially conservative. I have. That's "my journey." So why do journeys to slow motion suicide (eg: journeys to gayness AKA sexual orientation dysphoria, gay marriage AKA outlier flaky abusive not even a comparison to the real thing "marriage," transgenderism AKA gender dysphoria, abortion, being "childfree," and journeys to death cults like Islam) get to be the ones most honored by leftists, whereas journeys to social conservatism don't? Runs counter to their narrative.

Big balls: You know, like the microscopic ones of Obama compared to Putin. Crimea? Gone. Islamic State? Born & flourishing.

Nuking? I take the neocon view: We'll only nuke as a last resort, or if one of our cities gets nuked.

But the leftist rhetorical pouncing on the nuke option may show a not-so-hidden desire for them to do some nuking of their own: namely those who don't tow the leftist party line. "Hate speech" Crimes into differing categories based on "what was in the mind of the killer" - but such actions lend credence to though crime censorship via having "hate speech" laws and codes. And thus the entire concept of "hate" crime is corrosive to free speech. There's just crime. All crime is "hate crime." Camel nosing in the "mind of the killer" brings in a whole host of freedom-threatening problems.
Current leftist hate, hate, hate, freedom of speech & thought. They hate conservatives, family values, and anyone who tells them they're being abusive dickheads for being overly & abusively permissive & relativist. They hate narratives with run counter to their abusively permissive lines of thought.


The Clintons are playing everyone for fools. They know which SJW (social justice warrior) buttons to push. But such pushing no longer works for me.

The establishment Republicans who really want Hillary in, de facto, are showing that voting for Trump is even more important.

Is Trump playing everyone for fools? I don't think so.

Taking into account the totality of reactions from all parties, I find high utilitarian value in a Trump presidency.

What swayed me to Trump:

Milo's Y's interview with Dave Rubin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiA0P9iELAA


His interview with Joe Rogan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnH67G7vAu4


Related posts:
Trump & Brexit: The Leftist Armageddon
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2016/07/trump-brexit-leftist-armageddon.html

          Trump & Brexit: The Leftist Armageddon        
The left's version of Armageddon: Voting for Brexit or Trump.

Regarding the following article:


The article appears to consider Brexit and Trump to be a sort of leftist Armageddon.

I 100% agree with Pat Condell regarding the value and necessity of a Brexit:

And I 100% agree with Milo Yiannopoulos regarding the high utilitarian value of Trump.

The ultra-leftist conspiratorialism present in the article reminds me of the ultra-rightist conspiratorialism I encountered while I was in Alaska. Tin pot hat leftistism.

Here's responses to a few key sections of the article:

"The liberal intellectuals are always in the minority."

Response:

Liberals such as they are control most of the media. NY Times. NPR. MSNBC. BBC. CBC. PRI. CNN. Washington Post. LA Times. USA Today. Cable comedy news programs. Nighttime comedy interview shows. Twitter. Facebook. Google.

Liberals such as they are control most of the Academy. Most college campuses are iron fistedly controlled by leftists, and now most pander to the social justice warrior (SJW) left.

"The people who see that open societies"

Open societies like Europe, where we now have rape gangs & mass rapes, women and children at risk via rape & attack, cartoonists murdered & under threat, Orwellian speech & thought control codes (ie: "hate speech" laws), a Voldemort affect regarding Islam (active denial that Islam is a problem or THE problem, again and again, murder after murder by Islamic people).

"being nice to other people"

It's not nice to let people simmer in their human spirit destroying cults. They get upset when we do. 9/11 is one such example. Misdirected anger. Iraq & Afghanistan were perfectly reasonable responses to 9/11.

Leftists seem to have a high appreciation for the value of brutal & bloody dictators. And come to find out Sadam did have WMDs after all:


And remember what Hitch said about Iraq:
...before the 2010 revelation from wikileaks.

Hitch was right, and he was right even before WMD material was found in Iraq.

"not being racist"

Leftists are the most racist people I know nowadays. Everything is about race, even religion is now a race. Islam is a race according to them. And everything is about fervently and frantically maintaining a hierarchy of social justice 'rights' and shaming.

Islam is at the top.

Amerindians, perhaps next.

Blacks, next - so long as they tow the liberal party line & don't go off the Democrat plantation.

Gays, next - but only leftist gays.

Gender dysphoric people (AKA 'transgender'), next.

Mexicans, next, but only leftist Mexicans who want to erase the borders & come to the U.S. illegally.

Women, next, but only leftist women and preferably women who're 'childfree.' If you're a stay at home 'breeder,' that's bad. (An abusive stance by the way)

Asian men, next - because they're 'too successful.'

Pink skinned men (aka 'whites'), bottom of the pile.

Any cultural values derived from 'whites' are on the bottom of the SJW pile of rights-hierarchy. The right to exist. The right to be promoted. The bottom-pile items have mostly zero rights.

Meme sets aren't races. And race is a racist concept to begin with.

"not fighting wars"

Wars like WWII? Wars like those which took place in Afghanistan & Iraq (Afghanistan especially)? The war which needs to happen with the newest 'Islamic State?' And yes, a culture war between the Western Enlightenment culture and Islam - a war of ideas, and if needs be of force so as to protect the Enlightenment values of freedom of speech & freedom to be a Western-type person in a Western country unthreatened by abusive crazy murderous Islamic Puritans?

Sitting on our hands doesn't work. Doing this allowed Islamic State to be born.

Obama told the UN that his preferred future belongs to those who never talk smack about the prophet of Islam. This was perhaps the biggest betrayal ever of The Enlightenment by a sitting U.S. President. The United States was founded on Enlightenment principles. And to state that a given religion cannot be criticized, that's a betrayal.


Obama & Wife of Bill helped birth Islamic State.

Saying it so doesn't make it so. Saying that Islam is a religion of peace doesn't make it a religion of peace. As per historical Islam and current Islam, the leaders, the documents, everything, Islam is a religion of war. It's a religion of conquest. It's a religion of murder and of rape and of pedophilia. Oh, and it's also a religion of genital rape of both females and males (even in 'moderate' Muslim countries, there's a very high dual-gender genital mutilation rate).

"is a better way to live"

So allowing psychopathic dictators to rule everything is a better way to live?

Lying about the abusive nature of some cultures is a better way to live?

Squandering the values and principles of The Enlightenment is a better way to live - values with led to the greatest & most free country humanity has ever known (America)?

No Enlightenment, no major scientific advances, no moon visit, no medical advances, no advancing of art & literature, no healthy entrepreneurism. Oh, and also no abolishment of slavery (in The West anyway - slavery still goes on in Islamic places though), nor giving women the vote, and on and on.

We only end up 'loosing fights' when we cut and run.

Islamic State is the latest example.

The ultra leftist hippie fear mongering isn't swaying me.

Trump is a breath of fresh air. Inasmuch as the traditionalist old fart right hates him, and the SJW left hates him, he's of very high value indeed.

And Brexit was accomplished by people who are tired of having their culture destroyed via unhinged immigration. By people who want to take control of their own 'tribe' and their own 'homeland.'

          Politics - USA        
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.
          Politics - USA        
 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.


Yeah, stupid SJWs! Look how hard they failed, only getting 1,828 pledged delegates for loser Sanders, instead of getting 1,542 like awesome Trump.

I mean, it's just noisy nonsense.


          Politics - USA        
I can't believe that 12,279,527 stupid SJW didn't make a difference. Must have been the small hands.
          Politics - USA        
 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.


What amazes me is there's absolutely no mention of anything a president actually does. No mention of a legislative agenda a president might pursue. No mention of any direction a president might take any government department, or how he'll direct foreign policy.

Instead its all about scoring a point against people you don't like on the internet, in this case SJWs. It reduces the presidency to a symbolic win in an internet debate.
          Politics - USA        
Wait, I am an SJW now? Son of a %#$@&!
          Politics - USA        
 sebster wrote:
 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.


What amazes me is there's absolutely no mention of anything a president actually does. No mention of a legislative agenda a president might pursue. No mention of any direction a president might take any government department, or how he'll direct foreign policy.

Instead its all about scoring a point against people you don't like on the internet, in this case SJWs. It reduces the presidency to a symbolic win in an internet debate.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.


Yeah, stupid SJWs! Look how hard they failed, only getting 1,828 pledged delegates for loser Sanders, instead of getting 1,542 like awesome Trump.

I mean, it's just noisy nonsense.



Now you get it

#wall

(I do personally wonder if the number involved in the Republican nomination is the result of that, didn't they start with like 20?)

          

Marvel writer harassed for having a milkshake with coworkers? It's as silly as it sounds.

   
     

Her milkshake brought all the trolls to the yard.


A woman got a milkshake with some coworkers, and the internet lost its collective mind.

Seriously.

Heather Antos is an editor at Marvel, where she's worked on titles like "The Unbelievable Gwenpool" and "Star Wars." It was Friday afternoon, and she and a few coworkers decided to get a milkshake. She snapped a quick picture of the group and posted it to Twitter with the caption, "It's the Marvel milkshake crew! #FabulousFlo" (a reference to Flo Steinberg, a key to Marvel's success, who passed away in July).

This totally innocent and normal photo of seven coworkers hanging out and having a good time was enough to enrage a certain section of the internet. Over the course of the coming days, Antos was flooded with tweets and direct messages accusing her of being a "fake geek girl" or calling the group a bunch of "SJWs" (SJW is short for "social justice warrior," an epithet often used by anti-feminist types to attack people they see as trying to push a social agenda in some way or another). In other words, the response to the photo was completely bonkers and just disproportionate.

Screencaps via Twitter.

Antos, who was only trying to share a joyful moment with some colleagues, felt pretty down about the whole thing — understandably so.

In response, Twitter users rallied around the hashtag #MakeMineMilkshake, showing solidarity with Antos and all women working in comics.

Plus, it was a pretty good excuse to step out and grab a delicious milkshake, and honestly, who doesn't like that? (OK, aside from people who are lactose intolerant?)

The official Marvel Twitter account even got in on the action, sharing a frame from "Young Avengers, Volume 2."

A number of artists shared some original work in support too.

Fans, colleagues, and others chimed in with words of encouragement as well.

The fact that there are people who see a picture of a few coworkers hanging out and think, "This is what's wrong with comics today!" is really toxic.

"Captain Marvel" writer and best-selling author Margaret Stohl let out an exasperated sigh of a tweet about some of the negative attention women in comics get simply for existing.

Alanna Smith, a Marvel assistant editor who was in the original milkshake photo, summed the whole ordeal up in a tweet of her own.

People of all ages and genders can enjoy and create comic books.

In April, a Marvel executive made news when he said that "people didn't want any more diversity" in comics to account for a drop in sales. But as others have pointed out, that argument doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny.

No, "SJWs" aren't trying to "ruin" anyone's childhood. And even if they were, let's just let people drink their milkshakes in peace, OK?



          Has Secularism Hurt Social Cohesion/Preservation and Made the West Weak?        

I think there are some cold, hard realities which most atheists are in denial about or avoid discussing.  But let me preface this post so that the topic doesn’t get bogged down unnecessarily.

I was raised in the Christian church but have not believed in God ever since I can remember.  I do not feel ill will towards the Christian church, nor do I see it as a viable solution to this problem of nihilism.  I am glad that religion has lost its essential monopoly over the question of values, morality, and public discourse.  I am approaching this issue from mostly an American perspective, and this important because America has not had the religious warfare or conflict that Europe has had in the past, and as such bringing up the conflict caused by competing religions (while an important point in some regions) is not particularly important in America, as it was not actually a major destabilizing issue throughout the majority of US history.

All that being said, there are some obvious problems which atheists I think instinctively avoid, and which I’ve seen no viable proposed solution for.

1.  Churches used to be a place where a significant proportion of people would go on Sundays, regardless of their class, regardless of their political beliefs, etc.  This created a sense of community which transcended the typical social demarcations which has never been matched or even attempted to be matched by atheists.  Is losing this social connection hub and not replacing it with anything else really consequence free when it comes to social cohesion and social trust?

2.  I do not believe that most Christians ACTUALLY believe in God - I believe they feel positively towards the church as an institution and their fellow Christians, and that feeling of connectedness, they refer to as God. This would go a long way towards explaining the futility of rationally debating a Christian on the existence of God.  Remember, most people (including Christians) aren’t versed in philosophy, what existence is, and what it means to say something exists.  It’s pointless to argue about existence because you’re trying to reason someone out of a positive emotion, and existence as a concept is not generally understood (which is a pretty sad indictment of our education system).

3.  Is a view of the world without religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to put aside their differences and see themselves as being on the same team?  From what I’ve seen talking to atheists (myself not being on the left) and Christians alike, I would say that atheists are more hostile to each other than Christians are to atheists.  I can count on one hand the number of conversations with a Christian which ended with them name calling and engaging in toxic behavior towards me - It would take me 10 pairs of hands to count the number of conversations with an atheist in which they engaged in that abusive and toxic behavior, and even had that behavior socially reinforced by other atheists.

This goes back to Richard Dawkins’ quote on Christianty -  “.....I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”   Even if you feel I am not arguing the case well here, I would ask you to explain what you THINK Richard Dawkins meant when he said that…..he is not known to flippantly speak on issues.

As many atheists rightly say, “Atheism doesn’t unite because it is a lack of belief rather than a belief itself.”  This is obviously true.  However, does that therefore mean that that vacuum of unity will not be filled with some even worse attempt to unify people - (like postmodern cultural relativism or SJW platitudes or even Islam)?

4.  Is a view of the world without a unifying religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to protect that society from outside and hostile forces?  If it can be, then atheists have colossally failed in this endeavor (or didn’t try), because it is all the secular countries which are bowing down to Islam and its invasion.  Which countries have resisted Islam?  Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary all seem to have no interest in giving up their countries to Muslims - is it pure coincidence that they are all majority Christian countries?  Is it pure coincidence that Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK are all majority secular countries?

There are certainly specific historical reasons why those 3 Eastern European countries are skeptical of the value of foreigners (and specifically Muslims), but it is also possible that the church remained strong in those countries precisely because of the very real and dangerous existential threats, and that that cohesion of faith is one reason why those countries have kept their identities relatively intact (even after all the turmoil caused by the USSR) and more importantly CONTINUE to do so in the face of the largest migration event since WWII, despite financial pressure from the EU in some cases.

America is another country which has admirably pushed back against the invasion of Islam.  Christianity has been on a steady decline both in terms of piety and as a % of the total population, but it is still strong enough that Christians make up the majority of the people who oppose bringing Islam to the US.  It seems that atheists make up the majority of people who oppose those who oppose bringing Islam to the US…...again, another total coincidence?  The biggest common thread I see between the US and those Eastern European states is the Christian religion…....

I fully realize much of this is an argument from effect for the value of some form of unifying religious mythology, and I try to avoid arguments from effect.  But in this case, the side effect of losing that unifying religious mythology seems to consistently and globally lead to the erasure of one’s secular culture and one’s way of life - therefore I argue that we MUST consider this phenomenon no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, no matter how tough of a problem this is to solve, and no matter how many atheists are unwilling to consider that religion or at least religious beliefs/culture MAY be as integral to social organization and preservation as the state itself.

I’m here to point out my observations (which are becoming more and more common to hear from intellectuals like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, or Stefan Molyneux) and hopefully inspire some thought on this topic.  This does not mean I am advocating a return to Christianity, nor does it mean I would ever try to convince someone that God exists.  However, I think especially in the US that if we do not address this problem, we will share the same fate as Europe, and the overall proportion of secular people living safely will continue to shrink until secular people are persecuted minorities globally.

In other words, if we cannot figure out how to maintain a secular society (and what Europe is doing obviously doesn’t work), we seem doomed to be replaced by a brutal, totalitarian religious/political ideology which will stamp out secularism.  Therefore, what problem could be more important than this one?  How rational can atheists really claim to be if they are unable to preserve their way of life?  How much influence would Islam have to obtain over the UK, France, and Germany before the rational thing as an atheist would be to compare the costs/benefits of living in a Christian country vs the costs/benefits of living in an Islamic country?

I welcome all debate, but would most welcome attempts to answer the questions which I have formatted as bold, because I don’t want this discussion to be about what I think - I want to know what YOU think the answers are to these big questions, the answers to which may determine the future existence of secular values on this precarious planet.


          An Apt Description of the Alternative Politics Milieu        
From David Cole Stein: SJW leftist: “The solution to police violence is to hire MORE MINORITIES as cops! Whites are incurably racist and violent. Get some DIVERSITY on the force, and the senseless killings of civilians will END!” [Somali Muslim cop sits in his car and blows away an unarmed mom and bride-to-be who was on her own property in her pajamas after calling 911 to report a disturbance behind her house] White nationalist: “Whites must BAND TOGETHER as brothers against those with whom we are genetically and culturally incompatible! WHITE HOMELAND! All whites unite, More…
          Comment on Wolfenstein The New Order Guide: Wyatt Or Fergus? by Hellbringer        
sorry they had hearts , most were just scarred or cowards to die and new anything that did not follow Nazi way was killed so alot did it for there family but to act like every Nazi was some monster with no heart is same as saying now days every American is uneducated SJW that wants world run on skin color like the new age left wing Nazi do but thats not fair is it . Its easy to sit and act like you know when the hardest thing you did was have to decide what to eat for dinner but in war no matter what side there is fucked up shit and bad choices and i do know my country just got over a civil war and neighbors you grew up with for 3 decades were sniping each others kids all because one scum bag man Milosevic wanted to steal whole country and do genocide on all Albanians and croats .
          Comment on “Words are magical in the way they affect the minds of those who use them.” Aldous Huxley by George Kaplan        
Huxley's words about words remind me of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, this now-discredited (mostly) principle states that a person's worldview or understanding of the World is dictated by the language/words they use. Truly I think there is much that supports this; take, for example, those who only use a limited number of narrow colloquial terms out of a wish to fit in or fear of sounding "different" /highfalutin or a lack of education or sophistication, many of them are unable to consider anything outside a particular narrow field of comprehension and are often antagonistic to anyone or anything outside or antithetical to that. Consider also the kind of person who uses phrases such as PC or SJW (Social Justice Warrior) - almost always in their initialized forms - as terms of abuse. Bullies pretending that they are the bullied. Words form the World or worldview and the willingness to think about what our words or actions mean dictate if the World improves or not.
          (Book Review) SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down The Thought Police by Vox Day        
I think books can be lumped into two big categories which then further branch out into a near infinite number of branches of varying size: Fiction and Non-Fiction. SJWs Always Lie falls into the latter category, though it often feels like the former, though this is a Rorschach Test on the reader.

Social Justice Warriors Always Lie is not a difficult book to read. The words are simple enough, the concepts explained in terms that even someone completely unfamiliar with the context being discussed can be rapidly brought up to speed.

The challenge with SJWs Always Lie is encapsulated in the question that you have to ask yourself while reading it: "If this is true, what do I do now?"

There is a psychological phenomenon called "projection", which in Modern Culture manifests in how people presume that other people are inherently good, because people want to believe that they are inherently good. They believe something about someone else being true because that's what they believe to be true, or at least want to believe to be true, about themselves. They "project" themselves onto other people, without consideration as to whether this is a good idea or not. SJWs Always Lie challenges the concept that "other people are inherently good" by showing actual examples of events which have happened that are, at face value, something that seems stripped from the blog of some paranoid conspiracy theorist.

There is no way that people behave this way and still function, right? These stories must be missing some critical detail that rationalizes or justifies the behavior of these people, right?

Above all, I certainly haven't ever behaved like this, and am certainly not capable of this, right?

Because the criticisms of other people so often apply accurately to us because of projection, our Modern Culture has attempted to neuter certain forms of criticism as "offensive". "Political Correctness" is a means by which people are conditioned to conflate the perception of forgoing diplomatic politeness with an action of violence, and in turn that the response of onlookers and others should the same for both as well. It's a diluting of the moral weight that is supposed to distinguish between tangible wrongs and mere perceptions of wrong, and looking to use social pressure to control aberrant behavior.

SJWs Always Lie is primarily about SJWs and the way that they wield "Political Correctness" to ruins people's lives, from social gatherings to careers, and forces the reader to face the fact that sometimes people are not inherently good, and especially so when the people put on the mantle of "crusader for good". That those in the Modern Culture who are screaming the loudest for fairness and equality are the ones working hardest to undermine it. The ones demanding that tyranny and oppression be eliminated are merely seeking to replace the tyrants and oppressors with people that they like and can control. Those upset with "the system" are just dissatisfied with the hand the system dealt them, not that there was a system in the first place.

And the reader may be one of them, or have helped them, but instead of facing the embarassment and learning and answering "If this is true, what do I do now?", they'll write off the book as fiction. They'll denigrate the author as if that repudiates any of the points he raises. They'll declare that the book is offensive and "not PC". They'll do everything they can to avoid facing the reality in favor of fantasies that make them feel better.

In short, they'll lie. They'll lie to others, but worse, they'll also lie to themselves.

SJWs Always Lie is an easy to read Non-Fiction book about real occurrences and includes the appropriate response to take when you come under attack by an SJW. It's also a Rorschach test to see if you're an SJW or the Moderate that is exploited by SJWs in their crusades against "bad things". This is why it is controversial.

This book is a must-read because what it has to say about SJWs is as critical as what it will reveal about yourself, and to refer to a quote from Sun Tzu:

 â€œIf you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Today we fight an ideological battle on a field of philosophy, but that does not change the tactics, preparedness, and seriousness of the fight. Whether by word or by sword, our very lives hang in the balance of the outcome of our current struggles.

Read SJWs Always Lie. Know yourself and know your enemy.

You can buy SJWs Always Lie in paperback or Kindle format from Amazon by clicking here.
          Episode 616: It Comes at Night        
We get infected by It Comes at Night and discuss Lord and Miller leaving the Han Solo movie plus we also talk Rough Night, Cars 3, Krisha, The Lego Batman Movie, Oh Hello on Broadway, Very Bad Things, Raw and The Belko Experiment.

0:00 - Intro
9:45 - Review: It Comes at Night
35:10 - Headlines: RIP John G. Avildsen, Phil Lord and Chris Miller Exit Han Solo Movie
50:00 - Other Stuff We Watched: Rough Night, Cars 3, Raw, The Lego Batman Movie, Animal House, Role Models, 23 Paces to Baker Street, The Belko Experiment, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates, Krisha, Oh Hello on Broadway, Very Bad Things
1:59:26 - Junk Mail: Seal Busker Response + SJW Movie Podcasts, To Unwrap or Not to Unwrap, Best End Credit Songs, NYT's Top 25 Movies of the 21st Century, Birthday Wishes, Putting Film Junk on the Map
2:34:15 - This Week on DVD and Blu-ray
2:40:10 - Outro
2:46:20 - Spoiler Discussion: It Comes at Night
          The Evils Of Feminism And SJW | episode 155        

  The Evils Of Feminism And SJW | episode 155 This week I am joined by my co host Couch Potato Mike again.  We have a fun rant about the world being ruined by feminist and SJW.  I have been getting more and more angry at the feminist and Social justice warrior agenda being shoved […]

The post The Evils Of Feminism And SJW | episode 155 appeared first on Survival Punk.


          Don’t be Google        
So this guy at Google puts out a very polite, forelock-tugging, “pardon me for existing” internal memo, questioning the SJW fascist GroupThink policy (he words it much more politely), stating that the Prozi Gleichschaltungspolizei are promoting an oppressive, authoritarian workplace where people fear being fired for as much as talking about certain subjects. Google then

Read the Full Post »

          Political Correctness For SJWs        

It has come to the attention of the management that we are experiencing more visits from SJWs, and that these new users often do not know about our standard of respect and compassion for all other forms of life.

In particular, SJWs use certain problematic language that is deeply offensive to members of our community and disenfranchised people here.

Stop Yourself From Using These Abusive Terms

  1. "Triggered." Trigger... does that sound like another word that we should not be saying? If you guessed the N-word, you're right! "Trigger" is a term that White Nationalists use to refer to people of color of African descent. Instead of saying "Triggered," you should use the more empathic term "invaded."

  2. "Raped." In less enlightened times, people talked about rape as a serious crime. Little did they know that in our more scientific and respectful era, "rape" is just one of many crimes that violate human dignity. When you say that "staring at my tits is literal rape," you are implying that all other violations of human dignity are less important, and that is highly insensitive. Say "emotional assault" instead.

  3. "Cultural appropriation." Wow, just wow. I cannot believe that in 2016 we are still revisiting this topic. You do not use the language of oppressors to describe the suffering of the oppressed. The correct term is "Ukwabiwa zamasiko," the closest Zulu equivalent.

  4. Gender. People are still using gender terms in here, and it makes us literally cry our eyes out, which is ruining the keyboards on these MacBook (Pro) laptops. The correct way to use gender is not to use it at all. Be sensitive and use "it" and "its" instead of the anachronistic and discriminatory gender terms.

  5. "Stupid." Do we need to remind you that this term is just another version of the R-word? Bigotry against people for low intelligence is just another form of ableism, which discriminates against people for physical traits they cannot control. If something types something that you think is idiotic, use the term "conservative" instead of out-dated words like "stupid," "moronic," "idiotic" and "insane."

  6. Reality policing. We have seen this egregious destruction of human rights too many times. People, as autonomous and sovereign beings, have the right to perceive the world around them as they see it. When you tell something that "2+2=4," you are implying an absolute and fixed value to your own perspective, which is not their perspective and denies them their civil right to see the world differently. Sometimes, the answer is five, and if you really want equality, you will insist that it is always five so that all visions of reality are accepted.

  7. "Mine" and "Yours." Among the worst invasions of personal respect are these terms for ownership. As you know, the concept of private property ownership came from slavery and marriage, in which people literally owned each other. Instead, say "this thing I am using" or "the place I am living."

Together we can make this blog a more inclusive community for all sentient beings, and usher in a new era of peace and love for humanity. It is up to you to make this happen, and we thank our new SJW friends for their compliance.

❤

Your hosts


          Reddit Censors Free Speech Group /r/European        
SJW stronghold Reddit has decided to "quarantine" /r/European, its sub formed in reaction to /r/Europe's censorship of stories that go against The Narrative. Quarantine means that users must opt-in and people who are not logged in cannot see the content. It also keeps content from the sub in showing up in other modes of viewing the site.

While Reddit is clearly a bad actor that censors non-Leftist (and other) content, /r/European had a problem: getting outside of the /r/Europe mental ghetto invited in all the Stormfront types, who promptly had a field day writing what they usually do, in addition to posting memes. Because of its "free speech" roots, /r/European refused to censor them, which essentially killed much discussion because the angry hive of a different sort would quickly arrive. Most of these Stormfronters, ironically, appeared to be simply Leftists who dislike Jews and immigration. In other words: typical Reddit content, with a twist of angry racial resentment.

The moderators of /r/European have taken their activity to Voat, where they have freedom but a much smaller audience. The retreat from social media is not a victory; it allows Reddit to continue to present its "safe space" as a free discussion forum. However, it also makes clear that free speech is not actually wanted on Reddit, so perhaps this pyrrhic self-immolation will bring good yet.
          SJW “diversity experts” say there's too many “white male” acts at rock festivals        

Imagine if Justin Trudeau's absurd gender quotas managed to find their way into a rock festival's lineup. Tickets would NOT sell.


          Becoming more widely noticed        

Political correctness is like HIV: after you’ve caught either, something that you could otherwise deal with easily can kill you.

Somewhere after 9/11, with Bush having informed us all about the fundamental and undeniable peacefulness of Islam, I began to think of our own governments as the HIV virus, preparing the welcoming ground for pneumonia that usually follows and eventually kills you. Islam is just one particular strain of bacteria causing common and normally non-lethal pneumonia.

– Alisa, commenter of this parish, two months ago

And note that one guy, by triggering internal SJW craziness, has done more PR harm
...continue Becoming more widely noticed

          #GamerGate 101        

In recent weeks a number of people have tried to explain #GamerGate.  You can check out "Why Bother with GamerGate?" or "What is GamerGate, and Why?  An Explainer for Non-Geeks" for some primers.  Now that The New York Times is running headlines that read "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in 'GamerGate,'" public attention to the rise of menacing, intimidating, and graphic online comments about disfigurement, rape, mutilation, and murder addressed to Anita Sarkeesian Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and others is spurring a broader discussion about harassment, gender, and digital culture.

If you are interested in primary sources, it's useful to look at the testimonies of the women themselves.  Quinn has written about being the Internet's "most hated person" here, Wu describes being driven out of her home here, and Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency explains becoming a villain in a kind of nightmarish massively multiplayer game in this TED Talk

#GamerGate is a hashtag used by participants to talk about a supposed conspiracy that is allegedly endangering the future of video games.  In the paranoid universe of GamerGate in which "social justice warriors" (often abbreviated to SJW) collude to deprive gamers of the aggressive games of violent machismo that they love, independent developers like Quinn are to blame for threatening a multi-billion dollar industry of big AAA franchises and their acolytes.

I'll admit that I wasn't a fan of Quinn's Depression Quest, which seemed too simple and predictable, as well as typical of many serious games in lacking subtlety or nuance, but I understand why it might have merited have merited a review in The New Yorker, even independent of the newsworthiness of the threats to Quinn's safety.  Unfortunately for Quinn, many have attributed her critical attention to her personal relationships with game journalists and have supported the online vendetta of a vengeful ex-boyfriend who has accused her of offering sexual favors as a way to solicit good press.  The power laws of social networks led to cascading effects, particularly after actor Adam Baldwin encouraged his libertarian followers to adopt the #GamerGate handle, which was tweeted almost a quarter million times in the first week.  Eventually Quinn was doxxed on Reddit.  With details about her private personal information made public, including her home address, the specificity of threats intensified.  Soon GamerGate was a story that the Washington Post was following.  

Although her rhetorical technique may be a bit heavy-handed, I think that many of the videos at Sarkesian's Feminist Frequency are worth watching.  What is easy to miss if you haven't watched the actual videos is the fact that Sarkeesian doesn't just criticize the games industry for being sexist: she criticizes it for being derivative and relying on recycling the same motifs.  

So what else is #GamerGate about?  As Ian Bogost pointed out at the alternative games festival IndieCade, it has become a "Voldomortian" entity that many critics would rather just ignore in the interests of avoiding its wrath.

But here goes.

It's about feminism.  Tags like #SJW or #notyourshield make it seem like women are either among the aggressors or merely serving conveniently as human shields to protect corrupt interests from exposure and expulsion.  Many #GamerGate advocates deny that their movement is misogynistic and claim that they are keeping the encroachment of feminism in check rather than harassing women.  In some ways feminism has become more visible with feminists gaining access to new social media venues for publishing content online, but so has virulent antifeminism.  For every "I need feminism" selfie campaign there is an "I don't need feminism" campaign in which women seem compelled to be participants in their own subjugation.  Even this female game developer denies the accusation of misogyny and claims that trolls merely "lack social skills" rather than "hate women."  Nonetheless, "the silencing of women" seems to be an obvious theme, given how Mattie Brice and Jenn Frank also felt targeted.

It's about journalism.   The status of "journalism" in online discourse with the rise of user-generated content has been an issue for a while.  For over a decade, in the "are blogs journalism?" debate, magazines and newspapers have been bemoaning "journalism without journalists," and legal battles have been waged over the question.  Blogs are accused of delivering subjective reportage rather than objective reporting.  At the same time, those who favor the anonymous over the personal insist that transparency groups like WikiLeaks do the work of a "fifth estate" by letting whistleblowers leak evidence more safely and directly than they can as confidential informants to the press.  #GamerGate enthusiasts use a range of blogging and leaking techniques, as the diatribes of Breitbart.com about "Angry Feminists, Unethical Journalists" may indicate.

Of course, for those who have visited large game conventions, such as E3 and GDC, these charges about ethical lapses among game journalists might seem laughable, given how little influence independent game developers have in comparison to the might of the corporate manufacturers of big budget titles.  AAA titles have the means to offer the parties, perks, and enticements associated with good reviews, and obviously they provide the advertising that allows game reporting to be a viable profession.  As a sign of where monied interests lie, Intel has already pulled ads from Gamasutra in response to calls for a #GamerGate boycott,  and Kotaku may be pulling some support for crowd funding independent games.

It's about definitions of "gamer" and "game."  At a deeper level many might argue that #GamerGate is about who is a gamer and what games are.  GamerGaters have seemed particularly enraged by having game journalists opine that they are a vanishing breed in articles like "Gamers Are Over," "The End of Gamers," and "We Might Be Witnessing the Death of an Identity."  GamerGaters also defend "real games" over imitations and phony products, and much of the wrath of the group is consequently directed at independent and alternative game producers.

As members of the feminist game collective Ludica note in their challenge to define games differently, "The Hegemony of Play," narrow definitions of games, gaming, and gamers privilege white, male hardcore gamers and exclude the play experiences of women and other perceived minorities -- despite the fact that though those who play online card games, casual games, dress up games, simulations of playing house, and other forms of feminized recreation may often be a relatively silent majority to which the industry is finally paying attention.  Furthermore, surveys indicate that game developers themselves are finally seeing sexism as a problem in the field.

It's about militarism.  This might be more of a stretch, but I might argue that it's no accident that "real" games are often military-themed games such as Call of Duty in the #GamerGate universe or the fact that Leigh Alexander (who can be seen in the documentary Joystick Warriors) becomes the "worst game critic in the world" in the minds of GamerGaters.  Even a fan of CoD who claims in a fan film that #GamerGate is "not that big of a deal" might repeat many of the allegations uncritically and add more insults to the women involved.

It's about embodiment.  For a while now people in media studies have been talking about how experiences of digital media are not very virtual at all.  No longer do television commercials promote the idea that people have no gender or race online.  The bodies of these women are very much of concern for GamerGaters as objects of sexual violence or rape fantasies, as inanimate objects that can be criticized for being ugly, or as passive objects of aggression, as in the case of a Flash game that invites users to punch Sarkeesian in the face.  The marvel of heroic mission games is having an invulnerable, unkillable, infinitely replaceable body in the most unlikely of circumstances in battle, and some first-person shooter games don't even let you see your feet.

It's about language.  The language that people use to register their presence (and absence) in digital environments may spread across the whole continuum from instrumental trash talk, which functions as what Lisa Nakamura calls a "procedural strategy" in many gaming communities, to online hate speech that is intended to victimize others.  Some might understandably call GamerGaters a hate group, but policing language can also be problematic.  Schools and authoritarian regimes use filtering software to focus on offensive terms, but it may be difficult for even humans to identify context.

It's about metadata.  To get this many people to use this hashtag, it shows a group capable of making canny decisions about how to label their content and how to direct people to using a particular naming convention.  #GamerGate gets attention because it is distinctive, easy to spell, and alliterative.  It is even shorter than the equally alliterative #feministfrequency, and it takes advantage of the common scandal-signifying suffix "gate."  ("Gate" as a signifier for scandal even appears in stories about the new iPhone with #bendgate or #seamgate hashtags.)

It's about collectives.   The term "online community" is eschewed by many critics who argue that online networked publics lack the social cohesion, public culture, and rituals of inclusion of traditional communities.  Instead, the coordination of large groups of supposedly otherwise autonomous individuals can be seen as representative of everything from smart mobs to hive minds.  #GamerGate sympathizers may be promised free Steam codes, and many of them may be mere sock puppets rather than real people, but a volunteer spirit and an ethos of independence seems to motivate many GamerGaters to participate.

For its fortieth anniversary the journal Camera Obscura is celebrating the theme of collectives, but collectives aren't necessarily progressive entities, as the work of Megan Boler, Gabriella Coleman, and many other net critics indicates.

Those who want to organize collectively toward progressive ends against the nefarious GamerGate collective are encouraged to perform mass coordination by using their own hashtags (including #StopGamerGate) or to give to crowd funding efforts by visiting the donation pages for game critics.  Over a thousand developers also signed this open letter "to the gaming community."

Oddly #GamerGate is also about imagined collectives.  Sargon of Akkad has argued -- quite improbably -- in this YouTube video that DiGRA is secretly a feminist cabal. GamerGaters have compiled lists of "SJW Game Journalists" supposedly in cahoots.  There is even a satiric game where you can be turned "into a crusader for online morality, a champion of internet justice, and the lone defender standing valiantly against the encroaching morass of willful human ignorance."

It's about rights.  Women's rights are not ones that I take lightly or rights to privacy, security, and safety.  But it might be important to pay attention to rights-based claims that GamerGaters make too, even if they seem like ludicrous demands for "men's rights" that ignore the benefits of male privilege or the right to bear arms that made it impossible for Sarkeesian to speak at a public university in Utah, where a school shooting was threatened if she appeared.

It's about values.  The conversation about values is going on in a number of places, including FemTechNet.  The question will be if this conversation can be both widely accessible and broadly constructive.  We'll see.
          The Social Warrior's of Justice - SJW Newspaper (April Fool's '17)        
HTLR ▲276,198 -0.31%   GRBL ▼ 2362.72 -0.23%   Hitler 500 ▲8969.74 +0.54%   NADSAQ ▼ 5911.74 -0.04% US EDITION | April 1, 2017 | Today's Paper Home World Hitler US Hitler Tech Hitler Market Hitler Arts Hitler Microsoft Windows 10: Hitler Edition is here!   Win10 Hitler edition Microsoft's newest service pack is out and it looks like Jewish people might want to skip this update. The reason? Microsoft packed this update full of Hitler. In a move that many Semitic people have criticized, Microsoft decided to include 30% more Hitler in this update. How will this affect DirectX?..Continue reading...
          The Dark Shadows Daybook: July 17        


By PATRICK McCRAY

Taped on this date in 1970: Episode 1065

Following ghosts and a phantom melody, Barnabas and Julia find a perfectly preserved playroom in Collinwood that they never knew existed. In it, an insane Carolyn is of no help as she laments a birthday party whose guests have vanished. Leaving her behind, they visit Stokes, a man not quite mad, but not entirely sane. He’s equally ignorant as to the cause of Collinwood’s ruin. When they leave him, we learn that he harbors Carolyn, and he is still seeking answers from her. Back at Collinwood, they find a mad Quentin, recently escaped from a mental hospital. Returning to the playroom, Julia and Barnabas find a birthday card to someone named Tad. Just as suddenly, David appears in a smart, 1970-era suit.

Eight years to the day after this episode was shot, actor Thayer David died of a cardiac arrest. He was only 51. It makes an episode like this incredibly poignant, showing the actor at an “old age” (sixty-eight) that he never reached. Anyone familiar with the daybook knows that Mr. David is the real star of the show and this column. A touch of that is camp, but it’s a sincere camp, sincerely inspired. Chris Pennock considered David to perhaps be the program’s finest actor. David had range, passion, and a committed sense of truth… and yet none of these grounded him so much that he lost his capacity for joy in his performances. Matthew Morgan, Ben Stokes, Count Petofi, and T.E. Stokes are all some of the show’s most memorable characters, and we have David to thank for that.

Curtis had already begun the motif of the phantom and disappearing room with the Parallel Time storyline. Is his fascination a concession to paranoia? Larger conspiracies manipulating events? Timing is everything. Why do they arrive now? To see the escaped Quentin, or does Quentin escape because he senses Barnabas and Julia? Either way, they are here because Judah Zachary wants them there. It’s a trip that is both catalytic and fatalistically demoralizing. The events of 1970 would have been baffling without a preview. With one? Barnabas knows exactly how powerless he really is.

On this day in 1970, over 30,000 people attended Randall Island’s rock festival in New York City. Like Altamont, it was total chaos. Prone-to-violence, proto-SJW political groups such as the Black Panthers and the yippies demanded pieces of the action and were at each other’s throats. Gate crashing was rampant. Stars such as Ravi Shankar, sensing they wouldn’t be paid, refused to perform. It was no Farm Aid. 

          TL;DR - SJW Hypocrite at Oculus Connect Keynote         
Part of a series from a fried on YT that would like the message spread. Visit him HERE
          Check Your Privilege!        
MIT has joined the SJW revolution. Everyone entering their school of architecture is encouraged to take on=line psychological tests to reveal their inner biases.

Diversity Learning Tree

None of the links to their "privilege checklists" work, but the "implicit"  tests developed at Harvard work. These consist of flashes of pictures of "white" or "black" faces and other items that you presumably associate with those images. You select them as quickly as possible with two fingers. 

The test measures how well you associate the faces with "black" and "white" by how fast you select - and helpfully tells you if you chose "wrong" - i.e., you cannot natively tell "black" from "white", which supposedly is the goal of all this "diversity" - making the world color-blind.

Except, if you ARE truly color-blind, seeing all those faces as "human" rather than segregating them into the "proper" categories, the test fails - you made too many "mistakes".

It seems to me that rather than fostering true inclusiveness, all this "diversity" stuff is enforcing divisive mental images, as well as trying to convince certain classes of Americans that they owe something to other groups simply because of the circumstances of their birth.

          Comment on Making a Social Justice Warriors Game by Ian        
The comments here are a perfect example of why this game has a great point. There are clearly a lot of people who read the same dumb shit on the internet, watch the same stupid youtube videos, and yet have never actually had a conversation with the "SJWs" they love to mock. It's incredible how these people pile on "SJWs", with all of these wildly exaggerated stereotypes, or complete strawman arguments. Listen, *nobody* thinks there's anything wrong with being a straight white male. It's fine. I'm a straight white male, there's no reason to be ashamed of that. But acting like being a straight white male nowadays is *so hard* is just stupid and asinine. It's not just the claims of crazy liberals that racism and sexism are still serious problems, and that racist and sexist attitudes continue to live in people who don't think have them. Everybody's perception of the world is tainted by harmful stereotypes. There are people who actually make an effort to address and correct them, and then there are overly sensitive idiots who think their freedom of speech is under attack when anyone criticizes their perspective. The incredible thing is that this is something that has been well documented in *countless* scientific studies... and these anti-SJW idiots continue to lose their shit everytime someone discusses aspects of sexism and racism that are well established in the academic world.
          Comment on Releasing a Social Justice Warriors Game by River Seago        
The controversy over whom this game defames doesn't necessarily make sense. One can tell that it's a pro-social justice game from the menu itself, before even going into the gameplay (which further supports the idea that this title is supportive of the "social justice" movement). You are given a single option essentially in order to play the actual game, which limits the protagonist to one perspective-a perspective which is then characterized as essentially the "correct" one simply due to the fact that had you chosen to be against social justice, the gameplay wouldn't even occur. Had this truly been a criticism of the futility of internet arguments on both sides, both sides would've been playable. Not to mention that the options that both sides employ are hardly equivalent. While the majority of the options of attack for the SJW protagonist seem to be "logically" or "factually" based (this even includes, ironically, the "commune with like minds" option, which while having the capacity to suggest that narrowcasting is a common SJW practice and thus represent [i]some[/i] sort of criticism of modern Social Justice culture online, can actually represent the idea of the refinement of argument strategies through means of collaboration which is a positive thing) whilst the trolls attacks all seem to be relegated to mere fallacies of argument as opposed to the sound factual statistics brought to many online comment wars by both sides. I simply feel that this game defames any who oppose the social justice regime without giving any validity or consideration to the idea that not all ideas presented by that faction are supported by real evidence nor are truly democratic in terms of the end goal of equality. I do love the game, and the fact that you had both the idea and drive to push it all the way to completion, but I feel that it's incredibly biased and one sided for both the reasons listed above and several others.
          Comment on Making a Social Justice Warriors Game by FluxIncapacitor        
I think you've mistranslated SJW. Social justice has an entirely different meaning than justice that is social. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice" title="Social justice" rel="nofollow"> is a specific political belief that encapsulates a belief in total parity, as opposed to equity, within a society. "SJW" was originally intended as a sarcastic label for the followers of this political belief, as created by its opponents, but has come to be merely a descriptive term for those followers of social justice who opine publicly on the internet, as many such persons have come to self-identify as SJWs. Unlike "troll," the term SJW is specifically descriptive of an ideology and doesn't connote or dismiss an opponent based on said ideology.
          Comment on Making a Social Justice Warriors Game by Frajic        
Interesting how literally none of the comments have been from the SJW side.
          Transgressions...        
I've always wondered what it took to get you a Twitter 'soft ban', and now I know:


I'd always thought it took swearing, or persistent harassment, or libel, or breaching a court order. Turns out it's none of those things. 

It's upsetting a SJW with the truth about Rashan Charles, the idiot who choked on what turned out to be fake drugs.


But when you have a blog as well as a Twitter account, there's no silencing you...
          Requiem for an SJW heavyweight        
James Delingpole on the Twitter phenomenon Godfrey Elfwick: Linda Sarsour/Sally Kohn/Graham Linehan/Caroline Criado Perez/Gary Lineker/Diane Abbot/someone from the Guardian/a guy from CNN/ISIS has said something really hateful, stupid, and wrong on Twitter. Again. Back in the day, this would have been a cause for celebration, not dismay. Why? Because within milliseconds of their fatuous utterance […]
          This Is No Laughing Matter        
The SJW types on American college campuses are a pretty humorless bunch, always picking apart everything in search of some microaggression or deviationism. So when a documentary comes along that focuses on their humorlessness, you can guess how they take it. That documentary, entitled "Can We Take a Joke" was produced by Ted Balaker last year and has been showing on campuses. In today's Martin Center article, he writes about the responses it has received. The most absurd was the reaction by a university president in Wisconsin who kept saying that the school was concerned that students might feel a threat to
Read More ...
          The Solar Storm with Kyle Hunt 2017.08.06        



Kyle Hunt received his Bachelor of Arts in psychology and theater, worked briefly in Silicon Valley, and then became involved in the alternative media in 2008. Over the years he has covered topics such as symbolism, mythology, occultism, spirituality, paganism, racial realities, revisionist history, politics, and anything else that might pique his interest. Kyle is best known for hosting a popular online radio show, founding Renegade Broadcasting, and leading the controversial 2014 White Man March in an effort to raise awareness concerning the ongoing genocide of European people across the world. In short, Kyle is a man on a mission.

Frank Raymond – The Mass Production of Proles

Kyle speaks to Frank Raymond, author of Sweet Dreams and Terror Cells, about his book (buy the paperback), the ongoing removal of White people from their natural environment, why White people have been targeted for genocide, the loss of civility and decency as discussed by Georgia (Aug 2nd), and how the proles of today are being used to further degrade our society in ways previously thought unimaginable. They also discuss some reasons for optimism, as there are some people with healthy instincts left, there is a worldwide awakening underway, and even the SJW activists can be deprogrammed quickly.

Renegade Broadcasting
RenegadeVids
Renegade Tribune
Renegade Archive





64k CF Download


Download From Archive.org

          By: Ota        
Now I can see the messages from my prevous message seems to be normal. But after following debugging, I found out that $ ip -d -s link show can0 shows in the beginning: can state ERROR-ACTIVE but after sending a message or if there is some communication on the bus it changes to: can state ERROR-PASSIVE The complete can state is: $ ip -d -s link show can0 3: can0@NONE: mtu 16 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP mode DEFAULT qlen 10 link/can can state ERROR-PASSIVE restart-ms 0 bitrate 500000 sample-point 0.875 tq 125 prop-seg 6 phase-seg1 7 phase-seg2 2 sjw 1 mcp251x: tseg1 3..16 tseg2 2..8 sjw 1..4 brp 1..64 brp-inc 1 clock 8000000 re-started bus-errors arbit-lost error-warn error-pass bus-off 0 0 0 4 4 1 RX: bytes packets errors dropped overrun mcast 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX: bytes packets errors dropped carrier collsns 0 0 1 1 0 0 Do You have any more hints, what else to check? I am feeling completely stuck.... Thanks in advance! Ota
          Fighting For Social Justice Is a Major Contribution to Society        

I have something to say that I'm sure everyone is going to consider controversial. I've been meaning to say it for some time, and I realize that it's going to get some annoyance from all sides of this debate. Conservancy may lose Supporters over this, even though this is my personal blog and my personal opinion, and views expressed here aren't necessarily Conservancy's views. I've actually been meaning to write this publicly for a year. I just have to say it now, because there's yet another event on this issue caused yet another a war of words in our community.

If you follow the types of Free Software politics and issues that I do (which you probably do if you read my blog) you have heard the phrase — which has become globally common in general politics — “Social Justice Warrior”, often abbreviated SJW. As anyone who reads my blog probably already knows, SJW is used as a derogatory catch-all phrase referring to anyone who speaks up to on any cause, but particularly on racial or gender inequality. While the derogatory part seems superficially to refer to tactics rather than strategic positions, nevertheless many critics who use the phrase conflate (either purposely or not) some specific, poorly-chosen tactic (perhaps from long ago) of the few with the strategic goals of an entire movement.

Anyway, my argument in this post, which is why I expect it to annoy everyone equally, is not about some specific issue in any cause, but on a meta-issue. The meta-issue is the term “SJW” itself. The first time I heard the phrase (which, given my age, feels recent, even though it was probably four years ago), I actually thought it was something good; I first thought that SJW was a compliment. In fact, I've more-or-less spent my entire adult life wanting to be a social justice warrior, although I typically called it being a “social justice activist”.

First of all, I believe deeply in social justice causes. I care about equality, fairness, and justice for everyone. I believe software freedom is a social justice cause, and I personally have proudly called software freedom a social justice cause for more than a decade.

Second, I also believe in the zealous pursuit of causes that matter. I've believed fully and completely in non-violence since the mid-1980s, but I nevertheless believe there is a constant war of words in the politics surrounding any cause or issue, including software freedom. I am, therefore — for lack of a better word — a warrior, in those politics.

So, when I look at the three words on their face: Social. Justice. Warrior. Well, denotively, it describes my lifelong work exactly.

Connotatively, a warped and twisted manipulation of words has occurred. Those, who want to discredit the validity of various social justice causes, have bestowed a negative connotation on the phrase to create a social environment that makes anyone who wants to speak out about a cause automatically wrong and easily branded.

I've suggested to various colleagues privately over the last two years that we should coopt the phrase back to mean something good. Most have said that's a waste of time and beside the point. I still wonder whether they're right.

By communicating an idea that these social justice people are fighting against me and oppressing me, the messenger accusing a so-called SJW has a politically powerful, well-coopted message, carefully constructed for concision and confirmation bias. While I don't believe all that cooptive and manipulative power is wielded solely in the one three-word phrase, I do believe that the rhetorical trick that allows “SJW” to have a negative connotation is the same rhetorical power that has for centuries allowed the incumbent power structures to keep their control of those many social institutions that are governed chiefly by rhetoric.

And this is precisely why I just had to finally post something about this. I won a cultural power jackpot, merely by being born a middle-class Caucasian boy in the USA. Having faced some adversity in my life despite that luck, and then seeing how easy I had it compared to the adversity that others have faced, I become furious at how the existing power structures can brand people with — let's call it what is — a sophisticated form of name-calling that coopts a phrase like “social justice”, which until that time had a history of describing some of the greatest, most selfless, and most important acts of human history.

Yes, I know there are bigger issues at stake than just the words people use. But words matter. No matter how many people use the phrase negatively, I continue to strive to be a social justice warrior. I believe that's a good thing, in the tradition of all those who have fought for a cause they believed was right, even when it wasn't popular.


          They Demolished the Liberal Arts, Social Sciences, Compromised Natural Sciences – now SJWs Come for the Engineers        
Dr. Donna M. Riley, SJW extraordinaire, has been appointed Dean of the Department of Engineering Education -whatever that is, they didn’t have those in the benighted, practically prehistoric days of the 1990s when I was in school – at the University of Purdue. She aims to introduce a deep exposure to leftist political ideology into […]
          The house is on fire!        
The hijack of the Democratic Party youth by the BLM and SJW crowd is only a symptom of a much bigger disease.  The middle ground is shrinking daily.  You can easily follow the line to see where this goes.  History gives us indications to the lengths a society in decline can go in order to give birth to a monster.

As seen on Billy Beck's FB page, this article delves into the bloody rise of Stalinist Russia and the moral relativism that is inherent in totalitarianism.  As we all know, the scope of the mass murder was breathtaking, but to the actual instruments of State sponsored executions, it was a short life of paranoia and transactional brutality.  Just like with any other genocide, you must first set up the conditions that the murders are not only just, but completely necessary and unavoidable.  Convince someone that, and then you can get them to do whatever you want.  

This is why when someone says to you that you need to make "common sense" concessions with disarmament, you need to look them in the eye and tell them to go hang.  They are not giving up their thirst for your freedoms, why should you?

On the hidden horrors of Soviet life.


by Gary Saul Morson

Delivering a toast on the twentieth anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power, Stalin declared: “We will destroy each and every enemy, even if he was an old Bolshevik; we will destroy all his kin, his family. We will mercilessly destroy anyone who, by his deeds or his thoughts—yes, his thoughts!—threatens the unity of the socialist state. To the complete destruction of all enemies, themselves and their kin!” Even when the tsars imprisoned or executed revolutionaries, they never thought of arresting their spouses, children, grandparents, and cousins as well. And note Stalin’s insistence that not just wrong actions but improper thoughts merit “destruction.” Georgy Arbatov, adviser to five general secretaries of the Soviet Communist Party, observed that “the main code of behavior” was “to be afraid of your own thoughts.”
............ 
Apologists also suggest that there really were a lot of enemies of socialism. But people were arrested not just for conspiring against (or thinking negatively about) the regime. Quotas were issued for each region—Baberowski concludes that more than a million people were killed by quota—and local officials often filled them either arbitrarily or with the homeless, the blind, and amputees. In March 1938 the nkvd (the secret police) executed 1,160 people in Moscow with physical disabilities. Kliment Voroshilov, who occupied many top positions, argued for arresting abandoned children. “Why don’t we have these rascals shot?” he asked. “Should we wait for them to become grown-up criminals?” What’s more, two dozen whole ethnic groups were forcibly deported to Central Asia. After Stalin ordered the arrest of all Poles, the Polish section of the Comintern and the Polish Communist party had to be disbanded since they had no members.
................
If so, then to understand Communist atrocities we need to look at its ideology.
To begin with, Soviet Marxism rejected the very concept of human rights. Leninist ideology instructed one to think of classes, not humanity. What race was to Nazis, class was to Bolsheviks, and class origin, like race, was not something one chose. People born into bourgeois, noble, or kulak families had no more right to life than Jews or Gypsies did to Nazis.
As it has been observed here and elsewhere, we are all kulaks now.

          (289) Lick the clay + links        
  • This right here is Hugh sending fans the kiss on stage during Logan premiere at Tokyo on Wednesday. The thing is that this is right after he left hand imprints in...clay.
  • (James Mangold's reaction is priceless)
  • Yes, boo kangaroo was in Japan this week where he was promoting Logan. There are so many photos and videos I could fill this entire post with them but we have lots to discuss this week - e.g, m.brown drowning in the sea of dongs being led astray to (apparently there is only one) Dong town by Alexandra Daddario during Baywatch - so I'll just feature some of it.
  • Boo boo not dongs, I mean.
  • This is like a video from Cloverfield but those noises there sound exactly like I do whenever I watch Logan.
  • Here he is throwing a shirt, unfortunately not his own.
  • And here are the pictures:
  • Do NOT ask me about my thoughts on this picture with a stick that totally looks like a tiny whip. 
  • Do not do that.
  • Cause I have lots of them. And none of those should be shared.
  • Here he is waving that stick. Mother of God, he is waving that stick.
  • Anyone else just sigh very, very loudly while staring at those pictures?
  • He is so...big -->
  • He's actually 6' 2½" but he just appears taller. Like me next to him I'd be at his elbow level. Well, actually I'd be either on my knees, or unconscious on the floor or being held down like Sean Penn in Mystic River by SWAT or something.
  • Also - he has huge hands.
  • ...
  • ....
  • .....
  • ......
  • I know I was supposed to write about something else here but I've forgotten now.
  • I need to...let's just ,you know...move on. 
  • And stop drooling.
  • But it's HARD because here he is during press conference the following day.
  • What the fuck, tumblr? What the fuck?!
  • Honest trailer for Logan featuring the second biggest Hugh Jackman fangirl in the world - Ryan Reynolds. And excuse me but that urge to nap made for some of the sexiest sounds in the cinematic history. 
  • Here's sir Patrick Stewart living my dream on the set of Logan.
  • TAKE ME THERE!
  • And here's Dafne Keen being adorable behind the scenes. I actually watched the entire BluRay "Making of" last night and it was excellent - nearly 80 minutes and they talked in depth about the characters, locations, story etc. And there is so much behind the scenes footage of Hugh and Dafne having fun. I was dying when they were showing Mangold explaining things to them and Hugh was holding Dafne's hand before they were shooting scenes. I just...oh God.
  • Not only was it a hugely informative documentary but it was also so moving - they ended it with Hugh on his last day - that bit was actually released around the premiere and I shared it here - when he was all teary eyed and thanking everyone. That went on a bit longer and they showed Hugh hugging cast and crew members and it was inter cut with cast and crew talking about how much he gave people in this role. It was really lovely and there was a clip of Laura turning the cross inserted in there.
  • What I'm getting at is that I wept like a little bitch.
  • (yes, I made the above gif)
  • Just fuck me up.
  • Oh wait, you've already done that.
  • I gifed my favorite bit from deleted scenes:
  • I wish someone told him that. Because I'm like...at the end of the line here. And I need to see it two more times, soon. Noir version and regular one with director's commentary. I have never ever seen a movie with commentary before but I legitimately want to here - the film is fantastic and also the way it was done is so interesting and it's so clear people who made it really had great vision for it and knew how to translate it on screen.
  • In other news....
  • Hollywood is doing some sort of series of monster flicks with Cruise, Crowe, Depp and Bardem as Frankenstein monster. Something tells me this will not go well.
  • And here's Penelope Cruz as Donatella Versace in American Crime Story.
  • I'm guessing Javier, who is also in new Pirates of the Carribean movie, and her got a new house or something and they need to make the cash money rain.
  • Zack Snyder is no longer directing Justice League. His daughter committed suicide in March and he has stepped down to spend more time with his family. 
  • There are ridiculous articles written all over the web how ashamed people are that they were 'mean' to Snyder and how ashamed people should be. Chain of events - Zack Snyder makes movies, Zack Snyder 's movies get bad reviews, DCEU makes colossal, awful mistakes and becomes a joke.,Snyder is involved in most of their films so he is the face of that joke. In a totally unrelated chain of events his daughter commits suicide. I literally saw some people suggest she did that because her father made a shitty movie and people made fun of him. That is in itself appalling thing to write but that's the today's youth for ya,.The DCEU fanatics will now, till the end of days, say that if you dislike any Zack Snyder movie you have no empathy. Snyder seems like a wonderful, friendly guy who really loves his wife and children and it's horrible that his child passed away especially under such circumstances. But that is completely unrelated to his skills as a director and the quality of his movies. That regular audience cannot set these things apart  is one thing but the professional writers putting out content like that out there is truly pathetic. This is why I don't read what paid critics write. They care about being popular and not pissing off sensitive SJW crowd more than about writing good or at least comprehensible stuff.
  • We have critics shitting all over POTC now and don't tell me they would do so with such glee if Depp, who it is popular to hate these days, wasn't there. 
  • Fortunately Wonder Woman is getting some strong buzz. Apparently it's actually good. I decided I'm gonna drag my tired ass to cinema next Friday after all. You know feminism and girl power and all of that. 
  • And here's Lynda Carter and Gal Gadot at the world premiere yesterday. It does get me a bit misty eyed --->
  • Some theaters are hosting women only screenings and some 'men' cannot deal with that. I don't even know what to say here. It's just...so pathetic.  
  • I haven't had the time to watch Conan's show in ages and it pains me because I love this guy but Gal was there promoting the movie and trained with Conan which was so funny.
  • Baywatch is getting trashed left and right. And yet it has something that the more frequent depiction of which on the screen would level the field between the actors and actresses which also happens to be the only thing that we really should be dealing with in Rambling Friday.
  • I'm of course talking about dicks.
  • That's right. A few entries ago I reported - not the word I should have the right to use - I spread juicy gossip - that's better - that Alexandra Daddario said there are so many dicks in Baywatch. Naturally I immediately informed m.brown - who is currently on probation period because of some heinous things he has done lately - because it's his most anticipated movie. 
  • And what do you know, she didn't lie. Technically.
  • As far as I understand that dick is attached to the corpse, but hey, this is still progress in Hollywood.
  • This nonsense is happening. One can't act, the other cannot do anything successful since her undeserved Oscar win and they are gonna be directed by overrated director. And the subject of the movie..them white men are the worst, right? Let's make a movie about it! It's based on a tweet, people. I hate the world we live in and this ridiculousness right here is the least of the reason why this week, but at least it's trivial enough to feature in this column.
  • In the most obvious news ever Prince George completely stole Pippa Middleton's thunder during her wedding.
  • Ridiculous poster for that new Iron Man Spider-Man movie.
  • It's gonna be 8th time Robert Downey Jr. reprises his role as Tony Stark. But let's face it - he really isn't doing much acting there. I adore Downey and I'm fine with him phoning it in for years now and getting all that money - consider what he has been through and that he actually managed to sort himself out he deserves it. But let's look at Hugh Jackman who 9 times that he played Wolverine was so different than he is in real life - a giant, adorable Australian goofball you just want feed strawberries to and coo over.
  • I don't actually have a bigger point here, I just wanted to write that sentence.
  • This edited video of Trump and the Pope is hysterical. Marcon trolling him was so funny too. What the hell is up with Trump pulling people's hands like that?!
  • We may not be famous. We may not be rich. But at least we don't have problems like this. How does she even take a shit?!
  • Game of Thrones season 7 trailer. I actually haven't found the time or interest to watch it yet.
  • First look at Billie Lourd in American Horror Story 
  • Tom Hardy is raising money to help the victims of the horrific Manchester attack.
  • So I saw Alien: Covenant yesterday. The less is said about this one is better but me being me I already wrote quite a lengthy rant about this, it will have to wait though as I have blogathons to publish on Sunday and Wednesday (and I haven't even written almost anything there yet). I cannot remember the last time I was as embarrassed for a filmmaker as I was during the scene where baby xenomorph imitates what David is doing. Stop, Ridley. Stop.
  • The cast of The Beguiled being adorable in Cannes.
  • Years after Fire Walk With Me was booed in Cannes David Lynch received standing ovation there for the new Twin Peaks. There is nothing I want more than to rewatch the old seasons and start the new but until my vacation in June there is no way I'll find the time.
  • Work has been equally awful this week. I had to come in at 6 am on Monday. But something shocking happened. For the first time ever I heard I did a good job from one of my bosses. I've been working there for 3 years and I never ever heard that from that person before. I spend the next two remaining hours of the work day staring at the door to my office waiting for boo kangaroo to show up and bang me on my desk because this was as likely to happen as me getting praise there.
  • Spoiler alert. 
  • He did not show up.
  • Here are some of my tweets from this week. Yet again I didn't live tweet any movies but I am livetweeting my awesome glamorous life filled with 1. work 2. making gifs 3. writing ridiculous stuff on this website and 4. my dog who may or may not try to kill me. 
  • I mean that's just riveting stuff right there.
  • Allie is pregnant crushing (at least that is an excuse for hormones, I have none) on Dan Stevens and reviews terrific The Guest
  • Jordan shares next chapter of his book
  • MettelRay reviews The Fate of the Furious
  • Brittani got around to see Sleepers for Blindspot series
  • Jay discusses Cinema vs Netflix
  • Dell lists 25 best films of 2015
  • Alex breaks down Alien franchise
  • and finally m.brown reviews Baywatch. The next movie he is watching is the wonderful Eddie the Eagle. There are few things in life that bring me more joy than the awesome blogosphere friends of mine watching movies I love that I know they will love too and have a great time with them.

  • RELATED POSTS:

              (287) Oh, she *can* talk! + links        
  • Hugh and Dafne won Best Duo during MTV TV and Movie Awards and it was the most adorable thing ever...well, the most adorable thing since Hugh fed that baby kangaroo and put the video of it on his instagram.
  • Sir, can you stop being adorable for 5 seconds so I can catch my breath?
  • The lady in the red dress who is filming is her mom.
  • Dafne also killed it on the red carpet. 
  • And here are only some of my tweets about this:
  • And here are my livetweets from when I finally saw the entire ceremony last night:
  • That ceremony was so inappropriate for the kids and there were so many kids there. Alexandra Daddario talked of tits and areolas, there was a dumb and crude Stranger Things skit about group sex and Amy Schumer was there. The last one will give those kids nightmares.
  • If my ovaries were relatively still not exploded and all over the walls upon seeing him hug Dafne when they won, they were pretty much gone when I checked out the pictures from the ceremony:
  • I mean Hugh was coming off like a dad adorably babysitting a whole bunch of children there.
  • And now about the horrible part of the evening:
  • (and a rant)
  • I told you guys it was going to happen.I knew that SJW mentality will prevail over reason, taste, comprehension and basic human decency. The one time Hugh had a shot to win, instead of the usual Best Actor/Actress thing they had to do gender equality and merge the categories and of course Watson won. I mean the chick who presented her with this, whoever the hell she was, said "the only distinction we should be making when it comes to awards is between each outstanding performance,". Find me one person in this world who thinks she deserved it over Hugh. And if you do find that person, put them in a racket and shoot them into space.
  • She wasn't even the best actress in her category which also had Taraji P. Henson and Hailee Steinfeld. This is a motherfucking circus y'all.
  • This is giving an award to a woman that doesn't deserve this award just because she is a woman. This is giving someone special treatment because 'oh they need our help with their cause'.  This is Ghostbusters remake and Rogue One marketing all over again. This is shoving down the 'women are better than men not equal, better' agenda down everyone's throats. This is accomplishing the exact opposite of what the morons doing that intended. 
  • Do I think people voted for her? Sure. Do I assume it was still rigged so she would win? Absolutely. Especially considering the delicate special flower was informed beforehand that she won so that she could prepare her speech, This all just shouts special treatment.
  • 17 years they had the opportunity to give Hugh  recognition and they gave it over to this chick. For a cash grab movie that shat all over the childhood classic. Which has gay moment that is not really a gay moment and involves comic relief character that reinforces gay stereotypes and it also manages to be a calculated PR maneuver that worked even though it's offensive because the youth today is stupid as fuck and doesn't even realize when they are being played. 
  • Amazingly this is not even the most disgraceful thing about what happened. Watson thanked all the co-nominees....except for Hugh. How....I ask, I genuinely ask HOW do you sit next to that man and he just slips your mind?
  • I don't understand how anyone can be in his proximity and not jump on his face so the fact she forgot to mention him is just incomprehensible. 
  • Oh fuck you, Hermione. 
  • Last week I bitched about how lucky the Americans are about blu-rays which they can just go to store and buy while the rest of us either has to wait for them to be released or have those shipped from abroad and this week it turns out that boo kangaroo will attend the screening of Logan Noir. Why aren't European fans getting this treatment? We love Wolverine here in Poland! Logan screening was one of the most packed ones I've ever been to. Everyone cried, everyone laughed. There were several other girls moaning other than me. We should be getting the same treatment American fans are getting.
  • A reminder that Logan is released on Blu-ray this Tuesday. Visual Parallels between Logan and Fury Road post will be up on Wednesday. Spoiler alert - it's freaking brilliant.
  • Official twitter for Logan uploaded this photo above along with the reminder for Blu-ray release.
  • There is drool everywhere on my desk after seeing it.
  • Hugh thinks he will look like he does in Logan in about 15 years. Please God let me live till I'm 43 so I can witness this.
  • EVERY single muscle, sir?
  • I actually didn't watch any movies this week cause I was watching Veep from the beginning. How amazing is that episode where Selina is crying and Furlong keeps flipping between her endorsing him and not endorsing? That actor is incredible, he also played the albino cop in The Heat.
  • Also I'm so tired and busy this month so that's why I haven't seen any movies.  
  • I dropped American Gods. I just don't have the time. I will start employing the old 'my comment section is my blogroll' rule and stop leaving comments on sites of people who never comment back. I get that people are busy but hey, I am too.
  • Yep, I didn't livetweet any Hugh movies this week because I haven't seen any. 
  • It's like I lived without oxygen.
  • At some point this week this showed up on my tumblr dash:
  • So now I need to see Oklahoma.
  • Also what the hell is this chick doing in the gif on the left?  She went too low for what is the only course of action there. Or maybe in this moment when she was right in front of it she just collapsed?
  • ...
  • .....
  • .......
  • I'll stop now.
  • Here are my reactions when I was reading Alien: Covenant reviews this weekend:
  • I was actually going to see Alien: Covenant today but Gustav has a cold. So I figured coming home after work to cheer up my dog is far better use of my time than seeing sir Ridley rape the memory of original Alien in the ditch covered with fanart of Michael Fassbender making out with himself. This sort of thing really can wait.
  • Pretty sure Gustav would have preferred if I went to the cinema. 
  • Anyways if you guys see it this week here's special bingo for you:
  • Hammaconda sighting this week. You're welcome.
  • Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie which always looked like a trainwreck and since the release of the trailer also looked like a joke is sitting on 23% on RT. WB was planning 6 of those dumbass movies. That's WB for ya. I mean seriously who the hell gives a go ahead to 6-film franchise about King Arthur with 175 million dollar budget starring Charlie Hunnam?
  • New posters for The Beguiled and Baby Driver:
  • The Rock says he may run for president. Seriously, America?! You may get awesome blu-rays and screenings but your youth is awarding vapid twits Best Actor awards and apparently the qualifications for being the president of you country are what, exactly? You have a fool now and here you have a guy who "loves the world". What, if they're famous, they're POTUS?
  • They are finally making the sequel to The Strangers and it sounds like low budget trainwreck but Christina Hendricks is in it so I'm in.
  • Reese Witherspoon gave an interview and that is never a good thing. She said the following -When women write about this show, it’s really extraordinary how they relate to the truth. This is how women really speak to each other. (...). So yeah, sometimes I wonder if [these critics] have really watched it? I don’t really read the reviews; that’s not for me, it’s for other people—but look, I only heard about one bad review from a guy. And I’m pretty sure he was an old angry white dude.
  • I am a woman and I wasn't crazy about the show either. What truth am I failing to see there, exactly? I had issues with plot holes and Vallee's overusing his music-video style film making which, since I saw this in one sitting was insufferable. And offending a guy who didn't like her show...so classy.
  • Also, yes that show was so real. And so relatable. Except not really. Witherspoon plays a cartoon character. Shouting 'c*nt' after people? Cheating on your husband with a puppet show director? Not sending your spoiled, stupid daughter to military school when she offers to whore herself online? Reese, you do not have the jurisdiction over the ground that you speak on.
  • The Hollywood Reporter has an article on Johnny 9 Digits and it's crazier than you think. 
  • I read that whole THR thing yesterday and that article is really fascinating. The legal precedence there that could happen if Johnny wins the case would have such an effect on Hollywood and so much money would be at stake that if the judge in this case gets whacked I won't be shocked. Also THR timing of publishing this is shady as hell - just as the next Pirates movie is getting released. Depp's situation is really saddening. It's very clear that he is a nice dude with massive addiction issues. If he were an asshole he would be an asshole to everyone but for years we heard what a nice dude he is to fans and here it says he was super pleasant to people on the set. That he was always late on the set is really awful but if he were an ass he would treat everyone like dirt. During this time his gold digging wife was driving him insane and his mother was dying. No wonder an alcoholic fell off the wagon. He is such a mess and he is surrounded by yes men and people who use him. And then we have Jessica Chastain rolling her eyes when she is told Depp allegedly has lines fed to him via an earpiece. And everyone is laughing and praising Chastain for being 'funny' and such a pro because she is always prepared. A "professional" who kicks a fellow actor when they are down and exploiting an easy target. Yes, she is a real treasure.
  • First photos from that movie with her and Jon Snow that Xavier Dolan is making. Susan Sarandon is in it too. I just cannot imagine all the obnoxious, holier-than-thou political comments that will be said during this press tour between her and Chastain.
  • Melissa McCarthy is hosting SNL tomorrow and she is preparing some great stuff. Here's a look back at her best skits from the past. I love that Million Dollar Wheel one, she is so adorable there.
  • They are making new Hellboy. To be more precise - a reboot. David Harbour was great in Stranger Things unfortunately his obnoxious SAG speech makes it difficult for me to actually look at him. But he is gonna be under make up so maybe it will be OK. 
  • Dafne Keen landed her next role.
  • Anya-Taylor Joy and Maisie Williams joined X-Men spin off movie. 
  • Blade Runner 2049 trailer finally dropped and I just hope people will stop laughing at J-boo after the movie is released. He looks pretty cool in the trailer and Gosling is actually emoting. But that thing looks really sparse when it comes to the story. If it's Arrival 2.0 I'm gonna kill myself. If at any point of this Gosling wanders into a CGI cloud and something talks in gibberish and English subtitles appear I'm out.
  • AssholesWatchingMovies reviews Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
  • Britanni reviews Toni Erdmann
  • Alex lists 10 Persona-lite films
  • Vinnieh reviews the original Beguiled
  • MettelRay includes Fury Road in her 3 picks for movie set on desert
  • Ruth reviews Colossal
  • Cameron reviews The Fate of the Furious
  • and finally and most importantly my favorite movie blog in our blogosphere Two Dollar Cinema is celebrating 6th blog birthday. He included Logan on #2 of his favorite movies from last year list (it's horrific it's not #1) yet I love him so much I forgive him and still consider him my absolute favorite. If somehow you still don't know this amazing guy and his website, for the love of God stop the madness and start reading it religiously.

  • RELATED POSTS:

              Comment on Google SJWs Have Wrongthink Blacklists by APL        
    Wow, not only do they want to fire and torment people who fail the SJW tests, but also people who: "...even in some cases [are] merely irritating".
              Comment on We Knew This Was Coming by orcadrvr        
    I cannot vouch for the google engineer's political beliefs, but I do know this: It took a lot of courage to poke the hornet's nest that is today's SJW culture in silicon valley. He is in no way a "beta" male.
              Comment on We Knew This Was Coming by Dan Kurt        
    I read the MEMO; in it the sucker believes himself the diversity BS he supposedly trashed. I found his "questionings" rather tame, not scandalous. He came across as a SJW himself, a Beta for sure. What we have learned about Google is that it as a company works under the premise of EQUALITY and rejects biodiversity. Specifically: all employees are interchangeable and must be sorted as if Male is Female, straight is gay, young is old, IQ is key but IQ doesn't exist, and skin color is unimportant but more of the darker shades must be hired. Google is doomed but given its war chest it may be a long time dying. Dan Kurt
              Lefty SJW Wonders why Her Special Snowflake Is an Obnoxious Jerk        
    (Hat Tip: Protein Wisdom) Ronnie Cohen is a freelance journalist from San Francisco who writes on social justice and environmental issues. (Oh, boy.)  She has a teenage son, whom she has raised in the all the left-wing dogma of environmentalism and social justice. Now, she can’t figure out how he turned out to be an […]
              Caged- A Dream Crate        
    Have you thought what you might put in a Loot Crate if you could design your own? You know, a Dream Crate? I started thinking about it (obsessing about it, really) and came up with a million ideas! I narrowed it down to about four different crates that I might actually share with people, and then ultimately chose this one because I think its relevant, and it has some of my favorite fandoms in it. I hope you guys like it as much as I do.

    My theme is Caged, and I know immediately Luke Cage is what comes to mind. As well it should, because he was the inspiration for the crate. The show gave me a lot of feels, but that's a post for another time. But Caged can translate to a lot of other things. Some literally, like Orange is the New Black (I mean, they're in prison), and some not so much, like The Walking Dead (even though they did live in a prison, but I'm thinking more that they're trapped in this new world with no real way out).

    Dream Crate

    Dream Crate by krystellemt 

    1) Luke Cage Bullet Hoodie by EscobarsClosest on Etsy. Perfect for the easiest cosplay ever or for your SJW needs, this hoodie is amazing! I watched the series and the hoodie gave me all the feels (again, a post for another time), and I wondered how long it would take for people to start selling them. Not long, is the answer to that.

    2) Cuff Me Walking Dead Bangle by Love and Madness. I'm a sucker for handcuff jewelry, but this one is extra special because its for all of us Walking Dead fans. Rick has come a long way from that Sheriff that woke up in that hospital, don't you think?!

    3) Orange is the New Black by Piper Kerman. So I haven't read this (but its on my list!), but the show is pretty good. And by pretty good I mean binge-worthy. I love comparing books to the shows/movies they inspire, and I can't be the only one.

    4) The Scorch Trials Soundtrack. In the Maze Runner, the kids were trapped in a maze. In the Scorch Trials, they were trapped in the desert. It goes with the caged theme because these kids are always fighting to break free from their captors. Also, this score is amazing. We all need it in our lives. (PS, the books are pretty awesome too, go read them.)

    5) Netflix gift card. So we can binge on Luke Cage, Orange is the New Black, and plenty of other shows that fit this theme (and uh....lots of shows that don't). With the holidays coming  up, you're going to want to unwind. Just don't cozy up to Grams and Gramps to watch OITNB- totally not appropriate.

    6) Morty and Summer as Harley and Joker by Mike Goes Geek. So I own a lot of Mike's work. Most of it is his Adventure Time mashups though. He is an amazing artist and I really love this one. Rick and Morty is one of my favorite shows, and the Suicide Squad movie took me by surprise at how much I liked it. Of course, Harley and Joker were my favorites in the movie, and I think they both know a little something about being caged in. Make this a shirt, keep it a print, I don't care- I love it and want to own it!!
    ==

    So there it is- my Dream Crate. While this one isn't for purchase, there are plenty of awesome crates available at lootcrate.com/crates. They have the OG Crate, plus some fandom specific ones, even apparel specific ones (so bummed I missed last month's Loot Tee- it had Sylvanas- my bae!). Trust me, your crate options are endless, and they are all fantastic!

    What would be in your Dream Crate? Leave it in the comments below.
              GOTT NYTT 2015 – Hur SJW-taggen #UnsubTB kapades pÃ¥ nolltid av Gamers        
    Vi hann knappt nÃ¥gra timmar in pÃ¥ 2015 innan SJW gjorde bort sig. För att göra en lÃ¥ng historia kort: En cancersjuk youtubeprofil som kallar sig Totalbiscuit – The Cynical Brit ägnar sig Ã¥t att recensera dataspel. Han har rätt hyfsat inflytande pÃ¥ omrÃ¥det eftersom han har 1,9 miljoner prenumeranter. Nyligen uttalade han sig lite […]
              Why the Left Will Always and Inevitably Eat Their Own        
    Chris Bechtloff explains the ultimate end goal of leftism as:

    "The last human on Earth, who is a leftist, standing on top of a mountain of skulls as he/she eats a bullet."

    I never understood this as I've never understood the much more "PG" explanation I've been given in the past that "the left always eats its own."

    Do they not circle the wagons?
    Do they not stay together as a team?
    I've seen democrats rally around the most criminal and corrupt of people simply because they're on "team left."
    And I've been angrily jealous when the right spinelessly refuses to protect their own when faced with a potential accusation of an "ism" or an "ist."

    Still, for every example of leftists protecting a Charlie Rangel, I could see a historical example of leftists turning on their own.

    Stalin on Trotsky.
    College SJW students on their leftist professors.
    And democratic candidates against each other during primaries (though that is to be expected).

    But I didn't understand why.  I didn't understand the etymology of this belief.  I did not understand the underlying philosophy.

    Until now.

    I sat down, put pen to paper, coffee to brain, and with some Sherlockian deducing finally figured it out.  And, like other observations of the mental, psychological, and ideological traits of the left, I believe this observation will come in handy for non-leftists to understand them, as well as counter them, not to mention explain various political and historical phenomena we've witnessed in the past.

    First, you must understand what drives the majority of leftists and 100% of leftist politicians - laziness.

    I'm not talking about the hard-working life-long union democrat.  The tradesman or laborer who actually produces something of value and votes democrat "because that's how grand-daddy did it and we're a democrat family damnit!"  I'm talking the Hillary Clinton's, the Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes, the Stalin's, the Mao Zedong's, the SJW's, the Bernie Sanders, the leftist professors, the MSM and their journalism-majoring ilk, nearly all liberal arts majors, and the Game-Of-Thrones-esque North Korean leaders.  All of them, democratically elected or not, politicians or not, are the world's "leftist elite" who deem it their right and position in life to tell others what to do.  To lead, but never toil in the field.  To command, but never contribute one calorie of energy to bringing about their "glorious leftist utopia."  All of them, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY, are driven first and foremost by laziness.  And this laziness trumps EVERYTHING, EVERYONE, AND ANYTHING in their lives.  It rules their lives.  It dominates their psyche.  It determines and influences every decision.  Their entire operating program, their entire point and purpose in life is simply to avoid toil, work, and rigor as much as possible.

    Second, you must understand where this laziness comes from - a 100%, complete and total fear of work.  A 100% complete and total fear of labor.  A 100% cowardice of the necessary toil required for self-supportation.  These people are inferior, weak, but above all else, cowardly people who will do anything to avoid the everyday pain you, me, and others endure to put food on the table and a roof over our heads.

    Hillary Clinton went straight from her rich father to her first-governor-then-president husband because she was a worthless coward.  Her laziness and fear of work was so complete she ignored Bill's infidelity as it would keep her from having to divorce him and get a real job.

    Nancy Pelosi and Mark Dayton are both trust-fund baby brats who viewed real work beneath them and have yet to work ONE MINUTE of honest work in their now-approaching 70 years of life on this planet.

    President Obama, also hailing from a rich grandmother, never held a real job until becoming president.

    And nearly every communist hero, be it Lenin, Marx, Mao, or what have you, hailed from privileged backgrounds, ne'er dipping a toe into an honest day's work.

    And you don't have to be a politician or leader to see how pervasive this pathetic cowardly fear of work is among the left.  The millions of young men and women who declare liberal arts majors every year are simply confessing their laziness, sloth, and cowardice to the world, unconsciously admitting they have no desire to work hard, provide society something of value, and demand the rest of the producers work harder to support their parasitic selves.  Like I said before, bar the hard working (and completely misled) union democrat, nearly every leftist is cripplingly afraid of real work.

    Finally, ego.

    A mere welfare parasite who doesn't want to work, I can understand.  He or she may be apoliticial, doesn't even care about politics, may not even be aware of their parasitic and unsustainable economic nature.  The most they participate in politics is being the sheep herded out in droves to vote democrat because "republicans be racist/sexist/hate the poor/hate children/punch kittens."  But the "professional left" cannot suffer such an inglorious life.  For in a VERY CLOSE second place to "laziness" is ego.  And their ego will not be satisfied with a mere government check.

    To fool themselves into thinking they're "good, productive citizens," let alone have ANY value in life, the left subscribes to any number of political crusades as long as it doesn't require work, toil, labor or effort.  Crusades that kind of have a "no duh" aspect to them:

    We're for the environment!
    We're for the equal treatment of women!
    We're for the poor!
    We're for the children!
    We're for education!

    However, merely taking popular, uncourageous, and effortless political positions is not enough.  Their ego demands more action.  So these otherwise "no duh" political positions become fervent, even radical religions falsely providing leftists meaningless meaning in their lives.

    Feminism
    Environmentalism
    Non-binary genderism
    Wealth redistribution/socialism

    or any other kind of ism that talentless and worthless liberal arts majors are celebrating today.

    These "isms" not only provide the non-working left faux meaning and agency in life, but a cause and crusade to cowardly hide behind in case they are accused or outed as being the lazy parasites they are.  Because if you are against pissing away money on education, "you hate the children." If you're against affirmative action, "you're a racist!"  If you're against feminism, "you're a sexist."  And if you don't believe in global warming, "You hate the environment!"

    In the end, leftists' egos and their fabricated political crusades inoculate them from the demands of the real world, while insulating their minds from the fact they're meaningless, pointless, worthless people.  Some believe their ideologies so much they find themselves fit to lead nations, and in Mao and Stalin's case, murder millions in the process.  Worse, some are so deluded, even when their ideology results in their rape, they'll still stand by it.

    When you combine these three traits:

    Laziness
    Fear/cowardice
    and
    Ego

    you get socialism.

    Not because these three items are the ingredients to form a leftist, but because leftism is the ONLY economic and political philosophy that will abide a person who is ruled and defined by these three inferior traits.  Alas, the only real "job" or "profession" a leftist can have is one of politics.

    This "political career" can manifest itself in various forms in the real world,

    You can have an outright politician.
    You can have a professor, teacher or academian.
    You can have an artist, philosopher, musician, or author.
    You can have a bureaucrat, social worker, or other unessential government employee.
    You can be a mouthpiece for the government as an unpaid leftist blogger, journalist, or other propagandist.
    Or you have have NGO's, non-profits, or other entities that suck on the teat of government money.

    None of them require real work.
    None of them require real labor.
    All of them feed the egotist.  

    The problem, however, is these industries are not self-sustaining.  They are not self-supporting.  They are not economic.  They do not produce anything of value and are therefore entirely parasitic and reliant upon other sectors of the economy to be taxed to finance these make-work industries. And it is this economic fact that is key to understanding why the left will always eat its own.

    As long as the "other" parts of the economy are large and productive enough, there will be enough economic production to tax to fund and finance these fake/make-work industries.  Overpaid baby sitters elementary school teachers will continue to receive their bloated pay.  Professional hacks university professors will continue to receive tax-payer guaranteed student loan money to brainwash their idiot liberal arts majoring students.  Women too lazy to study math, who loved their careers more than their own children social workers will continue to get paid to raise other women's problem children which wouldn't be problem children if somebody stayed at home to raise them in the first place.  And talentless trust fund babies professional activists will continue to get government grants so they can avoid working a real job that is actually needed in the real world.

    But what if the economy slows down?
    Or what if the economy becomes increasingly socialist and the government takes over industries that actually produces things?
    What if leftists become the majority be it an outright majority of the population or via government take over of various industries?

    What will inevitably happen (as in the case with all communist economies) is you will have all the leftists wanting to be leaders, and not enough wanting to be workers.  Too many chiefs and not enough indians.  You not only saw this in the bloated communist bureaucracies (and their ego-inflated titles and awards) and drastically underutilized factories, but you can see this in the democrat party (admittedly as well as the republican party) where all the volunteers think they're going to become an elected politician, but are merely used for their volunteer labor.  And it is here the left will eat its own.

    Remember that socialism and leftism is the only political philosophy where a lazy, egotistical, coward can "work."  Leftism is not DEFINED by these traits.  It only ATTRACTS PEOPLE with these traits and it is therefore defined by the people.  And an entity (be it an entire economy or a mere political party or movement) composed of people with these traits is simply not going to have enough money, resources, or ego-satisfying "leadership positions" to satiate everybody.

    Leftists with their inherent laziness and parasitism simply do not generate the money/resources necessary to satisfy everyone's ego about becoming "Assistant Vice Reserve Diversity Director" or "Vice Secretariat of the Communist Central Commission."  All organizations, leftist or not, need a handful of leaders, and at least thrice the workers.  But since most leftists' egos are insatiable, not to mention their biggest and life-dominating fear is work, when the time comes and if necessary they will GLADLY abandon their ideology and throw their "beloved comrade" under the bus.  Alas, leftism only really serves as an excuse, a mask, an ideological hide out for the world's lazy, cowardly, and egotistical.  And if faced with the choice of supporting the cause (and working) or murdering the ideological brethren (to avoid work), they will gladly plant daggers in the back of every "fellow leftist."

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's a sad mental state to be a professional leftist.  I know they fear work above all else, to the point it ruins their lives, but if they just put in half the effort working real jobs, producing real value that the real world wants, as they do in academia, politics, and media rationalizing the theft of others, they would be immeasurably better off.  If instead of begging for grant money, a professional leftist worked a security guard shift, they'd have thrice the money.  If instead of spending 8 years earning a worthless doctorate so you can teach for $20/hour, you joined the military, you'd be an officer with a pension now.  And if instead of wasting your time protesting with a "pink pussy hat" against the patriarchy, you could be a wife with some children and a chemical engineering career waiting for you once the kids are off to school.

    Alas, the K-college industry and media has done a great job convincing millions of leftists every year to throw their lives away on an ideology that is as parasitic as it is pathetic.  They've successfully sold you leftists that you are entitled to the easy life, long as you vote for them.  And they've successfully got you to waste your entire lives in sacrifice for the politically connected and not the meritocratic.

    I'd say "Enjoy the Decline," but I'm afraid you're too brainwashed to understand.
    __________________________________
    Check out Aaron's other cool sites and stuff!
    Podcast
    Asshole Consulting
    YouTube Channel
    Twitter
    Books by Aaron 
    Amazon Affiliate


              Cognitive Dissonance in the Age of Trump and SJW Reactionaries        
    Cognitive Dissonance in the Age of Trump and SJW Reactionaries

    by Sean Jobst
    20 January 2017




    There is a term that means variously refusing to accept what is true, even when confronted with evidences; coming up with preconceived notions and then twisting arguments to support them; and lying to one self. And this is a fitting word when I try and tune out the noise on both sides as we approach the Trump inauguration. As won't come as a surprise to any of you who've been following my work, I will call out the lies and bullshit on both sides - true to my principles, for I am more concerned with truth and consistency beyond falling for the latest hype or simply obsessing about the bullshit of one side and hence falling into the other side of this dialectic.

    Trump will be no better or no worse than others; he is no worse or no better than other politicians, when it comes to his ideas at least. There is one side that makes him almost into devil incarnate, based on misconceptions about him allegedly being a "racist" or "fascist" - these are false (my saying that is NOT an endorsement or support for him by any means), and he is really no different on those issues than the Democratic Party or President Obama, under whom the racial, social and economic status quo has remained, and under whom the police continued to be militarized with all their Israeli advisors, teaching them similar tactics used against the Palestinians.

    This is a part of the wholesale government-sanctioned corporate takeover of the economy, its expansion of the surveillance state that has the support of both political parties (including "populist" Trump), and the private bankers collecting on their debt from government at our expense. As I've stressed before concerning the Trump charade, his role as a businessman and not a "career politician" is meaningless given the synthesis of Big Business and the State. It's all one big club, as George Carlin once said - and we ain't invited.

    Meanwhile, from the other angle alot of these protests have been engineered by agitator groups through which banksters such as that svengali George Soros has funneled millions - as part of their effort to "create order out of chaos" and to forge what he terms an "open society", with its mix of cultural Marxism and identity politics dividing the masses, while those of his ilk continue to profit at the top like typical kosher corporatist capitalist banksters. They want a populace of docile consumers, who will consume-conform-obey while producing just enough to keep the machine going for them. This is the merger of capitalist economics (opposed to a true free-market) with Marxist social and cultural policies; even the rhetoric about the workers has long been discarded.

    And if for a second any of the Trump cultists are deceived that the elite is somehow uniformly "against" Trump, they clearly don't know how it operates, that the elites have been split with Trump but they are still part of the same elite just differing on methods and some issues. Such Trumpists have been too deceived by his phony "opposition" and populist rhetoric - rhetoric he has already repudiated and laughed off (ridiculing the "drain the swamp" as "hokey" talk meant to get people's support; backing off immediately from the "Lock her up!" rhetoric he promoted at his rallies, since he was always a buddy of the Clintons, whom he praised as "terrific people", etc.) - to recognize despite all his populist rhetoric, Trump has always had and continues to have links with even Goldman Sachs and Soros:

    For example, his campaign finance chairman and Treasury Secretary nominee, Steven Mnuchin, worked for Goldman Sachs and was chief executive of SFM Capital Management, financed by Soros; or Trump's own investments with Goldman Sachs, how he has nominated Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn as National Economic Council director, and that his Senior Counselor Stephen Bannon got his profits as a Goldman Sachs investment banker - these are the people Trump has chosen to oversee the U.S. economy, so those who still obsess about the Goldman Sachs links of the liberal Democrats but turn a blind eye to those of their beloved orange knight in shining armor, are foolish, useful idiots who are clearly cognitively dissonanced because they are clearly not consistent when it comes to their own favored side.

    <http://sjobst.blogspot.com/2016/10/make-oligarchy-great-again-donald.html>
    <www.national-anarchist.net/2016/10/make-oligarchy-great-again-donald.html>

    At the same time, however, where were all these protestors these last eight years? Why were they not protesting Obama's wars, his drone bombings and interventions which have killed hundreds of thousands of people and devastated entire countries? Why were they not protesting Hillary Clinton's war-mongering policies as Secretary of State? Frankly, if war is not on their radar of moral outrage, then I seriously question their moral compass; if they are more offended by words and rhetoric than the actual death of other human beings. (Before the Trump cultists get carried away though, I remind them that their hero likewise championed the Neocons' war in Iraq and the intervention in Libya, so they have no moral high ground either.)

    <http://sjobst.blogspot.com/2016/11/where-were-clinton-rioters-when.html>
    <http://nonalignedmedia.com/2016/11/anti-trump-sjw-protestors-silent-clinton-crimescorruption/>

    Despite his rhetoric to the contrary (even ole "Dubya" Bush had promised "no nation building" in his 2000 campaign), and given his own record of supporting the elites' wars (Iraq and Libya), expect no real change when it comes to foreign policy under President Trump. On the contrary, on the central issue of Israel he will continue the subservient position of the United States to Netanyahu and the Israel Lobby (AIPAC) - manifested for example in the despicable bipartisan $38 billion aid gift to Israel despite all the poverty and issues here in the United States that need handling.

    Actually, he will be even worse than President Obama on that issue because, for all Obama's murderous policies at least he asserted some slight semblance of American sovereignty when it came to Netanyahu - making the deal with Iran (which is truly in U.S. interests, with only the pro-Israel crowd in an uproar because they want to use a country's relationship with Israel as the measuring stick of how the U.S. will act toward that country), and abstaining in the recent U.N. vote about Israeli settlements on the West Bank (a far cry from the standard veto for Israel, putting the U.S. at odds with the rest of the world in the process). In any case, those who think Trump will truly "Make America Great Again," need only look at the big Goldman Sachs bankers he has placed over the economy and how his foreign policy will be guided more by Jason Greenblatt, Jared Kushner and David Friedman than anything truly in the interests of these United States.

              Comment on Australian startup leaders speak out against Google employee’s anti-diversity memo by Rohan Baker        
    Google wants diversity of everything except diversity of thought. Someone challenges that notion and BAM, see you later Jack. Instead they could have simply pointed out the fallacy of his argument, but nope, they went all SJW instead. Google therefore looses the argument by default. Free speech? Pfft, that's for loosers. Off to re-education camp for you sunshine. Well, its a sad day when the Simpsons is no longer satire but factual real life: https://youtu.be/64PKoAiWhjE
              Comment on SJW Teachers get trolled by students who decorate entire classroom with Trump pictures by generossisback        
    THAT WAS FUCKING EPIC!!!! BRAVO TO THOSE SMART KIDS!!!
              Putting A Fork In It        



    Aside from the fact that I've been a regular reader over at Vox Popoli for well over a decade, I enlisted amongst the rank and file of the Vile Faceless Minions because I believe our Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil deserves all the credit and support he can get for taking his efforts to oppose the continuing convergence of our culture and society not just online as a keyboard warrior in the mindwars of cyberspace, but also in teh real life. He is leading the way showing those of us who are awake, that we don't have to take the continued SJW convergence of our institutions, social media and other mediums of thoughts and expressions lying down...that we CAN actually do something to fight back.

    SJW's converged Science Fiction? Our Dark Lord went and co-founded his own damn publishing house and is now producing literary works with themes and narratives that have been largely suppressed by the traditional publishing houses seeking to control the narrative.

    Alt-Right folks getting shadow-banned or outright banned on Twitter? He's one of the leading users and supporter for Gab, a new social media platform alternative, which unlike Twitter, is dedicated to upholding real free speech for it's participants.

    While leading thousands on an exodus from an SJW converged mainstream social media platform and founding a successful publishing house of best-selling, politically incorrect literature are both major accomplishments by our Dark Lord in the 21st Century culture wars in our Brave New World Order, it his latest act of counter-insurgency that I hope grows into his most successful venture to date.

    It is the badly needed and long overdue answer to the SJWs attempted control of the narrative by manufacturing consensus with heavy handed and persistent  censorship and suppression of politically incorrect topics on Wikipedia.

    By forking the preeminent online encyclopedia of the world-wide Interwebz to establish Infogalactic: Planetary Knowledge Core, our Dark Lord has made what I think will ultimately prove to be his most significant contribution in leading the counter-insurgency against the SJWs global convergence efforts towards  totalitarian thought policing and mass mind control.

    http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif

    One of the first posts Vox made after the launch of Infogalactic, was to compare the Wikimedia page for Mike Cernovich versus the Infogalactic page for him. While the differences between the two pages are quite instructive and show precisely why Infogalactic was a badly needed alternative in the first place, the first thing I searched for when I checked out our Dark Lord's latest project, was to see if Infogalactic had a page for Thomas Ball.

    To those of you who have frequented these fringes of the fever swamps on teh Interwebz for years now, that name may ring a bell. He was the man who self-immolated on the steps of a New Hampshire family court, in protest of the systemic injustice that had subjected him to divorce rape and parental alienation from his young children.

    "Face it boys, we are no longer fathers...we are piggy banks."

    I had stopped linking to Wikipedia over five years ago and avoided using it as much as possible myself during that time, after watching them memory hole Thomas Ball's page back in 2011. Looking for his page as my first search on Infogalactic gave me a surprise...it appears that the thought police at Wikipedia had  allowed a recent re-posting of a Thomas Ball page to remain published, since two "acceptable sources"  were cited by the recently re-created page.

    The "acceptable sources" excuse is one of the primary means for Wikipedia's SJW editors at-large to rationalize and justify deleting any pages they deemed unacceptable to the politically correct narrative they seek to enforce. This is also one of the primary ways in which Infogalactic differentiates itself from Wikipedia. As Infogalactic's main page notes:

    "The foundational principles by which Infogalactic operates are very different from the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. These principles are known as the Seven Canons of Infogalactic."

    Wikipedia's second pillar, "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources..." was the previous justification for the deletion of Thomas Ball's page in 2011.

    Here are a few Wikipedia Thought Police editors arguing for deletion of that page:

    Delete - Most of the sources cited in the article are non-RS -- mostly opinionated blogs. From the few reliable sources, I conclude that this guy's life was pretty much of a mess and he committed suicide, choosing a highly visible method and leaving a long rambling note. That's all. The fact that men's rights bloggers have decided to reinvent him as a men's rights activist who died for their cause does not make it true, and it does not make the details of his biography notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, nor a memorial site, nor an online venue for promoting causes by turning deceased people into martyrs. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

    WP:NOTNEWS. Every day in many cities there are newspaper stories on topics like "local man kills self", "police officer shot and killed", and "convenience store clerk killed in robbery." The fact that those stories are published in reputable and reliable newspapers does not make the story topics into topics for encyclopedia articles. And Wikipedia doesn't base articles on what bloggers think. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    Delete WP:BIO1E. 90% of the references are in context of people bloging about how horrible it is. Simply too soon to see how this is going to stick in the history. Not opposed when more verifyiable and reliable sources write about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
     
    Delete Fails WP:EVENT. The vast majority of the refs provided fail WP:RS. Blogs can't be used to establish notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
     
    Delete - no evidence of actual notability; see WP:BIO1E, WP:COATRACK and (odd though it might seem) WP:UPANDCOMING for my reasoning - the latter to address the "it's getting more famous everyday among people who read the same websites I do" arguments from people coming here as a result of the outside canvassing effort. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

    In 2016, it seems that we finally have this verifiable accuracy from an authoritative and reliable source, as a new new page was published and allowed to stand just months before Infogalactic forked Wikipedia and went live. So now Thomas Ball has pages on both sites now.

    While I consider that a good thing, it's still far too little, far too late. The undoubtedly financially compensated shills and would-be Thought Police of Wikipedia can go fork themselves. They have now been rendered obsolete. We have no reason any longer to ever have to deal with their censorship and subversion again, now that we have a viable alternative to use in their place.

    Here's to making Infogalactic a success....I urge all who read this who blog and comment on teh Interwebz to eschew citing Wikipedia ever again. You now have the means to do so while still getting all of the utility Wikipedia used to provide, since it's all there on Infogalactic as well.


              Not For $ale        



    As I've written previously on several different posts, I've been deliberately limiting my time spent in the virtual world to focus more on the real world. Part of this decision is based on how time consuming it is for myself to compose a new blog post. Up until about two or three years ago, blogging came very easy to me. I saw, read or experienced something that struck my muse, I logged on and let the words flow from my fingertips. But things have definitely changed as I started to impose some rules for myself regarding this blog. These rules constrain the volume of my output, and they make each new post a lot more time consuming and painstaking to produce.

    A lot of this time consuming effort is based on trying to avoid redundancy, and when you've been blogging as long as I have, my focus on trying to avoid rehashing old ideas already thoroughly expressed gets more and more difficult to adhere to. I'm aware that this kind of rule for myself puts my writing muse into a box that makes blogging much more difficult than it needs to be. Nevertheless, I don't forsee myself ever fully quitting this hobby compulsion.

    Long time commenter and blogger of the MAndrosphere Xsplat (OG Roissy in DC) recently responded to a comment on a recent post of his that clarified this vague idea I've always had about why I don't forsee myself ever quitting this increasingly time consuming hobby:

    Some writers feel compelled to write. I’ve known such personalities to occasionally declare that they are retiring from writing. When I hear that I call bullshit, because I can tell by their writing that writing is a compulsion for them also. I’ve been correct so far.

    Writing is integral to my very being. It is how I think. As I’m walking around in the day, things that I see and do are held within the lens a discussion and potential blog post.

    This is precisely how I think all the time now. In nearly everything I do, my mind is constantly seeing my experiences of life as blog fodder. I'm always thinking of how I would express or relate what I'm living in the moment as a theoretical blog post. This is both good and bad, I think.

    Xsplat describes the good part here:

    Without writing my thoughts would never get organized. Writing and clear thinking to me are inseparable. Can’t have one without the other.

    And this is the key to why I write: clear thinking in and of itself is enjoyable to me. I get pleasure from organizing thoughts, and having creative insights. And that can’t be done in isolation; a guy needs dialogue to do that.

    Exactly. While I am a rather voracious reader and have devoured books by the truckload that have played a definite role in my thinking process and present lifestyle, it is the writing and interacting with everyone else on teh Interwebz that has truly inspired the shape of my life and the way I live it today.

    If I have a lot of insights, it’s because having insights is pleasurable to me. I do that as a habit because that’s what feeds my brain pleasure.

    A lot of people simply are not built that way. They find thinking taxing, or boring, or I don’t know what. It’s not a source of pleasure. And when they do think, being logical and consistent is not a priority to them. Thinking for them might be more useful to rhetorically win an argument, even if it means resorting to slanderous lies, rather than being used to creatively puzzle together as much truth and knowledge as possible, for it’s own sake.

    That is all this blogging thing has ever really been about for myself. Seeking truth in a world of lies. It was also this realization that Xsplat refers to as most people participate in blogging comboxes to rhetorically win an argument rather than an intellectually honest and relentless search for the Truth. This - in addition to the time required - is primarily why I no longer comment much at other blogs.

    This difference in attitude to thinking has at times been a source of social isolation. I’d be all into talking about philosophy and the meanings of life, and I couldn’t find anyone else who gave a shit. I believe that my mental process itself is built to require me to write. It’s not something I put any effort into wanting to do. I’d never consider not doing it.

    In this regard, I see Xsplat and a few other bloggers and commenters on teh Interwebz as kindred souls that feel the compulsion to write to clarify their own thought process and make sense of the complex and often times confusing world we all inhabit.

    This is my primary motivation, which is why even though my blogging has been very infrequent as of late, I don't think I'll ever really walk away. But just looking at the turnover in the general blogosphere (not just in the MAndrosphere or the Dark Enlightenment, or NeoRX or the Paleo/Ancestral diet or any other niche blogosphere), makes me realize that most folks who participate in the great dialogue on teh Interwebz have many other differing motivations to participate, with the compulsion to write not being one of them. (This is certainly not a value judgement of anyone, just an observation that participants have varying motives.)

    Another MAndrosphere OG who undoubtely also shares this compulsion to write, *** ****** who blogs over at Lust in the Age of Byrony, has noticed the same:

    I look at my blog roll on my blog. So many blogs have come and gone. So much for MRA and so much for all of the blogosphere. Despite one blog title shift, my blog's been here throughout. Since the beginning, before MRA was a thing. Really, not long after PUA was a thing.

    Above or beyond or whatever all that, this is here to document the heretical, the mania, the raw truth.....to be some tiny drop of truth in an ocean of lies out there. The truths we can't speak in the light of day, the truths we can only speak in anonymity.


    I recently spent a few hours cleaning up my own blogroll by removing all of the links to now defunct and deleted blogs. I got rid of thirty-plus dead links that no longer link to any content whatsoever. Blogs come and blogs go. This is the nature of the beast, and not everyone is here to write because they feel the compulsion some of us have, this compulsion that Xsplat describes so well. But one thing I noted is that there are only two kinds of blogs that seem to last for longer than two or three years - those that have an obvious compulsion to write, and those that have monetized their blogging efforts and have developed a regular income stream while doing this "hobby" in the virtual world.

    Even more rare, are the types who have achieved a synergy from combining both motivations into a blogging/book-selling juggernaut - folks like Vox Day, Roosh and Mike Cernovich are good examples of this. 

    The rest of the lower-tiered blogs (in terms of popularity/notoriety, not quality of prose!) usually find what they need at the point in their life where participation in the blogosphere seemed to help them achieve a certain level of awareness and enlightenment, then they pull the plug and either delete or abandon and leave it posted for as long as their domain name and/or server space fees are paid up. This is also one of the biggest reasons why I've never left blogspot, despite my great distaste for Google and it's SJW tendencies. They offer the best price for domain name registration and server fees. You just can't beat $FREE.99 when you're engaging in a non-revenue generating hobby like this.

    That being said, I'd be liar if I didn't admit that I have been tempted several times in the past by opportunities to monetize this blog. Back in the heyday of the MAndrosphere's underground "bubble" of rising popularity ( the era of 2010 - 2013, in which a groundswell of attention was garnered prior to gaining widespread  mainstream media attention,) when it seemed like new blogs where getting started and garnering immediate popularity in our corner of teh Interwebz, I received numerous offers to monetize this blog in various ways.

    But my biggest reason for always rejecting these opportunities, is because of the anonymity *** ****** talks about. There is a freedom that comes with anonymity combined with uncompensated writing, and I've always been cognizant that doing this thing for the dollar would intrinsically change how and what I write about. For myself, it would mess with the purity of this exercise in practicing this compulsion hobby.

    That all being said, I am also a guy who has always reserved the right to change my mind when I am presented with new, compelling information that runs contrary to my prior convictions. Perhaps someday, I'll have to have a $how of appreciation for all my regular readers of this blog, and offer a sign up drive for a subscription email newsletter for the amazing low price of $6.66 a month.

    It will include a free "Game is the Red Pill" T-shirt and my booklet of officially certified Paleo Baby food recipes. Perhaps if you also hit up my tip jar, I'll send you my free Paleo Radiation Therapy guide at no extra cost (not including $9.99 shipping and handling fees). And for the most loyal subscribers and customers, I will also have a limited time offer for officially authenticated "Keoni Galt" autographed disposable air respirator kits for those of you living in Project Indigo Skyfold zones. But wait, there's more!

    Act now, and I'll also throw in your choice of a "RESIST THE BRAVE NEW WORLD ORDER" hat, or exclusively for my female readers, a "I SURVIVED THE FEVER SWAMPS ON TEH INTERWEBZ" stitch-emblazoned on the rear of heavy duty, form fitting yoga pants, a $29.99 value....all these extra value-added products can be yours for FREE if you sign up today!


    100% Usury Financing Available!

    Don't worry folks, sometimes my sense of whacky humor gets the best of me and I try to get too clever by half....

    I'll stick with my day job.



              By: sportyaccordy        
    If an SJW can kill something, it either didn't really exist, or wasn't worth defending in the first place. The idea that some corpse-skinned sub healthy BMI'd Gawker addicted anything could kill something as basic and essential to the human existence as masculinity/femininity is laughable, and the suggestion of such speaks more to the fragility of people's false ideas of it.
              Stupid People 61        
    Why are people in this country so goddamn fucking stupid? Recently the cops were called to an Elementary School all because a 9 year old boy asked for Brownies and the idiot teacher and a some stupid kid decide to take offence to it. Really you;re going to call the cops all because you think Brownies are offensive, give me a fucking break the teacher who made that call I think needs to be fired because she is obviously too stupid to be a teacher and the kid who got offended by it needs to get the shit kicked out of him. You know people in this country seem to be getting stupider by the moment and it's obvious this teacher clearly shouldn't be a teacher to get a student in trouble just for asking for Brownies, I say your dumbass needs another career choice. Also if that was my kid, I would go to that School, find the idiot teacher and proceed to beat the goddamn fuck out of her and bash her goddamn brainless head open too and find the stupid kid who snitched and savagley attack the dumbass kid too and even beat the hell out of the idiot Principalfor not lifting a finger to help. You see this is why Zero tollerence needs to be removed from Schools because idiot teachers and the fatass Principals at every school in this country are clearly abusing their power to abuse our children and they deserve to be fired and get a beating from angry parents. Also SJWs need to have a baseball bat and a hammer to break their goddamn jaws open because SJWs are too goddamn stupid and are the real problem with the world today, if you see a SJW talking shit proceed to beat the fuck out of them.
              Has Secularism Hurt Social Cohesion/Preservation and Made the West Weak?        

    I think there are some cold, hard realities which most atheists are in denial about or avoid discussing.  But let me preface this post so that the topic doesn’t get bogged down unnecessarily.

    I was raised in the Christian church but have not believed in God ever since I can remember.  I do not feel ill will towards the Christian church, nor do I see it as a viable solution to this problem of nihilism.  I am glad that religion has lost its essential monopoly over the question of values, morality, and public discourse.  I am approaching this issue from mostly an American perspective, and this important because America has not had the religious warfare or conflict that Europe has had in the past, and as such bringing up the conflict caused by competing religions (while an important point in some regions) is not particularly important in America, as it was not actually a major destabilizing issue throughout the majority of US history.

    All that being said, there are some obvious problems which atheists I think instinctively avoid, and which I’ve seen no viable proposed solution for.

    1.  Churches used to be a place where a significant proportion of people would go on Sundays, regardless of their class, regardless of their political beliefs, etc.  This created a sense of community which transcended the typical social demarcations which has never been matched or even attempted to be matched by atheists.  Is losing this social connection hub and not replacing it with anything else really consequence free when it comes to social cohesion and social trust?

    2.  I do not believe that most Christians ACTUALLY believe in God - I believe they feel positively towards the church as an institution and their fellow Christians, and that feeling of connectedness, they refer to as God. This would go a long way towards explaining the futility of rationally debating a Christian on the existence of God.  Remember, most people (including Christians) aren’t versed in philosophy, what existence is, and what it means to say something exists.  It’s pointless to argue about existence because you’re trying to reason someone out of a positive emotion, and existence as a concept is not generally understood (which is a pretty sad indictment of our education system).

    3.  Is a view of the world without religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to put aside their differences and see themselves as being on the same team?  From what I’ve seen talking to atheists (myself not being on the left) and Christians alike, I would say that atheists are more hostile to each other than Christians are to atheists.  I can count on one hand the number of conversations with a Christian which ended with them name calling and engaging in toxic behavior towards me - It would take me 10 pairs of hands to count the number of conversations with an atheist in which they engaged in that abusive and toxic behavior, and even had that behavior socially reinforced by other atheists.

    This goes back to Richard Dawkins’ quote on Christianty -  “.....I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”   Even if you feel I am not arguing the case well here, I would ask you to explain what you THINK Richard Dawkins meant when he said that…..he is not known to flippantly speak on issues.

    As many atheists rightly say, “Atheism doesn’t unite because it is a lack of belief rather than a belief itself.”  This is obviously true.  However, does that therefore mean that that vacuum of unity will not be filled with some even worse attempt to unify people - (like postmodern cultural relativism or SJW platitudes or even Islam)?

    4.  Is a view of the world without a unifying religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to protect that society from outside and hostile forces?  If it can be, then atheists have colossally failed in this endeavor (or didn’t try), because it is all the secular countries which are bowing down to Islam and its invasion.  Which countries have resisted Islam?  Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary all seem to have no interest in giving up their countries to Muslims - is it pure coincidence that they are all majority Christian countries?  Is it pure coincidence that Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK are all majority secular countries?

    There are certainly specific historical reasons why those 3 Eastern European countries are skeptical of the value of foreigners (and specifically Muslims), but it is also possible that the church remained strong in those countries precisely because of the very real and dangerous existential threats, and that that cohesion of faith is one reason why those countries have kept their identities relatively intact (even after all the turmoil caused by the USSR) and more importantly CONTINUE to do so in the face of the largest migration event since WWII, despite financial pressure from the EU in some cases.

    America is another country which has admirably pushed back against the invasion of Islam.  Christianity has been on a steady decline both in terms of piety and as a % of the total population, but it is still strong enough that Christians make up the majority of the people who oppose bringing Islam to the US.  It seems that atheists make up the majority of people who oppose those who oppose bringing Islam to the US…...again, another total coincidence?  The biggest common thread I see between the US and those Eastern European states is the Christian religion…....

    I fully realize much of this is an argument from effect for the value of some form of unifying religious mythology, and I try to avoid arguments from effect.  But in this case, the side effect of losing that unifying religious mythology seems to consistently and globally lead to the erasure of one’s secular culture and one’s way of life - therefore I argue that we MUST consider this phenomenon no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, no matter how tough of a problem this is to solve, and no matter how many atheists are unwilling to consider that religion or at least religious beliefs/culture MAY be as integral to social organization and preservation as the state itself.

    I’m here to point out my observations (which are becoming more and more common to hear from intellectuals like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, or Stefan Molyneux) and hopefully inspire some thought on this topic.  This does not mean I am advocating a return to Christianity, nor does it mean I would ever try to convince someone that God exists.  However, I think especially in the US that if we do not address this problem, we will share the same fate as Europe, and the overall proportion of secular people living safely will continue to shrink until secular people are persecuted minorities globally.

    In other words, if we cannot figure out how to maintain a secular society (and what Europe is doing obviously doesn’t work), we seem doomed to be replaced by a brutal, totalitarian religious/political ideology which will stamp out secularism.  Therefore, what problem could be more important than this one?  How rational can atheists really claim to be if they are unable to preserve their way of life?  How much influence would Islam have to obtain over the UK, France, and Germany before the rational thing as an atheist would be to compare the costs/benefits of living in a Christian country vs the costs/benefits of living in an Islamic country?

    I welcome all debate, but would most welcome attempts to answer the questions which I have formatted as bold, because I don’t want this discussion to be about what I think - I want to know what YOU think the answers are to these big questions, the answers to which may determine the future existence of secular values on this precarious planet.


              How to Convert SJWs to Come Back to the Light        
    Learning video on how to combat and turn the mentally enslaved back to our side.Involves using the same technics that were used on them to hate themselves, brainwashing with talking points. Remember, some of these people are victims that have had sjw rhetoric shoved down their throats their whole life. Time to turn this self-destructive behaviour around.
              Has Secularism Hurt Social Cohesion/Preservation and Made the West Weak?        

    I think there are some cold, hard realities which most atheists are in denial about or avoid discussing.  But let me preface this post so that the topic doesn’t get bogged down unnecessarily.

    I was raised in the Christian church but have not believed in God ever since I can remember.  I do not feel ill will towards the Christian church, nor do I see it as a viable solution to this problem of nihilism.  I am glad that religion has lost its essential monopoly over the question of values, morality, and public discourse.  I am approaching this issue from mostly an American perspective, and this important because America has not had the religious warfare or conflict that Europe has had in the past, and as such bringing up the conflict caused by competing religions (while an important point in some regions) is not particularly important in America, as it was not actually a major destabilizing issue throughout the majority of US history.

    All that being said, there are some obvious problems which atheists I think instinctively avoid, and which I’ve seen no viable proposed solution for.

    1.  Churches used to be a place where a significant proportion of people would go on Sundays, regardless of their class, regardless of their political beliefs, etc.  This created a sense of community which transcended the typical social demarcations which has never been matched or even attempted to be matched by atheists.  Is losing this social connection hub and not replacing it with anything else really consequence free when it comes to social cohesion and social trust?

    2.  I do not believe that most Christians ACTUALLY believe in God - I believe they feel positively towards the church as an institution and their fellow Christians, and that feeling of connectedness, they refer to as God. This would go a long way towards explaining the futility of rationally debating a Christian on the existence of God.  Remember, most people (including Christians) aren’t versed in philosophy, what existence is, and what it means to say something exists.  It’s pointless to argue about existence because you’re trying to reason someone out of a positive emotion, and existence as a concept is not generally understood (which is a pretty sad indictment of our education system).

    3.  Is a view of the world without religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to put aside their differences and see themselves as being on the same team?  From what I’ve seen talking to atheists (myself not being on the left) and Christians alike, I would say that atheists are more hostile to each other than Christians are to atheists.  I can count on one hand the number of conversations with a Christian which ended with them name calling and engaging in toxic behavior towards me - It would take me 10 pairs of hands to count the number of conversations with an atheist in which they engaged in that abusive and toxic behavior, and even had that behavior socially reinforced by other atheists.

    This goes back to Richard Dawkins’ quote on Christianty -  “.....I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”   Even if you feel I am not arguing the case well here, I would ask you to explain what you THINK Richard Dawkins meant when he said that…..he is not known to flippantly speak on issues.

    As many atheists rightly say, “Atheism doesn’t unite because it is a lack of belief rather than a belief itself.”  This is obviously true.  However, does that therefore mean that that vacuum of unity will not be filled with some even worse attempt to unify people - (like postmodern cultural relativism or SJW platitudes or even Islam)?

    4.  Is a view of the world without a unifying religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to protect that society from outside and hostile forces?  If it can be, then atheists have colossally failed in this endeavor (or didn’t try), because it is all the secular countries which are bowing down to Islam and its invasion.  Which countries have resisted Islam?  Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary all seem to have no interest in giving up their countries to Muslims - is it pure coincidence that they are all majority Christian countries?  Is it pure coincidence that Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK are all majority secular countries?

    There are certainly specific historical reasons why those 3 Eastern European countries are skeptical of the value of foreigners (and specifically Muslims), but it is also possible that the church remained strong in those countries precisely because of the very real and dangerous existential threats, and that that cohesion of faith is one reason why those countries have kept their identities relatively intact (even after all the turmoil caused by the USSR) and more importantly CONTINUE to do so in the face of the largest migration event since WWII, despite financial pressure from the EU in some cases.

    America is another country which has admirably pushed back against the invasion of Islam.  Christianity has been on a steady decline both in terms of piety and as a % of the total population, but it is still strong enough that Christians make up the majority of the people who oppose bringing Islam to the US.  It seems that atheists make up the majority of people who oppose those who oppose bringing Islam to the US…...again, another total coincidence?  The biggest common thread I see between the US and those Eastern European states is the Christian religion…....

    I fully realize much of this is an argument from effect for the value of some form of unifying religious mythology, and I try to avoid arguments from effect.  But in this case, the side effect of losing that unifying religious mythology seems to consistently and globally lead to the erasure of one’s secular culture and one’s way of life - therefore I argue that we MUST consider this phenomenon no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, no matter how tough of a problem this is to solve, and no matter how many atheists are unwilling to consider that religion or at least religious beliefs/culture MAY be as integral to social organization and preservation as the state itself.

    I’m here to point out my observations (which are becoming more and more common to hear from intellectuals like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, or Stefan Molyneux) and hopefully inspire some thought on this topic.  This does not mean I am advocating a return to Christianity, nor does it mean I would ever try to convince someone that God exists.  However, I think especially in the US that if we do not address this problem, we will share the same fate as Europe, and the overall proportion of secular people living safely will continue to shrink until secular people are persecuted minorities globally.

    In other words, if we cannot figure out how to maintain a secular society (and what Europe is doing obviously doesn’t work), we seem doomed to be replaced by a brutal, totalitarian religious/political ideology which will stamp out secularism.  Therefore, what problem could be more important than this one?  How rational can atheists really claim to be if they are unable to preserve their way of life?  How much influence would Islam have to obtain over the UK, France, and Germany before the rational thing as an atheist would be to compare the costs/benefits of living in a Christian country vs the costs/benefits of living in an Islamic country?

    I welcome all debate, but would most welcome attempts to answer the questions which I have formatted as bold, because I don’t want this discussion to be about what I think - I want to know what YOU think the answers are to these big questions, the answers to which may determine the future existence of secular values on this precarious planet.


              exterminate-us        
    Sauce: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEj13DnsNBU

    Holy Terra may have been destroyed, but at least all those SJW crybabies will finally shut up!
              'DETROIT' MOVIE REVIEW: Pure SJW Propaganda!!        
    none
              Como se Llama, Proud Boys?        
    War Boys
    My favorite insane adventure/dystopian/action movie is Mad Max Fury Road. I really love it and saw it like a billion times. That is the truth, and there is nothing alternative about it. 

    More than the other films in the franchise, Fury Road had a focus on the War Boys, an army of sacrificial bald guys in white face and quasi spooky mak-up. They drive fast and blow shit up. Muy mas macho. In fanboy land you can get your groove on (click here) and get lost in it all. 

    Go ahead, spray some chrome paint in your mouth.

    War Boys  
    are hand picked at a young ....and are indoctrinated as zealots in the cult of V8 with Immortan Joe as their immortal leader. They were based on the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of World War II. They are completely loyal, blindly following their leader, never questioning the morality of his actions. They view death in service ..... as an honor.
    The War Boy comes across- to me at least- as more like Hitler Youth than the Kamikaze they are supposedly based on. 

    Is it Performance Art?
    Two of the three most famous names in the Alt-Right movement have caught my interest. Mostly because I think they are funny. They are so over the top and out of line that I can't take their rhetoric very seriously. 

    While Steve Bannon has made his move- and it was a bold one- both Gavin McGinnis and Milo Yiannopoulos have  come across as clowns trying to squeeze into a Jetta. Both of these guys have found love in the Neo-Conservative online magazine Takimag. That is where you can get some of the .... uh.... talent that they have to expend. 

    Based on the fact that Jim Goad and Joe Bob Briggs are contributors to Takimag as well- not only opens up the very strong possibility that this is a put on at the expense of the gullible at the very least- or a biting satire at its absolute finest. 

    Devil's advocate. 

    I know it is hard to see this as performance art, but it is. Let us define performance art, shall we? 

    Performance art (click here) is a performance
    ....presented to an audience within a fine art context, traditionally interdisciplinaryPerformance may be either scripted or unscripted, random or carefully orchestrated; spontaneous or otherwise carefully planned with or without audience participation. The performance can be live or via media; the performer can be present or absent. It can be any situation that involves four basic elements: time, space, the performer's body, or presence in a medium, and a relationship between performer and audience. Performance art can happen anywhere, in any type of venue or setting and for any length of time. The actions of an individual or a group at a particular place and in a particular time constitute the work.

     I have seen some of the most insane performance art up close, and I hate to say it, this is performance art. Maybe I am Naive, but I think Gavin McGinnis and Milo Yiannopoulos are putting us on. I really do. No leader can be that misguided. 

    Oh. Wait.

    Gavin McGinnis
    A quick neutral bio should kick this off. So. Here is about as mellow and milquetoasty as I can find (click here).
    He was born in England, raised in Canada, and now resides in New York City. He married publicist and consultant Emily Jendrisak in 2005. They have three children. In 2013 he said that having children convinced him that he should be pro-life and that he went from being a lifelong atheist to a born-again Roman Catholic.
    Roman Catholic? The religion born out of the Middle Eastern black prophet, Jesus, and the Southern European Vatican? 

    Gavin McGinnis is a comedian.  That means he performs ART for a living. He may not be funny, but satire often isn't. 

    Don't get the impression that I am excusing anything. I am not. What I am saying is it is very possible that this movement is based on trademarks, copyrights and infamy, i.e. fame at whatever cost.

    No really. He is a comedian (click here), a writer, and a founder of Vice mag. He was bought out, probably for acting a fool. According to one of my frequent reads, Brooklyn Vegan (click here) Gavin McInnes was somebody who fit right in on a bill with future Run the Jewels collaborator Despot, comedians David Cross & Eugene Mirman, and Marnie Stern

    FYI, I hear those are funny people. 

    Plenty of comedians went the talk show route. Politics pays big money. In the era of Trump, what we are being shown by your president is to lie, cheat, and steal. Not too different from past presidents. 

    Except for the white power/orange man part. That isn't so funny.

    McGinnis is among the funniest guys I have seen on Faux News. I can't help it. He cracks me up. He is funnier than Baskets (click here). Clearly the guy is under  Pee-Wee's Bigtop, in the center arena, juggling Trump's balls. The ones Melania keeps on the mantle back at Trump Tower

    McGinnis can best be defined in his own words, which are often an atrocity, but his jewel in the crown for the time being is a little fraternity called Proud Boys. That doesn't  come across as loopy as the rest of his art damaged spiel or rhetoric. It certainly doesn't imply that it is totally farcical, even if its members are clueless that they are being laughed at. It also doesn't imply that this fails as performance art.

    Or maybe. Maybe. Maybe I am the comedian, and McGinnis is simply a troglodyte.

    Me, the cultured one. That is pretty fucking funny.

    Proud Boys Uno
    The Proud Boys movement was started by Gavin McGinnis. They are pub crawlers with a mission from their pasty white god. It sounds vaguely familiar. From the same mold that brought all those other good ol' boy clubs like the Bohemian Club (click here) and its ilk. Not unlike the KKK, except these white power guys have the moxy to use their own names. Probably a bad idea for the followers, no doubt. They will be seen as racist, while the jokers who set this in motion will eventually be seen as artists. The artist gain infamy, the followers forced into a lifetime of quasi regret.

    There are differences in the exclusivity of membership for this club.  Everyone can join, if you are white or can fool the panel that you are. And as long as you aren't a chick.  If you are, you get a high ranking subservient role, you princess, you. You don't have to be rich to join the club. You just need to be either in on the joke (leadership)- or gullible to a fault (the rest of the dudes buying in). 

    Once this performance art falls into the hands of followers it loses all credibility as an art and becomes something far more ominous. It becomes just another stupid movement born out of a warped sense of humor, planting evil as its byproduct.

    Performance art, or not, McGinnis is a gang leader. He lets others hit, and take the beatings- while .

    At some point in time he's gotta give up the game and let us know he means it for reals..... or that he is just fucking with us gullible Americans. 

    Penis de Milo
    Milo Yiannopoulos is an alt-right performance artist. A journalist/speaker/senior editor at Breitbart mag. He also writes for Takimag, a neo-conservative online rag funded by some Greek millionaire dude. There is lots of money in free (hate) speech.

    Milo's big thing is speaking at universities, outing immigrants that are in America bettering their lives, and outing gay and trans people. Milo is a real work of art (click here).
    The 31-year-old, boastfully gay Breitbart writer—or “dangerous faggot”—has quickly become a hero to young conservatives and libertarians for smacking down the ridiculous out-of-control “social justice warriors” who troll college campuses.If Donald Trump defies political correctness, Yiannopoulos—an avid Trump supporter prone to calling The Donald “daddy”—obliterates it.
    Milo also a Brit. And Greek. Why he wants to make America great again baffles me, mostly because he doesn't know what a great America is, was, or will be. In fact, I have as much right telling British students how to think, as he has telling my college-age kids. 

    I love that we quibble over the free speech rights of a guest to our country. 

    His right to speak out against anyone he wishes to- in my country? OK. But I have the right to shout his loudmouth down. He can play what ever card he wants.
    This movement is young, they do defy taboos and unfortunately, the alt-right has become impossible to ignore. Because it’s racist. I don’t mean “racist” like the left does, where merely being white and male is a sin. I mean rationalizing that you’re intellectually or culturally superior because you’re white. I mean believing that black and brown people are less valuable to society and should be viewed with contempt. (ibid)
    Does that sound ok to you? 

    Where is the nationalism and isolationist viewpoints stand now, Moderate Whitey from the the Righty?  

    Where is the indignation? 

    Why are the anarchists the only Americans telling Milo to stfu? (Hey Milo, shut the fuck up.)

    The same Trump rules on imports should be applied to Milo as to every other import. Hold him in secondary at the airport, check his asshole for explosives or whatever, and make him scale the same fucking wall everyone else now has to jump over in both directions.

    Milo is, simply, an outsider. He is an import. We need to tax his ass, check that visa- it is a work visa- and show him the same disrespect he shows Americans. 

    Just like those other imports with incendiary rules and mores that seem to piss everyone off when it comes from brown people. 

    Never mind that Milo is Greek and bleaches his coif. 

    Is he Rand Paul, or is he Ru Paul?

    Is to enhance his whiteness? Is it to poke fun at whitey? Is it simply performance? Is this just to play the game as an outsider? To prove to the northern European descendants in America that they are stupid, racist, heterosexual hypocrites? Is this simply a game? 

    Is this just the rantings of a flamboyantly gay performance artist?

    The Complication of Race
    Did I mention that Gavin McGinnis is another Brit with dual citizenship? Yep, Brit-Canadian. 

    Married an American woman with an eastern European surname. Sounds like Czech or Slovakian to me (click here). 

    She is part Native American. Like many of us, she is as American as Apple Piroshki. She is, like me, Heinz 57. McGinnis has three kids with his wife. Sounds like they are Heinz 58. 

    Hitler considered the eastern Europeans to be mongrels, which leads me to the next question.

    Does that sound like a card carrying member of Stormwatch? 

    Are you catching my drift? Maybe he is just fucking with us.

    Proud Boys Dos
    Why are the alt right Brit imports so interested in America? I mean outside of making lots of money off the minions? Not sure, but the journalism is probably secondary to the speaking engagements and tv gigs.

    But the Proud Boys are nothing to laugh about. They use clever trigger free words, sometimes, and actively promote "white pride" and male chauvinism. (click here)
    There were about fifty men at this gathering and no women because women are not allowed. The basic tenet of the group is that they are “Western chauvinists who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.” Like Archie Bunker, they long for the days when “girls were girls and men were men.” This wasn’t controversial even twenty years ago, but being proud of Western culture today is like being a crippled, black, lesbian communist in 1953.
    They would like you to believe they are not alt-right, not racist, and terribly misunderstood by outsiders. 
    Like Milo Yiannopoulos, the Proud Boys confuse the media because the group is anti-SJW without being alt-right. “Western chauvinist” includes all races, religions, and sexual preferences.
    Like most manifesto styled bowel movements, the Proud Boys have basic tenets. They are laid out by McGinnis as degrees. There are three of them.


    First DegreeYou publicly declare you are a Proud Boy. This means you make your Western chauvinism public and you don’t care who knows it. If you support Trump (how can you not if you’re a Proud Boy?) and it comes up in the cafeteria, you proudly state your stance.....Our forefathers died in battle to protect our freedoms. The least we can do is be inconvenienced. There is no anonymity in pride.
    Interesting. A Canadian telling Americans about our forefathers. Last I checked, the United States and Canada have different forefathers. He also lets his followers know up front that they need to discard any anonymity they wish to have. In other words, suckers, paint a target on your back.
    Second Degree
    You must get the crap beaten out of you by at least five guys until you can name five breakfast cereals..... 
    The rationale here is we all need better “adrenaline control.” Both physical fighting and arguing require you to maintain your composure and not get petty with ad hominem attacks or “I just…can’t” forfeitures. Defending the West against the people who want to shut it down is like remembering cereals as you’re being bombarded with ten fists. The bonding and camaraderie this violence produces is inspiring.
     In other words, you are jumped in. I'm surprised they aren't calling their chicks mamas, and flying the stars and bars.


    The other half of the second degree is #NoWanks as espoused by the “prophet” Dante (his name is often followed by “peace be upon him”). This program allows porn only once every 30 days and insists a man can only ejaculate if he is within one yard of a woman with her consent......It gets young men off the couch and talking to women and it gets married men away from their computers and back into bed with their significant other. (Gay Proud Boys are exempt from #NoWanks because they are doing just fine for intercourse.)

    If this sounds to you like a bunch of jocks getting psyched for the big game, I have to say, 'Yes, it does.' Don't you love the perks for gay men? That is how you cross over. Tweak the rules at the last sentence whenever a new issue arises. Proud (Gay) Boys rejoice. You can jerk off to other Proud Boys as long as you have their permission.

    This degree sounds like quite a sticky proposition.
    Third Degree
    While retaining the principles of the first and second degrees, the third degree involves getting a tattoo that says “Proud Boy.”
     
     Because what is a tough guy gang without a mandatory tattoo?

    Antifa
    Frequently painted as the new bad guys by the people who brought you by your wanna be fascist government, Antifa are probably the single, semi-organized street team who actively stand up to people like McGinnis and the thugs that have collectively embraced him. 

    Yeah, I know. They are anarchist and they get blamed for vandalism. BFD. I hate the banks too.

    It doesn't make it true, it just means people blame it on them. Take my advice people of the left. Ridicule your opposition. You won't lose your mind that way, and it pisses them off way more.




              The SJW Survival Kit        

    In just about any extreme sport or activity that causes you place yourself in situations that you might find yourself in dire need of supplies to maintain, so too are the needs to be able to survive as a SJW. For those reading this in the newspaper and haven’t heard this abbreviation before, SJW means “social justice warrior”. They are […]

    The post The SJW Survival Kit appeared first on Being Libertarian.


              Temblorcita y el gigante        


    Nosotros elegimos este cuento porque es una de las mejores además de que maneja un valor muy importante que es la amistad y que se puede contar desde pequeños hasta adultos ya que es muy interesante.
    Planteamiento:
    Había una vez un gigante que vivía solo en el campo, en una vieja casa llena de corrientes de aire por todos  lados.
    Era muy cascarrabias por eso, no tenía amigos.
    El frío invierno lo veía pasar frente a la chimenea pensando en aquellos viejos tiempos en que los gigantes lo controlaban todo.



    Un sombrío día, la nieve caía sin descanso .El gigante abrió la puerta con la esperanza de encontrar un poco de acción. O tal vez, algún viejo amigo vendría  de repente a visitarlo…
    El gigante no se dio cuenta de que una ratoncita acababa de colarse por la puerta. Y la ratoncita, en su afán por buscar un poco de calorcito, tampoco se dio cuenta de  que  no era un,  promontorio por donde acababa de pasar corriendo… ¡era el pie de un gigante!

    Fue un poco más tarde que la ratoncita  comprendió donde se hallaba; por extraño k le pareciera, compartía la casa nada más y nada menos que con ¡un gigante! Esta idea la hizo temblar .Lo mejor sería, pasar desapercibida.
    Pero ocurrió  que el gigante dejo caer un delicioso bocado de queso. La ratoncita no  pudo resistir y se aproximó corriendo.
    Cuando el gigante vio pasar veloz ala ratoncita, agarro su bastón !PUM! le asesto tremendo golpe. “¡Detesto a los ratones!”, dijo enojado, al errar el blanco.
    Rápidamente la ratoncita  se escondió en el primer lugar que encontró a su paso: el cajón  para la leña. Allí dentro, tembló y tembló de tantísimo miedo que tenía.

    La ratoncita estaba ¡muerta de hambre! Al día siguiente .Al fin, se atrevió a salir  a buscar comida pero el gigante… la estaba esperando.
    Antes  de que la ratoncita comprendiera lo que estaba pasando, el gigante le había arrojado, un escobazo, fuera de la casa. Luego  cerró la puerta.
    “¡Vete de aquí y nos e te ocurra volver!”, gruño el gigante.


    Tan complacido estaba el gigante de volver a tener la casa para él solo, que hasta se preparó una cena especial.
    Después se sentó  a comer la sopa de col con pan y queso. En ese momento noto que el viento soplaba fuertemente. Aunque estaba sentado  muy cerca de la chimenea, podía sentir que minuto a minuto el frio empeoraba.
    Había preparado su cena favorita y sin embargo, acababa de perder por completo su apetito.

    Clímax: what happened in Dallas last Thursday.
    Dallas Shooting Suspect, Micah Johnson, ‘Upset at White People’

    A military veteran who said his goal was to kill white police officers opened fire Thursday night in downtown Dallas, leaving five officers dead and seven wounded...
    Shortly thereafter, similar incidents followed.

    Tennessee shooter targeted white victims, similar to Dallas ambush
    The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation has released the name of the suspect behind Thursday morning's random shooting in Bristol, TN that claimed the life of an area newspaper carrier and injured three others, including a local police officer.

    The TBI says 37-year-old Lakeem Keon Scott was armed with at least two weapons, an automatic-style rifle, a pistol and a large amount of ammunition...

    Preliminary findings indicate Scott may have targeted people and officers after being troubled by recent events involving African-Americans and law enforcement officers in other parts of the country.
    Missouri Cop 'Fighting For His Life' After Being Shot in Traffic Stop
    A police officer is "fighting for his life" after he was shot during a traffic stop this morning in Ballwin, Missouri...

    The incident, which was caught on police dashcam, happened around 11 a.m. local time on Friday when an officer pulled over a vehicle for speeding...

    After speaking with the driver, the officer went to his car to do paperwork ... the driver exited his vehicle, approached the officer's car, fired three shots, returned to his vehicle and fled.

    The suspect, Antonio Taylor, a 31-year-old black man who was paroled in 2015 after serving time on a federal weapons charge, was charged with assault of a police officer, armed criminal action and a felon in possession of a firearm...
    Gunfire strikes San Antonio Police headquarters
    Multiple gunshots were fired at the San Antonio Police headquarters building Saturday night... There were no reports of injuries.

    Bullet marks were found on the exterior wall of the building, and shell casings were discovered in a nearby alley...

    This incident comes as police departments nationwide are on edge following the shooting of 12 police officers in Dallas.
    I'm a data guy. My first professional career involved numbers, algorithms, and analytics. My second career relied heavily on data collection and analysis. So when I view the events of the past few days (the Dallas shootings and related aftermath), I get frustrated when so many use emotions in place of analysis and logic.

    Here's some numbers to chew on.

    Last year (2015) 990 people were shot and killed by police in this country. Approximately 50% were white, 26% were black, and the remainder were hispanic or 'other.' 9% were unarmed. 74% were shot while some sort of attack was in progress.

    This year (2016) 512 people have been shot and killed by police to date. That's pretty much on track with last year's numbers. Approximately 47% were white, 24% were black, and the remainder were hispanic or 'other.' 7% were unarmed. Data was not provided regarding whether or not an attack was in progress.

    Another piece of data was cited by Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke (who, BTW, is black).
    "Forty percent of law enforcement officers in the country that are killed in the line of duty are killed by black men," Clarke said, pointing out that blacks only represent about fifteen percent of the population.
    The data indicate that there is no epidemic of police shooting blacks. The numbers have remained steady.

    What has changed is the use of social media to share and encourage emotional and illogical responses to these incidents. We also have grandstanding politicians and their enablers in the press who are busy spinning these tragedies to advance their narrative. For example, in a Facebook post last week obama had this to say.
    "What's clear is that these fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve."
    I guess barry can't be troubled to examine the facts.

    He's not alone. Here's what some SJW had to say in the New York Times.
    ... this brand of tragedy has become routine… Law enforcement, militarized and indifferent to black lives, is the problem.
    Of course, hillary had to chime in as well.
    Speaking to a largely African-American audience at the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, (hillary said)... it was important to acknowledge the "implicit bias" in society and some police departments.
    (Side note: hillary desperately needs the black vote to help her get elected, so it's not surprising that she's pandering to them. But some conspiracy theorists think there might be another, more sinister explanation.)



    I don't doubt that some of the shootings may not have been justified. But there are a myriad of factors in play here - training, mental and emotional composure of the officers involved, experience, actions of the suspects, and yes, possibly even some racial bias. But to tag all shootings as racially motivated, and to paint all cops as indifferent or even hostile to blacks, is not only false and misleading, it is grossly irresponsible. It leads to incidents like the Dallas shootings, and other similar events.

    There have also been reports of individual black people and police officers coming together and helping bridge the gap between both sides. Here's one example.

    Click to embiggen.

    Color me foolishly naive and optimistic, but I hope that the events of the past few days will open eyes on both sides. Regardless of my fetish for data, I realize that perception is important. And right now, rightly or wrongly, blacks perceive that cops represent a threat to them, and are responding accordingly. We have to hope that the police have a better grip on their emotions and don't push back, leading to a vicious cycle of tragedy upon tragedy. We also have to hope that calmer heads will prevail on the other side, and that, over time, a calm and reasonable dialogue will emerge.

    Like I said, color me foolishly naive and optimistic...


              MISÓGINOS ATACAM EDITORA DA MARVEL POR CAUSA DE UMA SELFIE COM MILKSHAKE        
    Aconteceu na semana passada, com grande repercussão agora.
    Na última sexta de julho, uma editora da Marvel postou uma selfie com suas colegas, todas tomando um milkshake. Uma foto inocente que não deveria gerar nada além de "Que demais!" recebeu um monte de comentários machistas de caras patéticos que não aceitam que existam mulheres no mercado de quadrinhos. 
    A gente sabe bem como é. Há uns dois anos, a jornalista Ana Freitas escreveu um texto perfeitamente ponderado sobre nerds e machismo. Ela passou os meses seguintes sendo atacada por nerds misóginos para provar que tinha razão.
    Sobre o caso da editora da Marvel, um texto muito bacana foi publicado na Mary Sue, e a Ester, que "de dia trabalha criando estampas e desenvolvendo produtos pra sua loja pet, e à noite é uma feminista geek SJW que caça trolls no twitter, além de ser mãe de gatos, cachorros e da Gigi", se ofereceu para traduzi-lo. 
    Antes de ler o artigo, saiba que, mais uma vez, os trolls perderam (mas eles estão acostumados, né?). O assédio e insultos que as editoras receberam se transformou numa super campanha, #MakeMineMilkshake (algo como "Faça meu milkshake"), em que inúmeras pessoas posaram com milkshake mostrando seu apoio às mulheres.
    (No post, não vou colocar imagens dos insultos. Apenas da linda reação a eles).

    Editora de quadrinhos da Marvel sofre assédio por postar selfie com colegas de trabalho (o problema do sexismo na indústria de quadrinhos).
    Trolls não têm algo melhor para fazer
    com suas vidas?
    (A resposta é: não)
    Na sexta-feira, 28 de julho, Heather Antos, editora de The Unbelievable Gwenpool, postou no Twitter uma adorável selfie com as colegas de trabalho. E então, como qualquer pessoa emocionalmente bem ajustada faria, um grupo de homens -- em sua maioria -- decidiu assediá-la por tweets e DM. Por causa de uma selfie das amigas tomando milkshakes. Os comentários incluíam muitos dos xingamentos usuais e misoginia: “falsas geek” [geek; gíria para pessoas peculiares ou excêntricas, fãs de tecnologia, eletrônica, jogos eletrônicos ou de tabuleiro, histórias em quadrinhos, livros, filmes, animes e séries],“a mais assustadora coleção de SJW estereotipados que alguém poderia imaginar”[SJW: social justice warrior, guerreiro da justiça social, termo pejorativo usado para se referir a pessoas que possuem visões socialmente progressistas, incluindo feminismo e direitos LGBT], “Caramba, não consigo imaginar por que as vendas da Marvel estão na merda”. Essas foram as mensagens públicas. Outros atacaram Antos através de DMs.
    Heather Antos comentou o assédio na sua timeline: “A Internet é um lugar medonho, horrível e nojento. Como eu ouso publicar uma foto de minhas amigas na internet sem esperar ser intimidada, insultada, perseguida e transformada em alvo? Hoje acordei com uma enorme quantidade de tweets e DMs de lixo. Por ser uma mulher. Dos quadrinhos. Que publicou uma selfie com suas amigas tomando milkshake.”
    Nós já sabemos que os trolls reagem de maneira monstruosa quando as mulheres defendem a diversidade. Chelsea Cain, a autora de Mockingbird, abandonou o Twitter após ousar escrever o seguinte, inócuo e agora deletado, tweet: “Por favor comprem a Mockingbird #8 esta quarta-feira. Envie para a @marvel a mensagem de que há espaço nos quadrinhos para histórias de super-heróis sobre mulheres adultas.”
    Zainab Akhtar encerrou seu site de crítica de quadrinhos, indicado ao prêmio Eisner, o Comics and Cola, por causa de ataques racistas, sexistas e islamofóbicos. Anita Sarkeesian recebeu ameaças de bomba por investigar o sexismo nos vídeo games. Leslie Jones foi perseguida por racistas no Twitter e hackeada porque ousou interpretar uma mulher negra em Ghostbusters.
    Quando esse tipo de assédio acontece, os advogados do diabo surgem do nada, dizendo que os assediadores estão reagindo a mudanças em seus personagens favoritos ou legitimamente criticando as posições políticas da mulher, ou então, simplesmente expressando suas opiniões. Esta é a sempre óbvia tentativa de proporcionar uma desculpa mais palatável para a misoginia desenfreada e/ou racismo. Mas o assédio em torno da selfie de Heather Antos torna ainda mais descaradamente óbvia qual é a verdadeira motivação. É assédio por existir. Por ousar sorrir e gostar de fazer quadrinhos quando se é mulher. É um assédio alimentado por pura raiva ao ver um monte de mulheres editando quadrinhos e se divertindo em seu trabalho.
    Esta vai para todos os bebês-
    chorões adultos que se sentiram
    ameaçados por mulheres se
    divertindo. Que vocês calem a
    droga da sua boca
    Quando falamos sobre o sexismo generalizado nos quadrinhos, é isso que queremos dizer. Queremos dizer que alguns "fãs" são tão misóginos e se sentem tão ameaçados pela ideia de mulheres na indústria, que uma selfie desencadeia esse comportamento. Essa raiva é ainda pior se você for uma mulher trans, ou uma mulher negra, ou uma mulher com deficiência. Não há nada que as mulheres possam fazer para se proteger -- modificar nosso comportamento, ignorar os trolls, ou ainda tentar conversar -- que possivelmente satisfaça ou pacifique essas pessoas que odeiam a nossa presença. Porque a única coisa que realmente os acalmaria seria deixarmos de existir, publicamente e com alegria, em espaços nerd.
    E não, nós não vamos fazer isso.

              SJW Backlash Against Google Staffer: ‘I Would Beat The Sh*t Out Of Him’        

    Left-wing backlash against the Google employee who published a manifesto calling for more ideological tolerance at the company intensified this evening, as SJWs inside and outside Google sought to contain political dissent at the company.

    The post SJW Backlash Against Google Staffer: ‘I Would Beat The Sh*t Out Of Him’ appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.


              BREAKING: Crazy SJW Feminist Who Berated Lyft Driver Working With @HillaryClinton & @BarackObama’s Personal DJ        

    Annaliese Nielsen is a rabid feminist social justice warrior who rudely berated a Lyft driver in a now-viral video: Crazy Feminist Nielsen also happens to be working with President Barack Obama’s personal DJ, who is also now working for Hillary Clinton. Not surprising. Feminist Nielsen is partners with Adam Michael Bravin a.k.a. DJ Adam XII. […]

    The post BREAKING: Crazy SJW Feminist Who Berated Lyft Driver Working With @HillaryClinton & @BarackObama’s Personal DJ appeared first on GotNews.


              Faceapp Outrage: Filters Allow Users to Appear in Whiteface, Blackface, Yellowface, and Indian        
    A corporate CEO unsuccessfully defends a fun little feature over SJW accusations that it’s racist. Excerpt from Teen Vogue “The ethnicity change filters have been designed to be equal in all aspects,” Goncharov said to Mic via email. “They don’t … Continue reading
              SJW Students Showcase IT security & Forensic Capstone Project to Sharjah Municipality        
    A group of IT Security & Forensic students have recently presented their capstone project entitled “Smart Risk Management Plan is the pillar for the Smart Cities in UAE” to a select group of leaders from the Sharjah Municipality. There where around 20 ...
              SJW Looks to Find ‘The Biggest Loser’ Part 2        
    The start of Semester 2 saw the start of ‘Biggest Loser: Part 2’ at Sharjah Women’s campus (SJW), where many students joined in as they had set New Year’s resolutions and personal goals to accomplish. This semester there were more than ...
              SJW Butts In With Anti Smoking Campaign        
    The Student Services Counsellor and the Library Learning Center at the HCT-Sharjah Women’s campus (SJW) have joined forces to host an Anti-Smoking Campaign on April 30. The campaign message was clear- “If you smoke, please stop. If you don’t smoke, don’t ...
              SJW Kicks off 2017 Innovation Challenge with 50+ Entries        
    To promote innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit at the HCT-Sharjah Women’s campus (SJW), the Shoumoukh and Tomouh clubs have been working together with the Business and General Studies Divisions to host a three-stage Innovation Challenge. At the beginning of the spring ...
              SJW General Studies Students & Staff Raise Funds for Pink Caravan        
    The HCT-Sharjah campuses’ General Studies Department has a long history of supporting the Sharjah Women’s campus (SJW) Breast Cancer Awareness campaign, ‘Stand up to Breast Cancer’, and this year was no different. Students from the M.UN (Model United Nations) Debate Club ...
              SJW Animation Graduate Wins Emerging Film Maker Award at 8th ZUMEFF        
    Maryam Khalid Obaid, a graduate of the Animation programme (January 2017) at the HCT-Sharjah Women’s campus was awarded the Twofour54 Best Emerging Emirati Filmmaker Award at the 8th Zayed University Middle East Film Festival (ZUMEFF), held recently in Dubai. Maryam’s short ...
              SJW Students Whet Appetites for Future Careers with Feast of Employment-Focused Activities        
    The week April 16, 2017 was a busy one for faculty, staff and students at the Sharjah Women’s campus (SJW) as the Career Service team hosted several prominent employers for students to meet and network with, while the campus also ...
              Ex-Dividend Reminders Include NutriSystem Inc. (NTRI)        

    InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading Tips

    NutriSystem, Weis Markets, and SJW Group will all trade ex-dividend on May 4, 2017. Here are the payout details for NTRI, WMK, and SJW

    The post Ex-Dividend Reminders Include NutriSystem Inc. (NTRI) appeared first on InvestorPlace.


              Has Secularism Hurt Social Cohesion/Preservation and Made the West Weak?        

    I think there are some cold, hard realities which most atheists are in denial about or avoid discussing.  But let me preface this post so that the topic doesn’t get bogged down unnecessarily.

    I was raised in the Christian church but have not believed in God ever since I can remember.  I do not feel ill will towards the Christian church, nor do I see it as a viable solution to this problem of nihilism.  I am glad that religion has lost its essential monopoly over the question of values, morality, and public discourse.  I am approaching this issue from mostly an American perspective, and this important because America has not had the religious warfare or conflict that Europe has had in the past, and as such bringing up the conflict caused by competing religions (while an important point in some regions) is not particularly important in America, as it was not actually a major destabilizing issue throughout the majority of US history.

    All that being said, there are some obvious problems which atheists I think instinctively avoid, and which I’ve seen no viable proposed solution for.

    1.  Churches used to be a place where a significant proportion of people would go on Sundays, regardless of their class, regardless of their political beliefs, etc.  This created a sense of community which transcended the typical social demarcations which has never been matched or even attempted to be matched by atheists.  Is losing this social connection hub and not replacing it with anything else really consequence free when it comes to social cohesion and social trust?

    2.  I do not believe that most Christians ACTUALLY believe in God - I believe they feel positively towards the church as an institution and their fellow Christians, and that feeling of connectedness, they refer to as God. This would go a long way towards explaining the futility of rationally debating a Christian on the existence of God.  Remember, most people (including Christians) aren’t versed in philosophy, what existence is, and what it means to say something exists.  It’s pointless to argue about existence because you’re trying to reason someone out of a positive emotion, and existence as a concept is not generally understood (which is a pretty sad indictment of our education system).

    3.  Is a view of the world without religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to put aside their differences and see themselves as being on the same team?  From what I’ve seen talking to atheists (myself not being on the left) and Christians alike, I would say that atheists are more hostile to each other than Christians are to atheists.  I can count on one hand the number of conversations with a Christian which ended with them name calling and engaging in toxic behavior towards me - It would take me 10 pairs of hands to count the number of conversations with an atheist in which they engaged in that abusive and toxic behavior, and even had that behavior socially reinforced by other atheists.

    This goes back to Richard Dawkins’ quote on Christianty -  “.....I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”   Even if you feel I am not arguing the case well here, I would ask you to explain what you THINK Richard Dawkins meant when he said that…..he is not known to flippantly speak on issues.

    As many atheists rightly say, “Atheism doesn’t unite because it is a lack of belief rather than a belief itself.”  This is obviously true.  However, does that therefore mean that that vacuum of unity will not be filled with some even worse attempt to unify people - (like postmodern cultural relativism or SJW platitudes or even Islam)?

    4.  Is a view of the world without a unifying religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to protect that society from outside and hostile forces?  If it can be, then atheists have colossally failed in this endeavor (or didn’t try), because it is all the secular countries which are bowing down to Islam and its invasion.  Which countries have resisted Islam?  Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary all seem to have no interest in giving up their countries to Muslims - is it pure coincidence that they are all majority Christian countries?  Is it pure coincidence that Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK are all majority secular countries?

    There are certainly specific historical reasons why those 3 Eastern European countries are skeptical of the value of foreigners (and specifically Muslims), but it is also possible that the church remained strong in those countries precisely because of the very real and dangerous existential threats, and that that cohesion of faith is one reason why those countries have kept their identities relatively intact (even after all the turmoil caused by the USSR) and more importantly CONTINUE to do so in the face of the largest migration event since WWII, despite financial pressure from the EU in some cases.

    America is another country which has admirably pushed back against the invasion of Islam.  Christianity has been on a steady decline both in terms of piety and as a % of the total population, but it is still strong enough that Christians make up the majority of the people who oppose bringing Islam to the US.  It seems that atheists make up the majority of people who oppose those who oppose bringing Islam to the US…...again, another total coincidence?  The biggest common thread I see between the US and those Eastern European states is the Christian religion…....

    I fully realize much of this is an argument from effect for the value of some form of unifying religious mythology, and I try to avoid arguments from effect.  But in this case, the side effect of losing that unifying religious mythology seems to consistently and globally lead to the erasure of one’s secular culture and one’s way of life - therefore I argue that we MUST consider this phenomenon no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, no matter how tough of a problem this is to solve, and no matter how many atheists are unwilling to consider that religion or at least religious beliefs/culture MAY be as integral to social organization and preservation as the state itself.

    I’m here to point out my observations (which are becoming more and more common to hear from intellectuals like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, or Stefan Molyneux) and hopefully inspire some thought on this topic.  This does not mean I am advocating a return to Christianity, nor does it mean I would ever try to convince someone that God exists.  However, I think especially in the US that if we do not address this problem, we will share the same fate as Europe, and the overall proportion of secular people living safely will continue to shrink until secular people are persecuted minorities globally.

    In other words, if we cannot figure out how to maintain a secular society (and what Europe is doing obviously doesn’t work), we seem doomed to be replaced by a brutal, totalitarian religious/political ideology which will stamp out secularism.  Therefore, what problem could be more important than this one?  How rational can atheists really claim to be if they are unable to preserve their way of life?  How much influence would Islam have to obtain over the UK, France, and Germany before the rational thing as an atheist would be to compare the costs/benefits of living in a Christian country vs the costs/benefits of living in an Islamic country?

    I welcome all debate, but would most welcome attempts to answer the questions which I have formatted as bold, because I don’t want this discussion to be about what I think - I want to know what YOU think the answers are to these big questions, the answers to which may determine the future existence of secular values on this precarious planet.


              Comment on BREAKING: @Google Engineer Demands Job Applicants Undergo SJW Struggle Session for ‘Diversity’ by TheMule61        
    My new home page is DuckDuckGo.com. Fuq faGoogle.
              Comment on “SMACK MY B*TCH UP”: @Google SJW @AnthonyBaxter’s Social Media Past Full Of Sexism, Fat Hate, Hitler Jokes, & More by rouge1        
    Neo-puritans. Watch out they give you that great big A.
              Comment on “SMACK MY B*TCH UP”: @Google SJW @AnthonyBaxter’s Social Media Past Full Of Sexism, Fat Hate, Hitler Jokes, & More by Craven Moorehead        
    liberals are the vilest of creatures as they virtue signal the purest. it really is a mental disorder.
              A Brief Note on Storytelling vs. Political Grandstanding        


    One thing that really, more than anything else, cheeses me off about the so-called "Social Justice Warriors" is their appropriation of moral criticism, that is, the analysis of literature or other art for its moral content.  These people are usually proud about their lack of morals, at least in the sexual realm, yet, curiously, they are more sensitive and touchy than a Victorian matron when it comes to speech.  Watching their behavior and listening to them, I finally understand what Dietrich von Hildebrand meant when he said the prude and the libertine have much in common.

    The thing is, art is by nature ambiguous, and an SJW is by nature super-sensitive, so he can spin anything, anything at all, into something to be offended at, if it suits him to do so.

    If your story is about people from just one culture (or at least if it's about white people), the SJW will accuse you of a lack of diversity.

    However, if your story has a diverse cast, the SJW will accuse you of (I did not make this up) cultural appropriation.  This is one of those clever terms SJWs love to invent to make innocuous things sound sinister.  In the real world, of course, every culture borrows from every other culture it comes in contact with.  "Culture," broadly speaking, is not intellectual property and has no copyright.

    The correct terms for what they call cultural appropriation are borrowing and diffusion, but of course those don't sound evil.

    Take the magical girl genre, of which I'm a fanboy.  The Japanese built and undeniably dominate the magical girl genre, but the original magical girl show, Sally the Witch, was based on Bewitched, which is American.  The currently popular magical girl warrior is based on a cross between the magical girl and the Japanese superhero team, which is in turn based on the American superhero.

    So the genre is an American-Japanese fusion.  Who "appropriated" from whom?  And who cares?  The idea that this hurts anyone, or that it should offend anyone, is painfully stupid.

    Then, of course, you have Winx Club, the only popular magical girl franchise of which I'm aware outside Japan.  It's Italian, so that's an American-Japanese-Italian fusion.

    Which reminds me of spaghetti Westerns, also an American-Italian fusion.

    See, the thing is, the SJWs live and breathe double standards.  If a Japanese guy borrows something from America, that's a-okay, because Japanese people aren't white.  Unless they live in the U.S. and vote Republican.  Or something.  However, if a white guy, whatever his culture, borrows from another culture, that's bad, at least if the SJWs happen not to like the particular white guy in question.

              Feminist YouTube Star Harassed for Dating Political Opponent        
    It sounds like a romantic comedy: a vocal social justice warrior, a prominent anti-feminist with a massive following on YouTube. They should be the most bitter of enemies, and yet … Of course, a charming “opposites attract” story is forbidden these days. The Left has become totalitarian to the point that treating a person bearing opposing opinions as an actual person — nevermind dating one — is beyond the pale. Laci Green had announced recently that she was taking a step back from the whole SJW thing for a bit, because she wanted to actually talk to the other side. She’d already
              NO MORE PC: GotNews Chief & @WeSearchr CEO Chuck C. Johnson Tells Hysterical SJW To F*** Off After Trump Victory        

    GotNews founder and WeSearchr CEO Chuck C. Johnson shut down a hysterical left-wing social justice warrior who accosted him on the New York City subway for supporting the President-elect of the United States Donald Trump. The social justice warrior tried to shame Chuck when he saw Chuck’s iconic red Make America Great Again hat, but […]

    The post NO MORE PC: GotNews Chief & @WeSearchr CEO Chuck C. Johnson Tells Hysterical SJW To F*** Off After Trump Victory appeared first on GotNews.


              No one is safe from the SJW Zombies        
    The Other McCain has the story The totalitarian insanity of Third Wave “queer feminism” has now escalated to hitherto unprecedented levels. Popular lesbian YouTube personality Arielle Scarcelli (@ArielleScarcell on Twitter) committed the ThoughtCrime of saying that the way she knew she was gay was that she liked . . . uh, female anatomy. According to the …

    Continue reading No one is safe from the SJW Zombies


              An Open Letter to the CEO        

    Dear Mr CEO

    You said your job is to develop a vision and create an organisation with the right values that will make that vision a reality, so I thought I would drop this note in your lap for consideration. It is my contention that what goes for ‘strategy’ and ‘best practice’ in the modern corporate boardroom is a terminal degree of “me too-ism”. I think you have bought into a narrative that is promulgated by people who have a gnostic view of the world and specific agendas that appeal to the pseudo-thinkers of the world, but are in reality going to lead your organisation to its premature demise.

    OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY

    Over the years business organisations have been eaten away slowly from the inside by social justice warriors (SJWs). How this happened, requires us to go back a few years and in the evolution of the business organisation. Once you understand that, you will see how it has infested your organisation.

    Business organisations used to have a simple, clear objective: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. To do this, they innovated, developed products and served the needs of the people in a market place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. The business wins and the consumer wins.

    Your initial reaction may be to think that business has changed and that things are a lot more complex. You would be right in thinking that; but wrong in thinking the complexity or the change should be addressed the way companies are being led to respond.

    (My view is premised on the idea that a CEO should be the kind of leader who would like to focus on the business fundamentals rather than chase social approval by a few so-called progressives who posture so well and make so much noise one is led to think they are bigger than they really are.)

    The thin edge of the wedge has been sustainability, introduced some two decades ago, by the proponents of sustainability who proffered a solution to a problem that did not exist. They suggested that organisations should broaden their focus to include an emphasis on environment and on community.

    There is nothing wrong with sustainability per se – I will explain soon – but it has been a Trojan Horse for a pernicious social agenda.

    Broadening the focus automatically and explicitly also equates to a dilutionof focus – that stands to reason. And your organisation is paying the price.

    That is the guaranteed least impact, and that alone should make the hair on the neck of any self-respecting CEO stand up. Adding ‘sustainability’ as a filter though which the organisation will flow decisions, is not additive, it is dilutive to all resources at an organisations disposal, including management attention. Actually, that is not quite correct; it is additive in the overhead department.

    The reason for the success of the message despite the obvious cost (loss of focus and additional overhead) is that it seems‘obvious’ that businesses need a healthy environments and healthy community to thrive and destroying the environment is tantamount to destroying your future.

    So the social justice warriors (SJWs) would have you believe. And if you don’t think too deeply you will start believing it.

    The SJWs succeed with their message because they have successfully recast the organisational narrative to cast the business as a ‘citizen’ with a ‘responsibility’.  At first blush it seems reasonable, and as soon as that mindset gained traction amongst a cadre of unthinking executives, the battle was over.

    In effect, the SJWs have succeeded in levying a tax on business corporations that they are just too happy to pay, since they don’t realise they are paying it. In practice a few individuals have succeeded in getting the corporation to fund their own personal ideologies under the guise of corporate social responsibility.

    Isn’t that just super? I get the shareholder to pay for my warm and fuzzy feelings. That is, a few individuals are outsourcing their individual responsibilities to the company.

    It doesn’t mean that the cause is not worthy of support. I am not suggesting that communities don’t need to be healthy, that charities don’t need money and that the dolphins don’t need saving. The questions I am raising are:

    ·         What is the role of the business corporation in supporting these initiatives?

    ·         Who should be funding these initiatives?

    ·         Do executives really understand the slippery slope they have embarked upon by embracing these causes?

    Let’s consider just one aspect of ‘sustainability’ and that is ‘community’. The idea of healthy communities has become a crack in the corporate focus that allowed a whole bunch of other socially progressive, typically post-modern causes to enter the boardroom and then the work place:

    ·         gender diversity

    ·         aboriginal affirmative action

    ·         anti-racism and so forth

    Again, on face value, the causes seem worthy, reasonable and ‘just’. Who could argue with that, right? And I repeat – please pay attention – these causes may well be in and of themselves BE worthy, but that is not the point.

    But, adopting these social causes does come with baggage:

    ·         One, it further adds to the dilution of business focus (as mentioned earlier)

    ·         Two, it perpetuates the practice of individuals looting the corporate coffer to fund their personal ideology

    ·         Three, it smuggles multiple assumptions into the organisation that seriously contaminates the culture of the organisation in ways that are not immediately obvious. This point is particularly important. The multiple assumptions smuggled in are for instance:

    o   The belief that these programs and initiatives actually work and are worthy of support – when they rarely work.

    o   The impact of these causes is exclusively beneficial, when it is not.

    o   That it is a corporate and not individual responsibility to propagate these causes

    o   That because these causes are (currently) popular and topical, they are alsoimportant.

    o   That the impact of supporting the cause is limited to supporting the cause, when in reality it also impacts culture, moral ecology and even business productivity.

    Let’s unpack some of these assumptions to consider how they impact the functioning of the business. Consider affirmative action for instance, and consider the various ways in which the good intentions actually have the opposite, detrimental impact.

    By accentuating ‘race’in making decisions about promotions, you actually emphasise that this group is inferior and need special considerations to level the playing field. It perpetuates a culture of victimhood, which highlights the inequality without alleviating it. In fact, by promoting someone beyond their level of competence, you are accelerating their inevitable failure, making it harder to promote the next person and making it extremely hard for anyone else to believe in the fairness of the ‘program’. The intention may be noble (to right a wrong) but the unintended consequences become the reality.

    The impact is extended to all employees who feel aggrieved at losing out on a role, not based on performance or fit for the role, but because of the colour of their skin. This has an immediate and lasting impact on motivation and productivity. The reverse also applies of course – if an Aboriginal person is overlooked for a role despite obvious competence and fit, they would feel aggrieved and rightfully so. The only relatively objective course of action is to base it on a clear set of performance criteria. Affirmative Action is a shortcut. Shortcuts don’t work, but those pushing the agenda are not the ones paying the price of the failures, the shareholders are.

    Many people want to view history as a series of unpunished crimes, and feel compelled to right these wrongs. The truth is that the past cannot be changed. And if the crime of the past WAS to judge people on the colour of their skin, then it cannot be remedied by judging people on the colour of the skin again today. That would simply be perpetuating the crime, and it is completely illogical to think otherwise.

    Once you start factoring in skin colour and sexual organs as a criteria for advancement, then it opens the door to other non-performance related criteria. Is their equal representation on the Board (or senior management) of: Women? Of Black people? Of blind people? Of immigrants? Of blondes? Can you see how ridiculous it gets very quickly?

    As I write this, there is a rally for ‘rangers’ in Melbourne. (The Ginger Pride rally.) It is a marketing stunt, but there is no logical reason why it can’t or indeed shouldn’t be a serious matter. So, here is the million dollar question: HOW are you going to defend the accusation that you don’t have a proportional representation of red-haired people on your Board? Because I bet you don’t. And I bet you can’t prove that you don’t discriminate. Red-haired people ARE being discriminated against and research has proven this.

    We could also be saying that women need consideration ahead of the disabled? Or immigrants? On what basisdo you make that decision? These are the decisions that one must attempt when standing on that slippery slope. Once you depart from an impartial/objective criterion like performance as the basis for making a decision, you are going down a path of never-ending compromise, sub-optimal decisions and unproductive activity. (Performance may not be objective in the true sense of the word, but it is the most relevant measure that can be impartially evaluated by most people.)

    Consider the facts if I described them neutrally:

    There is demand that you support a cause that is prejudiced against majority of the corporation’s employees, will impact the productivity materially and gain no commercial advantage but the personal satisfaction of the individual at the expense of the shareholders.

    Will you, spend the money on that ‘cause’? Would you encourage your managers to do so? Are they all entitled to pick their favourite cause or are you going to pick the ones you personally feel the strongest about to spend the shareholders money on?

    I am sure this will be misread by many. This is not a racist or misogynistic position. I am not promoting that we all take an uncharitable view of the world and not care about community or environment or red-haired people. I am not specifically making a case against helping people of colour succeed. I am using that as an example to demonstrate how these causes have a counter-productive outcome; despite our best intentions.

    I am saying that we as individualshave a collective responsibility to make the world a better place.

    But it is for each one of us to decide how we do that and how we resource it. It is devious, and defeats the point of the exercise when the only ‘good’ that we do is by forcing other people (shareholders) into funding our pet projects.
    The same applies to those who interpret sustainability as being environmentally conscious. If an operational decision is made that is supposedly good for the environment, but also adds cost to the business then it is not a 'sustainable' outcome. In fact, you are now less competitive and may well go broke. Sustainability means embracing environmentally sensitive actions that ALSO save you money. In that case it is justified on the commerce alone anyway, so you don't need to hang your hat on sustainability for a few corporate cudos and peer recognition.

    My message to employees of the corporation would be:

    DO YOUR JOB. Do what the shareholders pay you to do. Keep your eye on the main game and add value to the business. Stop making the company a playground for your social theories.


    If you really want to make a difference AND really believed in it, do it on your own time and with your own money. If everyone in an organisation makes a contribution to their communities that are authentic with the serious personal investment of their own time and money, then the individual is securing the environment the corporation needs to thrive in – healthy communities and healthy environments. It is the individual who needs to make a difference – in that way actually secures their own futures.

    If any person wants alleviate poverty, they should go do the CEO sleep-out on their own time and donate their own money. The shareholders may want to save the whales instead. The same goes for every other ‘cause’:

    If you want to promote gender diversity, then choose to not spend your money in businesses where they discriminate and force the change you want to see with your personal sacrifice of not buying something you may have otherwise wanted.

    If you want to promote Aboriginal workplace participation, give up your Saturdays to teach them at the local community college for free, because I may want to spend my money eradicating domestic violence.

    If you don’t like how corporations are treating women, divest your shares or stop buying their product.

    Organisations need to seriously rethink their approach to these SJW causes. It is a slippery slope that will eventually make the organisation vulnerable to attacks from anyone with an axe to grind who can demonstrate that their cause does not get the airtime it deserves.

    Can you realistically support every cause? And more importantly, can you really justify why you are supporting those you do and not any others?

    And importantly Mr CEO, what are you going to say to me when I come to you and suggest that all people who work for our little outfit should be Anti-Abortion because we can’t have the company endorse people who wilfully murder the innocent. How are you going to say NO to me (which I guess you will want to) when I approach you to support such a just cause?
    Are you going to say 'no' because it doesn't 'feel' right?

    Organisations, are over-run by Social Justice Warriors, and on the surface their arguments make sense. It has reached the point where these causes dictate behaviour (code of conduct) and it is only a matter of time before they dictate strategy.

    This same disease manifests itself in other ways too: People are becoming increasingly litigious because they have divested themselves of any personal responsibility for falling on an escalator or diving into a sandbank on the beach. It must surely be someone else’s fault? People increasingly look to the State to bail themselves out when in a bind. Whether there was bushfire or a flood, or just a loss of a job; people turn to the State for compensation. That mythical 'someone' must take responsibility for my situation.

    People abrogate personal responsibility; that is self-evident.

    People like to support worthy causes and it so much easier with other people’s money; that too, is obvious.

    And if CEOs are not brave enough to call this out, will make the corporation and its shareholders suffer the dire consequences.

    If CEOs choose to embark on a form of social engineering they are ill-qualified to execute, they will invariably base their decisions on fickle public opinion of the ‘Cause du Jour’ – a sure recipe for failure.

    These SJWs hide in ‘Service’ departments like HR Departments and Comms departments typically, hardly ever where the business actually gets done. Those people out there making stuff and selling stuff don’t have the time to investment in distractions. I have seen it repeatedly in organisations that the only way these SJWs can justify their existence is to elevate these externalities to internal imperatives.

    CEOs are taken along for the ride on the promise that they are ‘showing leadership’ and will gain the admiration of their peers. Appeal to vanity has always been powerful and few have been able to resist. Can you resist? (That is a billion dollar question, actually, and I mean it.)

    But if you are really brave, you will break the mould and re-claim the following:

    1.       Any social cause is something that individuals should take responsibility forand it cannot be outsourced to a corporation. Your corporation can be known for enabling people (employees) to make a difference in the way that they individually believe and where it personally matters.

    2.       You will stand up for the shareholder and be honest: no more spending theirmoney on your causes. You will respect them enough to allow them to spend their money the way they see fit.

    3.       No more artificial decision-making criteria: people will be judged on their ability and their competence in contributing to the commercial purpose of the organisation. You respect differences in race and gender (and any other physical difference) enough to claim that it truly does not matter. The ultimate sign of respecting the individual is to treat them equally. No special programs. No mandates. No quotas. Nothing but merit.

    4.       The business exists for the purpose of delivering a return for their shareholders. Many stakeholders benefit from an organisation that is successful in achieving that, and each stakeholder is respected equally and they are equally capable of deciding how they want to invest or spend their returns. No more Big Brother; we trust people to choose wisely in their own right.

    5.       A responsible organisation is not the one that gives the most money to charitable causes or subscribes to the latest pop-culture cause. It is the organisation that recognises individual merit, enables the stakeholders to do good things according to their personal judgment and does not compromise ethical standards.

    6.       There will be a return to the fundamentals of business: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. That is, to innovate, develop products and serve the needs of the people in a market place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. It is a return to focus on the true reason for being.

    Now you can choose to create a new set of values, but they won’t exist in 5 years’ time either when the next CEO rolls along. And the reason for it is that the REAL value agenda is being driven by the SJWs. It is built into the rewards system; it is built into HR policies it is built into what gets communicated. (See why I say the source of SJW power is usually HR/Comms?)

    Anyway, if you want to articulate a set of values (same or different) and you want to be successful in shaping the organisation accordingly, here is the recipe, if I may be so bold:

    1.       Make sure you strip the power from the SJWs, make them (to the extent that you keep them) write the policies that actually support the values you want to embed.

    2.       Differentiate clearly between ‘accountable’ and ‘responsible’: the people who are supposed to get stuff done are constantly in reporting meetings justifying decisions instead of dealing with the issues.

    3.       I’d probably pick one word; say ‘productive’, and then focus on that. It is word that can be used to guide day-to-day decision making. The actual focus world does not matter, as long as it is a functional word that can’t be hi-jacked for anything. People just need focus – a real, believable vision. Imagine the transformation that could happen when if we asked about every ‘plan’ and every ‘meeting’ and every ‘process’ if that is the most productive way of doing business?

    I know I make it look and sound simple, but it would be very hard to pull it off. You would certainly be going against the stream of ‘me-too’ CEOs who are being led down the garden path, and that would be an achievement in itself.

    The ‘values’ that we want and don’t have are outcomes. What you have to sort out is the inputs and the process. If you want to make better cake, you change the ingredients and the process of making it. The outcome is what it is.

    If you want to do that, you need to be in control. So long as the SJWs are running the agenda, you are not in control.

    I hope you have the courage to rid your organisation of this baggage, intellectual, physical and human. If you do that, then your organisation may again become our organisation.

     

    Thanks for reading,

     

    A sincere and hopeful employee

              Will you be a leader, or will you simply perpetuate the scam?        

    (Or, other people’s money...)

    Over the years business organisations have been eaten away slowly from the inside by social justice warriors. How this happened, requires us to go back a few years and in the evolution of the business organisation.
    Business organisations used to have a simple, clear objective: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. To do this, they innovated, developed products and served the needs of the people in a market place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. The business wins and the consumer wins.

    The thin edge of the wedge has been sustainability, introduced some two decades ago, by the proponents of sustainability who proffered a solution to a problem that did not exist. They suggested that organisations should broaden their focus to include an emphasis on environment and on community.
    Broadening the focus automatically and explicitly also equates to a dilutionof focus – that stands to reason. That is the guaranteed least impact, and that alone should make the hair on the neck of any self-respecting CEO stand up. Adding ‘sustainability’ as a filter though which the organisation will flow decisions, is not additive, it is dilutive to all resources at an organisations disposal, including management attention. Actually, that is not quite correct; it is additive in the overhead department.

    The reason for the success of the message despite the obvious cost (loss of focus and additional overhead) is that it seems to ‘obvious’ that businesses need a healthy community to thrive and destroying the environment is tantamount to destroying your future. So the social justice warriors (SJWs) would have you believe.
    The SJWs succeed with their message because they have successfully recast the organisational narrative to cast the business as a ‘citizen’ with a ‘responsibility’.  At first blush it seemsreasonable, and as soon as that mindset gained traction amongst a cadre of unthinking executives, the battle was over.

    In effect, the SJWs have succeeded in levying a tax on business corporations that they are just too happy to pay, since they don’t realise they are paying it.
    In practice a few individuals have succeeded in getting the corporation to fund their own personal ideologies under the guise of corporate social responsibility.

    Isn’t that just super? I get the shareholder to pay for my warm and fuzzy feelings.

    It doesn’t mean that the cause is not worthy of support. I am not suggesting that communities don’t need to be healthy, that charities don’t need money and that the dolphins don’t need saving. The question I am raising is what the role of the business corporation is and who should be funding these initiatives and whether executives really understand the slippery slope they have embarked upon by embracing these causes?
    The idea of healthy communities has become a crack in the corporate focus that allowed a whole bunch of other socially progressive, typically post-modern causes to enter the boardroom and then the work place: gender diversity, aboriginal affirmative action, anti-racism and so forth.

    Again, on face value, the causes seem worthy, reasonable and ‘right’. Who could argue with that, right?
    But, adopting these social causes does come with baggage:

    ·         One, it further adds to the dilution of business focus.

    ·         Two, it perpetuates the practice of individuals looting the corporate coffer to fund their personal ideology

    ·         Three, it smuggles multiple assumptions into the organisation that seriously contaminates the culture of the organisation in ways that are not immediately obvious. This point is particularly important. The multiple assumptions smuggled in are for instance:

    o   The belief that these programs and initiatives actually work and are worthy of support – when they rarely work.

    o   The impact of these causes is exclusively beneficial, when it is not.

    o   That it is a corporate and not individual responsibility to propagate these causes

    o   That because these causes are (currently) popular and topical, they are also important.

    o   That the impact of supporting the cause is limited to supporting the cause, when in reality it also impacts culture, moral ecology and even business productivity.
    Let’s unpack some of these assumptions to consider how they impact the functioning of the business. Consider affirmative action for instance, and consider the various ways in which the good intentions actually have the opposite, detrimental impact.
    By accentuating the race in making decisions about promotions, you actually emphasise that this group is inferior and need special considerations to level the playing field. It perpetuates a culture of victimhood, which highlights the inequality without alleviating it. In fact, by promoting someone beyond their level of competence, you are accelerating their inevitable failure.

    The impact is extended to all employees who feel aggrieved at losing out on a role, not based on performance or fit for the role, but because of the colour of their skin. This has an immediate and lasting impact on motivation and productivity. The reverse also applies of course – if an Aboriginal person is overlooked for a role despite obvious competence and fit, they would feel aggrieved and rightfully so. The only relatively objective course of action is to base it on a clear set of performance criteria.
    Many people want to view history as a series of unpunished crimes, and feel compelled to right the wrongs. The truth is that the past cannot be changed. And if the crime of the past WAS to judge people on the colour of their skin, then it cannot be remedied by judging people on the colour of the skin again today. That would simply be perpetuating the crime.

    Once you start factoring in skin colour and sexual organs as a criteria for advancement, then it opens the door to other non-performance related criteria. Is their equal representation on the Board (or senior management) of: Women? Of Black people? Of blind people? Of immigrants? Of blondes? Can you see how ridiculous it gets very quickly?
    Or are you saying that women need consideration ahead of the disabled? Or immigrants? On what basisdo you make that decision? These are the decisions that one must attempt when standing on that slippery slope.

    Consider the facts if I described them neutrally:
    There is demand that you support a cause that is prejudiced against majority of the corporation’s employees, will impact the productivity materially and gain no commercial advantage but the personal satisfaction of the individual at the expense of the shareholders.

    Will you, Mr CEO spend the money on that cause? Would you encourage your managers to do so? Are they all entitled to pick their favourite cause or are you going to pick the ones you personally feel the strongest about to spend the shareholders money on?
    I am sure this will be misread by many. This is not a racist or misogynistic position. I am not promoting that we all take an uncharitable view of the world and not care about community or environment.
    I am saying that we as individualshave a collective responsibility to make the world a better place.

    But it is for each one of us to decide how we do that and how we resource it. It is devious, and defeats the point of the exercise when the only ‘good’ that we do is by forcing other people (shareholders) into funding our pet projects.
    If you really want to make a difference AND really believed in it, do it on your own time and with your own money. If everyone in an organisation makes a contribution to their communities that are authentic with the serious personal investment of their own time and money, then the individual is securing the environment the corporation needs to thrive in – healthy communities and healthy environments. It is the individual who needs to make a difference – in that way actually secures their own futures.

    Organisations need to seriously rethink their approach to these SJW causes. It is a slippery slope that will eventually make the organisation vulnerable to attacks from anyone with an axe to grind who can demonstrate that their cause does not get the airtime it deserves.
    Can you realistically support every cause? And more importantly, can you really justify why you are supporting the one that you do and not any other?

    If you want alleviate poverty, go do the CEO sleep-out on your time and donate your money. Your shareholders may want to save the whales instead.
    If you want to promote gender diversity, then choose to not spend your money in businesses where they discriminate and force the change you want to see with your personal sacrifice of not buying something you may have otherwise wanted.

    If you want to promote Aboriginal workplace participation, give up your Saturdays to teach them at the local community college for free, because I may want to spend my money eradicating domestic violence.
    If you don’t like how corporations are treating women, divest your shares.

    And importantly Mr CEO, what are you going to say to me when I come to you and suggest that all people who work for our little outfit should be Anti-Abortion because we can’t have the company endorse people who wilfully murder the innocent. How are you going to say NO to me (which I guess you will want to) when I approach you to support such a just cause?
    Organisations are over-run by Social Justice Warriors, and on the surface their arguments make sense. It has reached the point where these causes dictate behaviour (code of conduct) and it is only a matter of time before they dictate strategy.

    These SJWs hide in HR Departments and Comms departments typically, hardly ever where the business actually gets done. Those people out there making stuff and selling stuff don’t have the time to investment in distractions. The only way these SJWs can justify their existence is to elevate these externalities to internal imperatives. CEOs are taking along for the ride on the promise that they are ‘showing leadership’ and will gain the admiration of their peers. Appeal to vanity has always been powerful and few have been able to resist. Can you resist?
    But if you are really brave, Mr CEO, you will break the mould and re-claim the following:

    1.       Any social cause is something that individuals should take responsibility for and it cannot be outsourced to corporation. Your corporation can be known for enabling people (employees) to make a difference in the way that they individually believe and where it personally matters.

    2.       You will stand up for the shareholder and be honest: no more spending their money on your causes. You will respect them enough to allow them to spend their money the way they see fit.

    3.       No more artificial decisions-making criteria: people will be judged on their ability and their competence in contributing to the commercial purpose of the organisation. You respect differences in race and gender (and any other physical difference) enough to claim that it truly does not matter. The ultimate sign of respecting the individual is to treat them equally. No special programs. No mandates. No quotas. Nothing but merit.

    4.       The business exists for the purpose of delivering a return for their shareholders. Many stakeholders benefit from an organisation that is successful in achieving that, and each stakeholder is respected equally and they are equally capable of deciding how they want to invest or spend their returns. No more Big Brother; we trust people to choose wisely in their own right.

    5.       A responsible organisation is not the one that gives the most money to charitable causes or subscribes to the latest pop-culture cause. It is the organisation that recognises individual merit, enables the stakeholders to do good things according to their personal judgment and does not compromise ethical standards.

    6.       There will be a return to the fundamentals of business: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. That is, to innovate, develop products and serve the needs of the people in a market place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. It is a return to focus on the true reason for being.
    Will you be a leader, or will you simply perpetuate the scam?
     

              Amy Schumer: The Leather Special (try not to look away challenge)        
    comedy " special. Remember her crying about the evil sexist right wing conspiracy to kill her ratings because she's a woman? Conveniently ignoring the fact that there were just as many SJW tools overrating her because she's a PC mouthpiece. This special is why Netflix switched from a scoring system to a thumbs system. It got a 3/10 on Netflix, which is extremely generous IMO. It's nothing but the same tired smelly vagina jokes and material stolen from real comedians. try not to laugh " challenge ever. The YouTube comments are funny. The special is the least funny most cringie stand-up ever. Try to watch it. I dare you, try to watch it. Consider it a challenge.
              The SJWs Now Get To Police Speech On Twitter, Ctd        
    Fighting real oppression is hard. Lets just get some people we disagree with suspended on Twitter. #SJW #FreeNero #SJWLogic — Thought Crime #2063 (@EchoOwl) November 11, 2014 Last night, a reader wrote: It looks like the fears mentioned in your post have already come to pass; @nero, the Twitter account of Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer for […]
              A Tale of Two Interviews        
    Recently, two royals gave interviews; Britain’s Prince Harry and Princess Marie of Denmark (wife of Prince Joachim). Of course, of the two, the interview with Prince Harry, for Newsweek magazine, got the most attention as any news involving the British Royal Family invariably does; they are playing to a larger audience after all. However, that might not be a bad thing as the interview given by Princess Marie could easily be taken as shockingly outrageous by the oh-so-sensitive “social justice warrior” crowd. Needless to say, I loved it for the very same reasons they would find it offensive. It is probably for the best that fewer people will see it because I can see (knowing how these SJW types think) how it could be used to portray Princess Marie as a horrible person (like me), which she certainly is not. This is, though, the common thread between the two interviews because, as did the son of Albion who sent me the article, I could tell from the headline alone that this would be a gift to the traitorous republicans of Britain and the Commonwealth and I knew exactly how they would (and have) twisted the Prince’s honest observations to fit their agenda.

    Starting with Prince Harry (an article on the interview can be found here), the one line that was singled out from the entire interview to plaster all over the headlines was his relating that no one in the House of Windsor really wants the “job” of being monarch. He said, “Is there any one of the Royal Family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.” It is no coincident that this one line was singled out for the most attention rather than the Prince’s follow-up remarks about the dedication to duty the Royal Family has and the importance of the monarchy for people in Britain and across the Commonwealth. No, they seize on the line about no one wanting the top job because it fits in well with a traditional republican narrative, I call it the “nice guy” republican narrative. This is the one that says, ‘see, the royals don’t event want to live the sort of life they do, they have no freedom, so the best thing we could do for them is to abolish the monarchy and set them free from their gilded cage!’ or some such similar nonsense.

    This is a typical republican response to monarchies that enjoy high popularity as it allows them to advocate abolishing the monarchy without attacking the monarch but, rather, posing as the ‘saviors’ of the Royal Family. The problem with this is that it is one, rare, republican argument which actually has facts behind it, what is despicable is the completely dishonest and disingenuous way they use it. The truth is that, yes, the royals do not have quite so envious a position as people think. They are constantly under tremendous scrutiny, have obligations they never asked for, have much of their lives planned out months in advance and have less personal freedom than anyone in their country. They have no freedom of movement (for the monarch anyway), no freedom of speech and no right to vote among others. They have all of the stress and scrutiny of a position of authority but none of the power to go along with it. Were they to lose their royal status, they would simply be very wealthy private citizens and could live their lives without a care in the world or any concern for public opinion. I have no doubt it would be quite liberating.

    The republicans, however, seldom actually fool anyone with their supposed concern for the happiness and freedom of the royals. They are, after all, a big reason why the royals have so little. However, while what the Prince said was doubtless true, the Crown being an awesome responsibility that no sane person would want if they truly understood the consequences of it, he should not have said what he did as it simply does not play well with the modern public. Thanks to the media, academia and so on, all of which is inundated with Marxist “values” far too many people have been taught to view everything with an envious lens. The last thing the modern masses want to hear is someone complaining about his life who lives in a palace, dates bombshells, skis in the Alps and so on while they live in a council house and eat takeaway. It’s not right, it’s not healthy but that people for you. The idea that common people live poorly because royals live well is a canard that should be obvious yet it has been deployed to some effect at least as far back as the French Revolution, so it should not be discounted.

    Most concerning to me was Prince Harry’s expressed desire, including the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, to “modernize” the monarchy when their time does come. I do not like the sound of that, mostly because I am gun-shy about anything involving modernity. In my experience, whenever anyone talks of “modernizing” something the result is usually plainer, uglier, less meaningful and more ridiculous than it was before. However, it is probably not a coincidence that this interview was with an American periodical and if Prince Harry sticks with his current girlfriend he will certainly gain a great deal more attention in the United States and break new ground. If the Prince and Meghan Markle take this all the way, Meghan could become the first mixed-race American actress to become a royal princess. That would certainly please the diversity crowd. However, even then, as with President Obama, I can already predict that, being half Irish-American, there will be some who insist she is not “Black enough” to count. Of course, Prince Maximilian of Liechtenstein married a 100% African-American some years ago, giving Europe their first Afro-European prince but, of course, that is Liechtenstein which hardly shows up on the radar, they are not *technically* royal and I am quite confident that more than 99% of Americans have no idea where Liechtenstein is or even what it is.

    Anyway, the bottom line is that while Prince Harry would certainly get a great deal of attention if he stuck with his current ‘flavor of the month’ the sort of crowd that would be most impressed by that is the same sort that is never satisfied so pandering to them would be futile. However, it does also provide a tenuous connection with the subject of the second interview, Princess Marie of Denmark (her interview can be read here) who is the second wife of Prince Joachim of Denmark, his first wife being Alexandra Manley, a mixed race woman of Euro-Asian ancestry from Hong Kong who was previously Princess Alexandra, now Countess of Frederiksborg and soon to be no longer on the government payroll. Their breakup was the first royal divorce in Denmark since 1846, so, rather significant. Both have since remarried, Prince Joachim to Marie Cavallier, a native of Paris, France in 2008. Her father-in-law is also French and both converted from Catholicism to the Lutheran Church of Denmark for their marriages.

    Princess Marie gave a perfectly pleasant and perfectly frank interview and came off looking like an altogether nice person, open, honest and good natured. I think more highly of her after reading it. However, as stated as the outset, she did say some things that the SJW crowd would be quick to pick apart and pounce on if they were to actually read it (which I doubt any will). Some parts would likely have raised more eyebrows in the past than they would now. Her remark that, coming from France, she had to adjust to how much earlier people start to work in Denmark, would have, in years past, caused some huffing about stereotypes of Gallic laziness versus the Protestant work ethic but I don’t think anyone notices that anymore. What they would, however, surely seize on was her remark that, in explaining how much more trusting Danes seem to be than other people and asked if this had anything to do with the size of the country, “The size probably plays, because the territory is homogeneous. But we must also take into account our very ancient history. We have the oldest monarchy in Europe and are deeply attached to our traditions. At the same time, the country is very modern. Education also plays a great role.”

    For those of you fortunate enough not to know how the mind of the fanatic, revolutionary leftist works, saying that a “homogeneous” country is a positive thing is one of the worst things you could possibly do. No, homogeneous societies are bad and only diverse societies are good (at least when it comes to western countries anyway). Princess Marie and any Dane who would say it is a good thing for Denmark to be Danish would certainly get an ear-full from any “social justice warrior” who would berate them as terrible “racists” for such thinking and demand that they acknowledge that Denmark has never been very good and never will be until more Africans, Arabs and Asians are bought in to bring all the benefits of “diversity”. According to these people, Denmark has always been substandard precisely for being so homogeneous. Princess Marie, needless to say, was not thinking of any of this and seems to be an entirely good natured, optimistic type of person. She was, I have no doubt, simply relating what used to be considered common sense; that a small group of people who are alike, share the same values and are generally on the same page will be able to trust each other and get along with each other much easier than if the opposite were true.

    Princess Marie was then asked about Prince Joachim, the interviewer pointing out that he is half French. She responded with glowing praise for her hubby, saying that he inherited great qualities from both his parents but emphasizing that, “He’s indeed the perfect Dane…” which I am sure some could find fault with. However, that would be as nothing compared to her answer to a question about the negative portrayals of Denmark, this coming after she related how wonderful she thought Denmark and all things Danish are. The Princess seemed at a loss as to what could possibly be a negative cliché about Denmark so the interviewer proposed the notion that Denmark is a country of Vikings. In an answer that would surely upset the snowflake crowd, Princess Marie brushed this aside, seemingly oblivious to the idea that anyone could possibly consider being associated with the Vikings as a bad thing. She actually agreed with the stereotype but thought it was a positive thing saying, “It’s also true. My husband is never sick. He never goes to the doctor. He’s very tough. He’s quite a Viking. They have very good genetics!”

    I really loved this answer. The interviewer was doubtlessly thinking of big, brawny blondes killing and looting as the epitome of what it means to be a Viking. Princess Marie, however, chose to instead take pride in the Vikings as strong, robust people who were very tough, went on to associate her husband with them, in a very positive way, and then just to make sure the SJW types would reach critical mass, praised the genetics of the Vikings, inherently implying that some people have better genes than others. Again, I have no doubt such a thought never entered the Princess’ mind for a moment, but that is just the sort of thing that the people who are constantly on the hunt for something to be offended and outraged over would seize upon as being terribly insensitive, even “racist”. Frankly, I simply found it to be refreshingly positive and very charming that the Princess can be blissfully unaware that such unpleasant and manipulative people exist in the world who might zero in on such innocent remarks. Again, I came away from reading the interview with a higher opinion of Princess Marie than I had previously. I point these examples out simply to show that royals today, in spite of their diminished roles, must tread a very difficult path because their enemies are every watchful, ever deceitful and have no depths they will not stoop to in order to undermine the last vestiges of tradition that exist in the world today.
              Alex Jones - 2017-Jul-21, Friday        
    Friday, July 21, 2017: Mueller's Fishing Expedition - Special Counsel Robert Mueller digs deep for any smidgen of Trump-Russia dirt. Meanwhile, Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon faces uncertainty, as President Trump reportedly considers another staff shake-up. And documents show former President Obama had troops on standby for possible martial law on Election Day. On today's show, philosopher Stefan Molyneux gives his take on the latest news including OJ's parole, ongoing SJW madness and more. Former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo also provides insight into the Trump administration's inner workings. And media analyst Mark Dice joins us to break down CNN's epic downfall. You don't want to miss this broadcast!
              Who You Gonna Call?        
    I don't watch a lot of movies. I like movies, I just don't make/take the time to watch a lot of them, certainly not in theaters. I definitely don't follow the movie industry, short of watching trailers because trailers are like lottery tickets: the expense is worth the excitement, even if it isn't going to net you anything.

    So I was extremely excited, and excited for my own excitedness, when I caught the Ghosbusters 3 trailer last week on the Facebooks. It hit so many cool notes, was so well put together, and nodded back at the original films without yelling, "Hey! Hi! I know you!" I had only a passing interest in the movie until I saw the trailer; now I'm genuinely looking forward to it and geeking out a bit.



    It came as a bit of shock, then, when I began taking time to learn a bit more about the production history of Ghostbusters to find that people hate it. Like, they really hate it.

    I had been struggling to come up with something to blog about until now.



    This crybaby loathing was vaguely somewhere on my radar before. It was probably just intuited: people always have a problem with everything. Hell, people had a problem with a black Stormtrooper. And yet I was still borderline stunned when I saw the number of dislikes on the YouTube page for the trailer. At last check it was over 400,000 dislikes, compared to only 190,000 likes. And the comments, as you just saw, are insane. I had to find out why.

    And so I dug. I read. I watched interviews, perused Tweets, and weird, sexist memes. And I have no answers.

    The best I can do is this: people hate Ghostbusters 3 because of (1)loathing of PC culture, (2)misplaced nostalgia, and a (3)dislike for contemporary SNL (which actually goes back to #2). Let's go over these in brief.

    1) Politically Incorrect

    People well and truly hate the politically correct culture. I get that. It's tiring to feel like you're walking on eggshells with every conversation, that someone is hiding in the bushes preparing to leap out and yell, "That's offensive!" if you say something off-color. But if we look at the heart of the matter it's largely positive: people just want to take part without fear of being hurt because of who they are or what they look like. They (not us) get to choose what's hurtful to say and what isn't, even if it seems excessive at times.

    The vitriol at the female cast is still mind-boggling. And, more importantly, what is really taken away from us men when women get the hero role? I don't know. I don't feel threatened; I just want to see a cool movie. It reminds me of a Marc Maron line: "Whenever a man has yelled at a woman, he should probably have been yelling 'Why can't you be my mommy?!'"


    Women heading a scifi/action/horror reboot isn't a problem, though. As my wife wisely said, "I'm a feminist because I want an even playing field". And if being politically correct means I want it to be okay for women to be Ghostbusters, then I'll be politically correct. Otherwise you're rousing socio-politcal rabble when you should just be saying, "Girls can't play in my sandbox! They play in the girls sandbox!"

    Besides, you have hardly any control over anything beyond yourself, your community, your family, and you definitely have no control over a film that's already finished post-production. If you want some effect on Ghostbusters 3, do this: once it's out you just DON'T GO SEE IT.

    This whole business lands us in another discussion about the internet giving everyone a voice and whether those voices would be better spent at a bar after a drinks, rather than on public and global platforms, but I digress.

    To call Ghostbusters 3 a 'SJW' or 'feminist' movie seems a bit extreme. Putting a label on everything and trying to make it about something other than what it's about is very troubling and, in the end, creates hatred rather than solving anything at all, even if the issue is standing against SJW or feminist movies.

    The weird thing about that is how so few online 'activists' have noticed (or spoken up about) the black character being the MTA worker, rather than a physicist or paranormal expert. Bigger fish to fry, I suppose.

    2) But, my childhood!

    Nostalgia is a funny thing. Let's start with what is, I think, a valid argument against Ghostbusters: there are too many reboots, so do something original. I get that. I roll my eyes until I see a remake/reboot that I'm actually interested in. The whole "This is about my childhood" thing, however, is a bit confusing. How does this movie have the power to delete or reframe or pollute the experiences of your childhood?



    I want to understand all this, I really do, and so I put myself in those stinky, well-trod shoes. The only examples I could come up with from my own experiences were The Hobbit, Prometheus, and Star Trek. Let's start in the stars.

    The 2009 Star Trek was an enjoyable viewing experience. It wasn't Trek as I remember it, because it's Trek now. The same thing goes for Ghostbusters and all the other remakes/reboots: they're an updated version of classic genre films. There were plenty of little gripes to be made at 2009 Trek, but I still enjoyed myself and I still enjoyed seeing 'new' versions of my favorite characters. They even set it in a different timeline to help justify the differences (which, it seems, Ghostbusters is doing).

    Into Darkness was a little different because it was a direct riff on Star Trek II, with the big added twist of Kirk dying to save the ship rather than Spock. A friend told me it didn't sit well with him and, upon reflection, he realized it was because it cheapened the long relationship between Kirk and Spock. When Wrath of Khan came out we had three long seasons of Trek, the animated series, and one motion[less] picture. That's some history not only between the characters but between the characters and the audience. When Spock bites it, we feel his sacrifice. When there is an attempt to recreate that, the value is in the spectacle ("OMG! They flipped this one on us, didn't they?") rather than the emotion of the moment. I kind of agree.



    That's been probably my only outrage at such a reboot and I can't see such a moment with Ghostbusters.

    Prometheus is a good example of taking a path around a reboot/remake: create a film in the same world that hits many of the same notes as the original. If  Alien is remade it will lose some of its charm because the 70s era effects are part of what make it the weird, wonderful thing that it is. Besides, there's already a film universe of Alien/Predator movies for Prometheus to land in. But Prometheus was just bad. It looked great, and created some fun food for thought, but that's about it. It wasn't trying to redo or one-up Alien, it was (again) a modernized take on a classic genre film.

    I'm too tired to even touch The Hobbit so let's crack on.

    The fact of the matter is that Prometheus did not ruin Alien for me. If anything it enhanced it a little bit. Into Darkness did nothing to hinder my enjoyment (past, present, future) of Wrath of Khan. One part may have bugged me a little, but that's ultimately my responsibility: I'm the one to decide how I receive it and what I do with said reception and I'm the one to decide if I see it at all.

    Let's say the same for Ghostbusters. Bill, Dan, Ernie, and Harold will remain in their forever 1984 suspension even if the new one is terrible, just as Shatner, Nemoy, and Kelley will remain as they were in the old days. If that's the common thread then so is fanboys' ceaseless bitching about their memories and cultural artifacts being violated. Which is funny when thinking of female Ghostbusters: men complaining about masculinity being stripped from the world in rather 'unmanly' fashion, that being pedantic comments on the internet.

    3) Mr. Bill

    Along the same lines as misplaced nostalgia is a hatred of contemporary SNL. Part of the joy of SNL is that everyone has their SNL cast. When a new flock comes flying in there's immediate dismissal. "Darn kids doing their comedies on my lawn!" That kind of thing. So if Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones aren't your cup of tea, then that it just is what it is.

    But whenever we feel a piece of our culture shifting away from us we feel threatened. I don't know why, we just do.  Perhaps it's a feeling of being left behind and out of the picture.

    We defend ourselves, and our domain, by thrashing out against the new thing that may or may not be nudging our little corner of the universe out of our grip, rather than enjoying that thing or learning to enjoy the new thing.

    And, really, that's what this is about. Whether it's a definition of masculinity or gender role, or the alteration of a treasured bit of childhood media, or the feeling that the dominant culture is no long going one way, it's centered in fear. And fear is the mindkiller.

    I could be wrong. I like to admit that I'm probably wrong about a lot of things, but that's how I see it. People feel threatened and so they do hateful things. But what's at stake is, really, nothing at all. A movie is made and will be released this summer. No one's civil liberties are being stripped, no one's family is (to my knowledge) in danger. The universe will spin on and God will remain on his throne.

    If you'll excuse me, I have a call to make.

              The Mike Church Show Episode 414 Podcast: Cue The Pre-Cogs, The Thought Police Are Here        

    Mandeville, LA – Cue The Pre-Cogs: The Thought Police Are Here And They Work At Air BnB – The scandalous antics of the wretched Lena Dunham to fire up a legion of SJW airport thought police has been shown to be a hoax perpetrated by Dunham though the hoax does serve as a warning: “Citizen! you will... Read More

    The post The Mike Church Show Episode 414 Podcast: Cue The Pre-Cogs, The Thought Police Are Here appeared first on The Mike Church Show.


              Dominance Increases Male Sexual Attractiveness        
    Current Year ¡SCIENCE! is continually affirming CH maxims about the sexes, but even old timey trustworthy science, from before the SJW and femcunt infestation warped the scientific method, clairvoyantly strokes the Heartiste ego. From a 1987 research paper, a finding that should crush the spirits of sex equalists and Game denialists (h/t Mr. Roboto): Dominance […]
              Appabend’s “Why You Don’t Hire Ideologues”        
    I’ve been following a lot of youtubers recently, many of whom cover things on the topics of culture/SJW progressivism in society from angles and in ways more detailed than mainstream media ever could. Appabend is the handle of a young (late teens-20s) Indonesian youtuber who mostly focuses on comic books, video games, manga/anime, and other […]
              End The Summer In Style With A NeatoShop T-Shirt        

    Big Wampa by El Black Bat

    The heat, humidity and longer days of summer turn some people into great big monsters, making them unbearable to be around during those summer months because they constantly make us lose our cool.

    But summer's almost over folks, so keep calm, stay cool and sport a NeatoShop t-shirt whenever possible for maximum style and comfort for minimum bucks!

    Some people will be sorry to see summer go

    Jesus ride by MoisEscudero

    While others can't wait for their favorite fall activities to return

    Wild American Football by SayWhatJAY

    So they can go outside again when the weather cools down

    SJW snowflake justice warrior by louisros

    Because nobody likes to feel all hot and melty

    Melted Rainbow by Tobe Fonseca


              Comment on Warriors by Dana        
    I think SJW is used pejoratively when we're dealing with young (usually), proto-fascistic (usually too young to realize the fascistic overtones), somewhat silly, unseasoned by real life (I hate to keep slamming the young here, but usually young) to the point of being ineffective and actively turning off the very people they hope to sway. Also extreme self-righteousness and intolerant when they are preaching tolerance. "Activists", on the other hand, covers what you're describing, and have for decades. Yeah, Social Justice Warrior sounds badass and would *be* badass if it wasn't tainted by the behaviors above. Essentially, SJWs have a reputation for extreme intolerance for any other point of view than the one they are espousing at that moment and zealotry bordering on the religious and also wilting violet tendencies. The term's been tainted, like the word "fairy". No matter how many Grimm tales I reread, I think gay when I hear "fairy" (I don't mind, I accept that the word has changed meaning significantly). I suggest coining a brand new badass term which doesn't bring crying hordes of children throwing a tantrum to mind. Like Dragonslayer Force for Justice, or Protector of the Needful, or Night-riding Knights for the Helpless.
              Damned If You Do        
    In a recent post Joanne, freshly back from England, writes about freshman (freshperson?) orientation at Rutgers--and the crazy SJW stream that runs through it.  I'd recommend reading her entire (relatively short) post, but if you just want the denouement, here you go:
    Imagine being an 18-year-old away from home for the first time. You’re told that a casual remark could harm another student and be reported as an act of bias. Would you talk to a student who’s not in your racial/ethnic group? The safest way to avoid giving offense — just about the only way — is to socialize only with your own kind.

    But microaggressions also can be nonverbal, the Rutgers training states. They include “avoiding people.” So, you’re screwed.
    Yep, pretty much.
              Comment on "The Myth of American Meritocracy", by Ron Unz        
    That's a good summary. Zioglob SJW Neither Zioglob nor SJW
              Comment on SEYBOLD: Quark looks to future by Xand0r        
    This is a bizarre story, made even more bizarre by not knowing all the facts. Thank you to the commente1 who put forth the missing piece of this puzzle. nI think the more interesting story is the "pe1onal politics and social media" story. Holding opinio1 in your private life and expressing them on social media can be dangerous for job security. nThe people who tipped off Nintendo (Gamergate1) are sadly using the Regressive Left SJW tactics by trying to get people fired for what they say and do in their pe1onal lives. nIt’s ugly when either side uses this distasteful practice.
              Internet culture wars update.        

    So, I said last time...

    The anti-SJWs went too far, turned into honest to goodness genuine textbook Nazis, and got Trump elected, and now the clock is ticking towards doomsday.

    I had to unsubscribe Thunderfoot, Sargon Of Akkad, Armored Skeptic, and Amazing Atheist/Drunken Peasants.
    They suck now.
    Their Hillary hate helped Trump, blood is on their hands forever, they're ruined.
    There's no coming back.
    They're villains now, hate them.

    Well, here's updates on all that!

    First, the big story/drama/incident/thingy.
    1. Some SJW went nuts, and killed a girl.
    2. Sargon of Akkad and some of his buddies did a live chat where they all laughed about the whole thing.
    3. Thunderfoot finally realized how sick and hypocritical these people are, and did a call out video about it.
    4. Sargon got all self-righteous and indignant, and said Thunderfoot edited his laughter in.
    5. Thunderfoot did a tedious meticulous video showing his editing software timeline for that video, and proved it was unaltered, thus proving Sargon is a fucking liar who's willing to hurl dramatic acting into his lies.
    6. The Sargon fans hate Thunderfoot anyway, because they're emotion driven sheep.
    7. Everyone in that circle is lining up behind Sargon, because he's got the whole charming cult leader thing going on.
    8. Thunderfoot is still ruined for me, he took too long to snap out of it, he's as guilty as Hell, a pox on both houses.

    Short version, the implosion has begun.
    They're eating their own.
    This is exactly how Freethought Blogs fell apart.

    This is what happens to these fucking movements, a toxic element gets in, causes a schism, the center cannot hold, collapse.

    I hope this happens to the Trump administration.
    Little cracks are starting to form.
    Here's hoping.

    Anyway, I stumbled onto this whole thing doing Youtube searches, clicking recommended videos, clicking recommended videos in those videos, and so on, and so on, and I found Mundane Matt talking about this whole thing, and I traced it back to the original Thunderfoot videos.
    BTW, Mundane Matt's account of this is full of shit.
    He's a Sargon zombie, and a piece of shit.

    Sargon, if you don't know, is a pro-Brexit/pro-Trump dickhead who pretends to be liberal, and large swaths of his idiot fanbase eat this BS up.

    I caught the subliminal stink in the air to all of this when the outrage was going around for GB:ATC.
    That set my radar off.
    When they drag Hollywood into it, and it's not something blatant, like "Ender's Game", or "Passion Of The Christ", then a Nazi book burning is afoot.
    I've been here before with this shit.
    That's actually how the Youtube search path started, was looking for stuff on the GB101 comics inspired by today's anniversary post.

    As for the other culprits listed up top there...

    TJ from Amazing Atheist/Drunken Peasants has doubled down hard on the whole "both parties are just as bad", bullshit, because he can't bring himself to admit he got his Bernie-bro fanbase to vote Trump to spite Hillary.
    He's just gonna live in a fantasy land of denial for the rest of his pathetic days, and I don't need to watch that death spiral anymore.

    And, I learned second hand from watching the Bible Reloaded guys (the only atheist Youtubers I watch anymore, because they always stayed apolitical) that Armored Skeptic and Logicked have backed off from the whole anti-feminist thing (allegedly out of boredom).

    Too little too late there too.

    I can't help it, I'm a grudge holder, to my mind, they're like the Germans that swore up and down they didn't know their neighbors were being cremated.
    In both cases, I'm like "fuck you, you're not coming back into the fold, you're ruined".
    A shame, Armored and his girlfriend seem like sweet people otherwise, but, nope.
    No forgiveness.

    Anyhoo, between guilty people quietly retreating from the cause from feigned boredom like Armored Skeptic, or people like Thunderfoot leaving in open disgust, and being shamed and smeared by the drones, the days are numbered for that little cult.

    Sargon won't be excommunicated, his type never is, but he'll be the lone bitter PZ Myers type holding on to his small gaggle of brainless true believers until they Flavor-Aid themselves.

    Glad its all come full circle, glad it's over, couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

    Next up, I wanna see Steve Bannon go up in flames.
    That needs to happen.
    Desperately, for the good of mankind.
    Here's hoping.



              464: SPEED AND POLITICS (Interlude - "A Discussion Is Beginning" - The Opportunity At University of Toronto        
    itunes pic
    Today's podcast is an expansion of the previous episode. It features an interview with Geoffrey "Biffo" Liew. He is a University of Toronto student, the organizer of the now infamous University of Toronto Rally For Free Speech, and a longtime listener to the School Sucks Podcast. Some footage from The University of Toronto Rally For Free Speech: The "pronouns" debate: My Questions For Geoffrey "Biffo" Liew: - Who you are and what you're studying at U of T? - what has the campus climate been like for the last 2 months, how pervasive through U of T is this conflict we're all watching online? - How have you tried to connect with Social Justice activists? What has the dialog or lack thereof been like with people who are hostile? - The Pathology of "No justice, no peace." - Reflecting on past experiences, we can both understand the SJW mindset - what were the outcomes of the on-campus gender pronoun debate? - what motivated you to organize an event for Jordan Peterson? - How has Peterson influenced your life? - what opportunities are students missing by allowing him to be cast as an intolerant villain ? What This Series Is About: Political thinking is often quick thinking. Thinking quickly is is an evolution-driven feature that was once necessary for our survival. But in a vastly more complex world than the one our species grew up in, this mode of thought is often dangerous and destructive. Look around. Sometimes some people, even libertarians, use mental shortcuts to arrive at faulty conclusions, and then engage in a process of rationalization for those conclusions. This series will combine observations of the left and pro-Trump right over the last year with the valuable lessons from Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. The goal is utilize examples of thinking errors to avoid making them ourselves, often without even noticing. Related Shows: [PODCAST] #449: Sex-Ed (Part 2) – Widening the Space [PODCAST] #446: Sex-Ed (Part 1) – Back To Biology Class? Look Closer: COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT THEORY: MOTIVATION FOR IDEOLOGICAL RIGIDITY AND SOCIAL CONFLICT

    Please Support School Sucks

    Our Amazon Wish List Donate With Bitcoin Or Join the A/V Club Support Us On Patreon Shop With Us At Amazon Your continued support keeps the show going and growing, which keeps us at the top of the options for education podcasts and leads to new people discovering this message. This subscription also grants you access to the A/V Club, a bonus content section with 200+ hours of exclusive audio and video. If you are a regular consumer of our media, please consider making a monthly commitment by selecting the best option for you...
    A/V Club - Basic Access - $8.00/Month AP Club - "Advanced" Access - $12.00/Month Sigma Sigma Pi - Full Access - $16.00/Month
     
              Comment on Can We Have an Honest Conversation on Black-on-Asian Violence? by NightTown        
    Why do you guys sound like you're talking to ghosts? Who are these SJW representatives that are supposed to answer your inquiries? And how do you know they vouched and enabled those murderers of Asian men? I hate SJW's as much as you guys, but it just sounds weird to me that somehow by calling out and cry for help to those SJW as if that's supposed to resolve issues and stop the killings of Asian men. Sounds like some ghosts with no heads of representative spokesperson. Are the SJW cronies the resolutions we're looking for? I hate idiots, Reappropriate, CAAAV/OCA/JACL/AAJA/AALDEF/ , theLLAG , SJW Cronies, et al . <b>Why did the SJW cronies vouch and enable those murderers of Asian men?</b> That sounds like some sick chit. My theory on why there's an upwave in killings of Asian men recently from young Black thugs, my guess is the movie "Gook" that was just released must have boiled their blood, so they went out with a vengence to kill more Asian men. Just last Sunday, 2 young Black or dark Hispanic thugs shot and killed a Viet dude after using the ATM at a BofA in Westminster. Suspects are still on the loose, people are feeling uneasy with eyes on the lookout. https://patch.com/california/fountainvalley/victim-withdrew-cash-looked-happy-being-gunned-down-atm-cops
              Comment on Can We Have an Honest Conversation on Black-on-Asian Violence? by bigWOWO        
    I'm torn between admiring the intelligence of these murderous thugs and being angry at their SJW enablers. On the intelligence front, they would have to do some cultural research to find our cultural weakness. They found it.
              Comment on Can We Have an Honest Conversation on Black-on-Asian Violence? by aardvark        
    Where are the Fangs and their SJW cronies and Cathy Dang of the CAAAV on this? No word whatsoever. http://nypost.com/2017/08/08/killer-cousins-allegedly-used-dating-app-to-lure-victims/
              "Karl Marx Never Bathed" - My New Libertarian Book Out This Week        

    My new book about the seriously cancerous life and personality of Karl Marx is out this week.

    Get "Karl Marx Never Bathed" here.

    Or enjoy this excerpt:


    Introduction - The Setting For This Book

    A zombie is haunting the world — the zombie of communism. All the powers of good old fashioned Reason and basic Science have entered into a holy alliance to finally put this zombie back in the grave where it belongs.

    But we just can’t seem to get through to the brainless, undead monster that refuses to die, despite the wreckage of a century with half the world living under the nightmare of mass murder, police state repression, forced labor camps, and millions upon millions of starving people, dead because of the fatal conceit of violent bureaucrats who couldn’t manage their way out of a paper bag much less the complexity of industries like farming and manufacturing that require specialized knowledge and you know, price signals to help them allocate resources effectively.

    Are you still with me?

    Hey! Who are you going to listen to? The actual farmer who knows how to farm, or the guy with a uniform and a rifle telling you Khrushchev says we’re planting corn this year? Yeah I’m going to listen to the rifle guy too. And that’s why we’re all going to starve if this madness is allowed into the West.

    Why This Book Now?

    The nightmare of 20th century communism didn’t start in the 20th century with political revolutions.

    It started in the 19th century with a snotty, privileged, educated, upper-middle class intellectual kid, who despite all his advantages in life, turned out very rotten.

    Karl Marx, the bitter, disenchanted, life-hating sourpuss of the human spirit, a truly malformed mind and a nasty human being. I mean nasty literally, as you will see in the following essays. He was literally, physically disgusting.

    The man wanted to restructure the entire economic order of the world, but he couldn’t even take care of his own body. He barely ever even took a bath.

    Karl Marx was the original SJW (Social Justice Warrior) in just about every sense of the word.

    Today universities abound with these SJWs, despicably arrogant know-nothings with a proud and stubborn detachment from the lessons of history, an unwillingness to investigate beyond the hollow ringing of their shouted political slogans, bitter and raging, boiling over with seething contempt, while cradled in the 21st century, first world paradise: the safest, cleanest, healthiest, most comfortable, and most fun conditions any human being has ever enjoyed.

    And these self-described “Social Justice Warriors” are screaming for the destruction of everything that made it possible. And anticipating with fevered passion the return and enshrinement of their most despicable god, the idol of socialism, the cold, red god with indifferent staring eyes who grinds human bodies and souls in its cold teeth by the millions.

    And they shout down every opposition to their views. So thin-skinned are they, so tightly closed are their minds, so viciously dogmatic are they, that they cannot even bear to hear anything that might suggest they should reexamine their beliefs, these kids. These youths who have never worked a day in their lives, who have not yet had any responsibility, who have so far produced nothing of value to the world, who have only consumed their fat share of modern capitalism’s many blessings and squawked their rude complaints, these crybabies.

    They are so sensitive, they whither into an inarticulate rage at the slightest challenge to their jealously guarded religion of death. One can only imagine how seething their hatred would be for anyone who dared to notice and criticize a personal flaw in one of them. Undoubtedly many of these angry kids who, like Karl Marx, would change the entire global economic system if they could get their soft, fumbling hands on it, probably cannot even keep their own bedroom clean, or the skin behind their ears.

    They are so childish. But not childish and jovial, brimming with wonder and positivity as actual children are. Nor are they childish and sad when something doesn’t go their way, but quick to forgive and forget, holding no grudges, instantly happy again at some new wonder that has caught their attention and laughing through their tears already.

    No these “Social Justice Warriors” are childishly stubborn, childishly unreasonable, childishly short-sighted, childishly naive, childishly inconsiderate, childishly incapable of sympathizing with or even conceiving of another person’s point of view, childishly foolish. But never are they jovial. Never playful. Never inspired. Always sour, these sourpusses. Always upset at something.

    You’ve got feminists complaining that men are oppressing women by sitting with their legs too far apart on the subway, or by ever explaining anything to a woman. You’ve got faculty members at Temple University in Pennsylvania saying that math is racist and professors at Portland State in Oregon saying that math exploits people and the environment. You’ve got a PhD dissertation at the University of California about how selling Girl Scout cookies manipulates girls into supporting market capitalism.

    You’ve got academic journals publishing studies that complain about farmers markets being too white and that Pilates is racist. You’ve got a professor at Wagner College in New York saying that in modern America women are treated like cows. The paper is entitled, “The Parallel Lives of Women and Cows: Meat Markets.” You’ve got a professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia getting paid a salary to write an academic paper called: “Hobosexual - Resisting capitalism by having not-for-profit sex with homeless people.”

    Is this not the kookiest stuff you’ve ever heard of?

    Get "Karl Marx Never Bathed" here.


              Trump si interesele Romaniei (de pro_bono [utilizator])        
    "America Liberals RIOTING", "Donald Trump SJW Protesters Cringe" astea sunt titluri "obiective" ? Sau sunt privite prin lentila groasa a ideologiei conservatoare ? Pana una alta oamenii au dreptul sa-si sustina nemultumirea, cine incalca legea va raspunde, insa sa consideri ca toti sunt "dementi" sau violenti este o mistificare a realitatii. Iar a vorbi de linsaj este o manipulare. Asta e rezultatul mesajului pacifist al lui Trump. A divizat natiunea in buni si rai, asa cum propaganda lui Voiculescu a impartit Romania in basisti si anti-basiti. Hillary a avut un mesaj unificator si a recunoscut alegerile, indemnand la unitate. Trump a agitat spiritele si a lasat sa se inteleaga ca nu va recunoaste alegerile daca pierde. Ce se intampla daca Trump castiga alegerile populare, insa pierdea votul electorilor si nu iesea Presedinte ? Nu urla acum ca din gura de sarpte, ca Poporul a fost infrant de Elite ? Nu urla ca 50 de milioane de voturi n-au contat in fata a 270 de electori ? N-ar fi urlat ca vointa Poporului a fost invinsa de un sistem corupt creat de Elite ? Trump agita in continuare spiritele, in loc sa unifice natiunea: "Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!" Dupa asta, probabil la presiunea consilierilor a incercat sa repare gafa: "Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country." Ba sunt agitatori, ba sunt protestatari indragostiti de America. Cine nu e cu mine e impotriva mea. Si uite asa continua divizarea Americii. E bizar ca sustii un asemenea personaj ale carui idei politice sunt impotriva intereselor de securitate ale Romaniei. Trump a pus la indoiala angajamentele de securitate ale SUA si a exprimat scepticism fata de NATO. Asta nu suna bine pentru Romania. Numai vorbesc de politica sa izolationista economic si militar, care intra in contradictie si cu doctrina conservatoare.
              Analysis: The Birth Of A Nation        
    The Birth Of A Nation is a work famous as "the Klan movie". While most people haven't seen it, many know of its reputation and legacy. It was one of the very first "narrative movies" as we conceive of them today (hours long, with a specific story structure). It was blatantly and obviously racist. It contributed to the re-popularization and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. In modern discussions, film buffs awkwardly and delicately try to separate their praise for the movie's techniques from its hateful message; as a result, it currently has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

    Whatever else is going on with the movie, there is one unmistakable aspect of its legacy: people agree that it was a "product of its times" (although it wasn't - it was considered racist even back then), and thus, that it could never happen again. When it is brought up as an example of the harmful propagandist effects of a work of fiction, it is usually dismissed. The American public would never accept such an overtly hateful movie, and they would never be persuaded by a work of fiction to engage in violent action against a racial minority.

    The reality of the matter is, as much as modern Americans try to separate themselves from their more overt forebears, the legacy of that era, and the underpinnings of its racist morality, have not even remotely gone away. And thus arises the core of this project: it actually wouldn't take that many changes to make the movie palatable to modern audiences. At its core, The Birth Of A Nation shares many story beats and concepts with movies being released even today, and its morals are in line with the politics of many modern politicians.

    Maybe you're more optimistic about this than I am. Maybe you think society's evolved too far to fall prey to such blatant propaganda. Maybe you think modern audiences wouldn't accept overt, sweeping historical revisionism that plays into an obvious racial agenda. But if that's what you're thinking, then unfortunately I'm forced to remind you about 300. And I'm also forced to remind you how well it did.

    Are you ready?

    Plot & Premise: Family, Revenge and Dishonor

    The Birth Of A Nation centers around two families: the northern Stonemans and the southern Camerons. The story begins just prior to the civil war; the Stoneman family visits the Cameron family's estate, and there is some positive feeling between the two families. Shortly thereafter, the war breaks out. During the war, the Cameron estate is ransacked by malicious black soldiers (operating under a white leader); the Cameron women are only rescued by the timely intervention of  the Confederate soldiery. The war ends soon after, with several members of both clans dead or wounded.

    After Lincoln's death, the Stoneman patriarch (an abolitionist congressman) is able to push through legislation intended to punish the south. He travels to the area with a psychopathic Mulatto, Silas Lynch. Swaggering black soldiers march through the streets, abusing white civilians and preventing them from voting (while committing vote fraud themselves). The new state legislature, mostly black, engages in disgraceful and vulgar behavior (including the messy consumption of fried chicken), whites are required to salute black people, and mixed-race marriage is legalized.

    During this time, Ben Cameron notices that white children are dressing as ghosts in order to scare black children. In a Batman-like leap of logic, Cameron formulates that dressing white adults like ghosts will scare black adults as well. Ben's sister Flora is followed into the woods by a black soldier, who says he wants to marry her. Fleeing the implied rape, Flora throws herself off a cliff rather than submit to him. Ben Cameron's new vigilante organization - the Ku Klux Klan - hunts down and lynches the soldier, and delivers his corpse to Silas Lynch.

    In response, Lynch fights back against the Klan. The Cameron family patriarch is arrested because of Ben Cameron's Klan costume, but he is busted out of jail with the help of loyal black servants, as well as one of the Stoneman family's sons and sympathetic Union soldiers. In the meantime, one of the Stoneman daughters pleads for mercy for the Camerons; in response, Lynch attempts to rape her. In a bit of "it could happen to you" irony, Congressman Stoneman is happy when Lynch says he wants to marry a white woman, but furious when he realizes the white woman is his own daughter. The Klan mounts a rescue of the Stoneman daughter, capturing Lynch. Afterwards, the earlier scene of voter intimidation is reversed - the Klan protects the rights of white voters while keeping away the brutish black soldiers. The white citizens of both North and South are united against "the real enemy", and the film ends on an optimistic note of peace and harmony among white Americans.

    Implications & Themes

    When you get down to it, what does this movie do? And then, by contrast, what do other movies do?

    First and foremost, this movie plays on the emotional fears of its audience in order to convince them that those fears are real. It does not present evidence or claim to educate; its appeal is entirely rooted in visceral reaction. Yet, despite this, it is "convincing" to them. It portrays a situation so horrible that people cannot help but treat it as inevitable. Is it alone in this? Of course not. How many people cite 1984 or Brave New World or Fahrenheit 451 or even Idiocracy as the inevitable, real result of political policies? All of those works are fictional, yet people push those images into their mind and live in fear of them coming to pass. Even though they will acknowledge that those works are fictional, and not backed up with actual research or statistics, they will still cite them when discussing their real fears and concerns.

    Secondly, the movie brings a "positive" message - not only that black people should be controlled and suppressed, but that white people (and blacks who know their place) should come together in order to prevent swaggering bullies from running their lives. This is a key element. People are not willing to commit to evil, but evil can be easily phrased in a way that makes it seem logical, even moral. It's not "racist" because there are good blacks (who know their place). It's not about hating blacks, it's about loving whites. It's not about discrimination, it's about protecting your own rights. The movie presents itself not as an extreme, but as a moderate, neutral opinion - slavery was bad, but "anti-slavery" (and "reverse racism") is just as bad. Does that one sound familiar?

    Thirdly, the movie crafts its situation so that it is unambiguous and unmistakable. The black villains in this movie are "thugs", and I use that word for a very specific reason. The "thug" is an omnipresent figure in movies, past, present, and future. The "thug" is a hostile individual who is overtly, even spitefully evil and cruel. He hurts, he kills, he rapes. Any attempt to negotiate with a "thug" will meet in failure. The only proper response to a "thug" is violence, or torture if you need information out of one. There is no need for remorse or moral questioning; if you feel bad about it, it is made obvious that the "thug" forced you to do these things by his unthinkingly hateful actions, and of course he deserved it in any case. Within the fictional scenario presented, the actions of an organization like the Klan are absolutely justified. The problem, of course, is that the scenario in question is far from realistic, but when people are bombarded with this stereotype in every outlet of media, they start to believe it's true despite a lack of real evidence.

    In short, The Birth Of A Nation is a movie that uses effective, manipulative techniques in order to blur the line between reality and fiction. It plays off of people's fears and desires, and crafts a particular, unrealistic situation in order to convince its audience that the solution it presents is the only effective one.

    Comparisons To More Contemporary Works

    Death Wish. A liberal architect's family is attacked by thugs, and the liberal architect is forced to understand that his lefty peacenik ideas are false and that violence is the only true answer. Both Death Wish and The Birth Of A Nation revel in the idea of a progressive-minded northern liberal being forced to realize that his high-minded naivete is empowering the brutish criminal class, and eventually coming to the understanding that violence is the only answer for these unthinking thugs. This phenomenon has a trope of its own, and it plays off of the idea that conservatives see progressives as "naive" individuals whose values don't work in real life.

    The Punisher. Come on, do I even have to explain this one? The Punisher is an ex-soldier whose family was killed by thugs. As a result, he becomes a vigilante and kills thugs forever. Ben Cameron is an ex-soldier whose sister died because of a thuggish rapist black man. As a result, he leads a team of vigilantes and kills black thugs forever. The core motivation ("they hurt my family, now I'm morally obligated to hurt them forever") is a well-established trope that exists throughout fiction.

    American Sniper. Chris Kyle refers to his Iraqi enemies as "savages" and states that he is glad to have killed them. He supports the "good Iraqis" (i.e. those cooperating with the government) but views his enemies, unequivocally, as unthinking monsters. His position has been criticized, yes - but also defended pretty widely. The Federalist, in particular, says that Kyle "called evil what it was", and assures its readers that his view of the world was totally 100% correct. In the same way, The Birth Of A Nation builds itself on atrocities committed by vengeful blacks, and assures its audience that those actions are incredibly common and statistically significant. "It's not racist", the movie assures you, "they really are all like that! Stereotypes exist for a reason!"

    All of this is why it's ridiculous to argue that you can have a violent narrative without it being "political". As soon as you assign an enemy, it's political. As soon as you're pushing a view of the world, it's political. As soon as you make an emotional appeal, it's political. The idea that politics is this sanitized, academic concept comes entirely from privilege. Politics is life. Politics is every facet of life. You cannot live your life without it being political. You cannot talk about life without it being political.

    But politics isn't just "what you do". It's also how you see the world. And in fiction, the way a writer sees the world affects what he or she thinks is "realistic" in their work. And this is the scary part: D.W. Griffith did not necessarily think he was being "unrealistic". He may well have thought he was being true to reality, albeit presenting a narratively clear-cut story. This is what "politics" means. When people talk about politics in media, they usually identify certain ideological strains as being political. When other ideologies seep into politics, they're identified as being "normal" - i.e. "that's just how things are, that's not 'political'". You can have a movie where a heroic American guns down cruel, thuggish foreigners who do not exhibit a single human characteristic, and people will still say that the movie "doesn't mean anything" or is "just a regular action movie". If you criticize it as unrealistic then the conversation will change from "it's just fiction" to "well, thugs like that exist in real life! Look at ISIS!" Recently, I was engaged in an argument where my opponent used the Spartans as a justification for enemies who do not surrender in games, specifically in Tom Clancy's The Division. Which is to say, this person was using an extremist culture of people raised as warriors from birth in order to justify the AI behavior of opportunistic looters in a simulacrum of modern New York City. And he wasn't even right about the Spartans never surrendering.

    This lack of self-reflection, coupled with the emotionally influencing effects of propaganda-like material, is what scares me about "fiction". You don't need something to be "true". What you need is to convince people, subconsciously, that it is. And you need to also convince them that belief in that particular effect or phenomenon is normal, and disbelief in it is extremist. This is an invocation of the Bandwagon Effect - in short, popularity legitimizes, and the more popular a belief is, the more popular it becomes. So when you've got movie after movie presenting a particular image, you start to see that image as "normal". And once something is normal, you stop thinking about it - and when someone says "hey, maybe you should think about it", you get mad. Why do they have to drag politics into this? Why do they have to make a fuss?

    So what would happen in The Birth Of A Nation was released today? Some people would say "that's racist as hell" and other people would tell them "it's just a movie, keep your politics out of it", or "thugs exist in real life, reverse racism is real, someone called me mayonnaise boy", or both at the same time. If you made it about Muslims instead of black people, there'd be no question of the vocal support this movie would receive. They'd talk about how brave the filmmaker is for presenting the "unvarnished truth", regardless of the Politically Correct SJW Cucks trying to tear him down. And even people who disagreed with the film's morals would go "yeah, but it's a fun action movie. It's possible to acknowledge that a work is problematic without dismissing it entirely." It would make so much money, you guys.

    Nothing has changed. In a hundred years, nothing has changed.

              Analysis: Resident Evil        

    I. Resident Evil is a survival-horror series that morphed into an action-horror series, and then (with the release of Revelations 2) took a slight curve back towards traditional survival horror. Resident Evil is a game where you are attacked by monsters and sometimes you have to conserve ammo, and sometimes you can do suplexes on the monsters. Resident Evil is a lot of different things but it's also consistent in a few important ways.

    At its core, Resident Evil is about individuals of varying capability put into dangerous situations involving mutated people and creatures. It is a series about surviving through adversity - not seeking out danger, but having danger thrust upon you. It's also generally bereft of the awkward tonal shifts of games like MGS - while there's some light comedic/absurd elements in the games, the story generally maintains a consistent tone, instead of whiplashing back and forth between "serious real-life talk" and "lol the poopy man pooped his pants". It's a B-Movie, sure, but a consistent B-Movie. It has a tone and it sticks with it. But that's not really the important part.

    II. The thing about Resident Evil, right, is that there's basically two types of "bad game design", and by "bad game design" I'm talking in terms of dumb shit, or creepy shit, or dumb creepy shit, or dumb shit that was designed by creeps. Okay, so here's the thing, right: there are some games that are bad at their core, and there are some games that are conceptually okay, but have bad elements in them. And the reason that's important is because without that distinction it's basically impossible to criticize games in terms of their Creepiness or their Dumbness.

    For example, there is no reality where Grand Theft Auto is an "okay" game. It is, at its core, a game by bad people, for bad people. The only reason to play GTA is because you think it's fun, and in order to do that, you're going to have to ignore (or embrace) all the stupid horrible shit that's part of it. GTA is like having a friend who's an asshole, but you think he's funny, so you hang out with him anyways, and then periodically you get upset about him being sexist or racist or transphobic or whatever. And it's like, look, the reason you hang out with this dude is because he's an asshole. Why are you suddenly surprised when he's an asshole in a different way? He is, at his core, a piece of human filth, and you're hanging out with him because most of the time you seem to be okay with human filth, and you think it's a fun thing to be around. And he's always yammering on about "celebrity culture" and "reality TV", like he's this big above-it-all counter-culture guy, even though his own brand of self-adulating indulgence is the best-selling game of all time, and thus defines culture. He's the most obnoxious, least self-aware human being in the entire world, and you hang out with him because you think he's fun to be around.

    Resident Evil, on the other hand, is the opposite end of the scale. Resident Evil is a good "core concept" weighed down by a lot of ancillary bad decisions. If GTA can be characterized as an overtly obnoxious asshole who doesn't even try to be anything else, Resident Evil can be characterized as someone who is basically good, but makes a lot of mistakes (some of which aren't really his fault). Resident Evil is a guy who's aspiring to be better, but gets sidetracked by circumstance. It's a game that, in its own way, wants to be "feminist" - check out this quote from Shinji Mikami and try to tell me that GamerGate wouldn't rip him apart as an evil SJW or whatever:

    "I don't know if I've put more emphasis on women characters, but when I do introduce them, it is never as objects. In some games, they will be peripheral characters with ridiculous breast physics. I avoid that sort of obvious eroticism. I also don't like female characters who are submissive to male characters, or to the situation they're in. I won't portray women in that way. I write women characters who discover their interdependence as the game progresses, or who already know they are independent but have that tested against a series of challenges."

    III. See, even though RE has a lot of eye-rolling shit in it - mostly in the category of "pointlessly sexy outfits that make no sense during a zombie outbreak" - there's a core morality in the series that is trying to power through that. Resident Evil is a game about people forced into bad circumstances trying to cope with their situation. The protagonists are generally kind-hearted and compassionate, even when they're giant masculine muscle-men like Chris Redfield. There's more female protagonists per capita than pretty much any other major franchise (although this is pretty obviously due to the game's horror roots). The series even quietly included a gay protagonist - it's never mentioned in the game, but that's specifically because there was no situation where it would naturally come up.

    Most of the "bad things" in Resident Evil are the result of either executive meddling or a creepy fanbase. Mikami himself says that the young, "submissive" character of Rebecca Chambers was essentially forced on the game by other members of the staff: "I didn’t want to include her but the staff wanted that kind of character in the game, for whatever reason. I’m sure it made sense to them. And in Japan, that character is pretty popular." See, I just want to mention here - this is an example of a creator's artistic vision being disrupted by meddling, and I hate to mention GamerGate twice in the same article, but I earnestly wonder how many of them will retroactively rush to defend Mikami's free speech. Idle musings.

    The point is, there's a lot of bad things in Resident Evil. But those bad things exist in spite of the series and its goals, not because of them. And that's a pretty big component when talking about bad elements in video games, because it means the ultimate goal is to move away from things like that. So you end up with decent writers and designers trapped in a system that forces them to include gross shit that they don't want because "it'll sell to gamers", which brings us to the other issue with gaming.

    IV. Apart from bad designs, the other big problem with Resident Evil is the fanbase - specifically, the parts of the fanbase that sexualize the gruesome death of female characters. And, fundamentally, there's nothing the designers can do about that without simply locking female characters away from violence. It's just something you kind of have to accept: if you make a game, it's going to be played by creeps. If you make a game with a little girl in it, gamers are going to be creeps about the little girl. If you make a game where there's a female sidekick, gamers are going to be creeps about the female sidekick. "Gamers being creeps" is the most reliable constant in the world, and would you look at that, once again I feel like I should bring up GamerGate for reasons I cannot adequately explain. But ultimately, like GamerGate, you really can't stop it - you just have to learn to tolerate it, and you find ways to throw the worst offenders in jail. That's all you can hope for. And ultimately, that's the Death of the Author - no matter how good the developers' intentions are, the audience can ruin it however they please, because that's how audiences work.

    Resident Evil isn't perfect - far from it - but it's trying to be good. It's trying to be a game where genuinely heroic protagonists, male and female, of all races, are trying to make the world a better place. Resident Evil Revelations 2 made the two protagonists reasonably-dressed women with agency and (relative, video game levels of) character depth. The series is trying. It is aspiring to be better, at some level. That's important. That's something you can work with. Grand Theft Auto will never aspire. Grand Theft Auto will never improve. Grand Theft Auto is built by assholes, for assholes, on an asshole foundation. If you give money to GTA, they're going to say "hey, thanks for rewarding me for being an asshole" and they're going to use that money to build a more expensive, more bloated asshole simulator. People act like it's weird and difficult to talk about "problematic games", but here's the rundown: if you give those devs money, are they going to use it to be assholes? And that's it. Either you're funding people who might make a better game, or you're funding people who are gleefully going to make the worst possible game. That's the difference.

    In conclusion, I would like to play an X-COM style game set in the Resident Evil universe. I think it would be good, and also fun. Thank you.
              Comment on The Heterosexual Matrix by Transgender Satanic Porn Performer @ZJemptv Offers SJW Dating Advice | Living in Anglo-America        
    […] founded on the work of Judith Butler — the  social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — and “queer theory” (e.g., Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick), so that the war against “patriarchy” […]
              Comment on The Heterosexual Matrix by Transgender Satanic Porn Performer @ZJemptv Offers SJW Dating Advice : The Other McCain        
    […] on the work of Judith Butler — the  social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — and “queer theory” (e.g., Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick), so that the war against […]
              Reply to Many U.S. government leaders remain vulnerable to BOOBs on Fri, 06 May 2016 10:10:09 GMT        

    @Onyx It's preemptive anti-SJW attacks. Because apparently some members of the forum don't even want to wait for someone to post something they can misinterpret and go straight to setting up their strawman to knock down.


              The Drupal Community Working Group: What it is, what it isn't        

    In recent weeks, I've seen a whole lot of FUD regarding the Drupal Community Working Group, and what it is they do or don't do. While I no longer serve in the CWG (I stepped down from all "extra-curricular" Drupal activities back in 2015 to focus on my family), most of the portrayals I've read are misinformed at best and completely inaccurate at worst. So, as an ex-member, who was uninvolved in recent events and therefore can perhaps speak more freely(?), I’d like to try and clear up a few misconceptions I've seen.

    Some have characterized the CWG as some nebulous dark secret court of frothing SJW activists, gleefully acting as judge/jury/executioner, deliberately seeking out “bad apples" in the community to oust, laughing malevolently all the way. This is patently false, and nothing could be further from the truth.

    In reality, barring "flash point" incidents like the most recent one, it’s a pretty mundane gig. It mostly involves watching for something to be brought across your "desk" via an incident report, then trying your best as an unpaid volunteer—appointed based on your demonstrated ability to stay neutral and diplomatic in a crisis—to help empower people in the community to solve their own problems.

    This takes different forms. A lot of the times it’s simply giving people a safe place to post concerns where they know they’ll be looked at seriously. The CWG provides someone to speak to who will genuinely listen to your concerns, and will give both parties a chance to speak and feel heard. If the situation escalates, the CWG will sometimes suggest neutral third-parties to help mediate, or in the “bigger” cases, get directly involved with mediation themselves. And while the CWG is empowered to oust people from the community in extreme circumstances, a) to-date, they have only done so once, following a harassment incident at DrupalCon, and b) barring "extreme" circumstances such as that, it is only done after a last, *last* resort. All of this is laid out in the Conflict Resolution Policy and Process: https://www.drupal.org/conflict-resolution

    If an individual has multiple, *multiple* complaints against them, in many cases driving others to either leave the community entirely or dramatically reduce their involvement in the project, and if every other attempt to resolve the situation has failed, which includes private mediation, one-on-one mentoring, sterner warnings, etc. then as a last-ditch effort something like an Action Plan is developed. This is summarized as:

    "The aim of an action plan is to find a path forward that avoids additional harm to the community. Drafting an action plan should help people recognise what triggers these incidents and help them learn to respond differently by using alternative approaches to problem-solving.

    However, the action plan may also serve as a "final warning." If further complaints come to the CWG, further action may be necessary. As a group, our authority derives from Dries, and when necessary, we also consult Dries and involve him in the process."

    The template includes a summary of complaints (all of which have been already vetted by the CWG for validity), the impact the person's actions have had on members of the community, and a clearly outlined set of steps to perform to prevent future complaints (e.g. if you're feeling frustrated, WALK AWAY instead of engaging in online battles in the heat of the moment). The intent is to wake the person up a bit, to help them understand that their actions — regardless of how justified they feel they are in having taken them — have consequences, often on people they care about, and to give them a clear path to re-engage with the community in a constructive and healthy way.

    The CWG will bend over backwards to help people not get to that point, *especially* if they have an extensive contribution record. At a certain point though, if a “body trail” develops of people leaving the community because of an individual's conduct, it becomes something that needs to be addressed, especially if you sit on a governing body with the mandate to keep the community healthy. This is the situation that happened with chx, whose self-ban from the community was widely publicized, and which keeps getting brought up in the context of recent events as somehow related, which it is not.

    Some people might respond to this with "Well, then contributors should just grow a thicker skin." That's certainly one approach. However, you lose a lot of great contributors that way (and indeed, we already have), as well as a lot of new blood into your project. I've previously documented my first 5 minutes in the Drupal community. Had I not been "contractually obligated" to remain because of Google Summer of Code, that likely would've been my last 5 minutes in the Drupal community, as well. And there are 1000s of other contributors out there like "past webchick." Food for thought.

    So thanks, CWG, for doing your part of the thankless and difficult job that is ensuring that the Drupal community remains a respectful and collaborative place for all of us to do awesome things. <3


              sta slusate trenutno?        
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XHcPYorSJw roll wink
              Why I Don't Much Care if Douchebags Abandon Doctor Who        
    So they announced the new Doctor today, and it's Jodie Whitaker of Broadchurch fame, a woman.



    And I'm having SOOOOO much fun mocking all the whiny misogynist men and self-loathing quisling women crying about the 13th Doctor's gender. I mean really, it's delicious seeing all these sad closed-minded men and women whing and crying about how PC Culture has ruined the show and they'll never watch it again and this is the nail in the coffin that will fginally permanently kill the show.
    But all this sad sexist "the show is ruined forever WAHHHH!" bullshit is missing something, it's not seeing something that Ghostbusters and Wonder Woman have proven in spades that is all but guaranteed to happen now; the women will come out in droves to take their place.

    For every one douchebag asshole sexist prick who abandons Doctor Who in disgust over a woman being cast as a fictional alien who can change his entire body right down to every individual cell, there will be 10 women and/or little girls who will happily fill that viewership void. We've seen it in photos of the audiences at premieres for both films I just mentioned. Little girls, teenage girls and grown adult women coming out in droves because they're not the sidekick or the love interest anymore, who came dressed up in costume, who were happy to see the movie. That's what will happen here.

    Because all those little girls and teenage girls and adult women? They'll see themselves as the hero in the single longest running adventure on television. They'll see Jodie Whitaker and they'll feel like they themselves are being seen. They'll know that they can strive and push and grow and achieve and win and do it on their own terms, because they'll see The Doctor, a woman just like them, onscreen telling them they damn well can so do all of that. That they can.

    That's not even counting all the trans woman who are going to glomp onto this show if they hadn't already, because with the male main character basically undergoing a sex change, they too will feel represented. In fact if there is any genuinely valid complaint to be had here, it's that we'll still have to wait for the Doctor to be a POC. But for now, this is still change. Good, positive change. Change that could have gone further? Yes. But still positive change. Women everywhere, regardless of anatomy, have a hero to feel a connection to, to show them they CAN, whatever it is they've been told they can't, the Doctor says you can.

    So I'm not worried. Let the douchebags abandon the show. Ratings will spike because *GASP!!!* women watch sci-fi too! And, quisling women filled with internalized misogyny aside, WE HAVE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR THIS FOR DECADES!!! Hell the BBC have been pondering doing this since Tom Baker's replacement casting began. It's NOT a new, PC/SJW Culture idea. It's long overdue but it isn't some cultural feminist zeitgeist conspiracy to ruin your manly fun. The BBC simply FINALLY pulled the trigger on an idea they've kicked around for decades anyway.
    So by all means douchebros and haters, abandon Doctor Who. Leave in droves. Swear to NEVAR EVAR watch the show ever again. I have absolutely now doubt we'll not only do just fine without you, we'll do BETTER. Doctor Who will thrive, and the only people you douchebags will hurt are yourselves, because you'll be missing out on all the awesome.

    Congratulations Jodie. I'm sure you'll be an amazing Thirteen.

              Beall: ‘social justice warrior’ librarians ‘betraying’ academy | THE News        
    timeshighereducation.com
    Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers
    posted by friends:  (6)
    @brandontlocke on Twitter
    @brandontlocke: i don't know why anyone is soliciting Beall's opinions on anything at this point timeshighereducation.com/news/beall-soc…
    @oatp on Twitter
    @oatp: Beall: ‘social justice warrior’ librarians ‘betraying’ academy | THE News ift.tt/2vSKBce
    @dupuisj on Twitter
    @dupuisj: Beall: ‘social justice warrior’ librarians ‘betraying’ academy timeshighereducation.com/news/beall-soc… via @timeshighered
    @dupuisj on Twitter
    @dupuisj: WHERE TO EVEN START WITH THIS... Beall: SJW librarians ‘betraying’ academy timeshighereducation.com/news/beall-soc…
    @McDawg on Twitter
    @McDawg: In which @Jeffrey_Beall channels the communication style of the U.S. President timeshighereducation.com/news/beall-soc… pic.twitter.com/S0cuKBbrfr
    @McDawg on Twitter
    @McDawg: "Beall is an obsessive who should be ignored". timeshighereducation.com/news/beall-soc…
    @ScholarlyChickn on Twitter
    @ScholarlyChickn: In which @Jeffrey_Beall channels the communication style of the U.S. President timeshighereducation.com/news/beall-soc… pic.twitter.com/S0cuKBbrfr
    @scholarlykitchn on Twitter
    @scholarlykitchn: He's back. Beall: ‘social justice warrior’ librarians ‘betraying’ academy timeshighereducation.com/news/beall-soc…
    posted by followers of the list:  (0)

              Una generación arruinada, una reseña del libro de Lauren Southern         


    Por Fernando Trujillo


    Hace unas dos semanas me llego por Amazon el libro Barbarians: How baby boomers, inmigrants and islam screwed my generation” de Lauren Southern, activista de la Alt-right, periodista, cosplayer y escritora para Rebel media además de tener su propio canal de Youtube donde aborda temas como la libertad de expresión, la crítica al feminismo y la inmigración.
    Como periodista Lauren Southern ha tomado riesgos desde entrar a barrios musulmanes en las ciudades europeas regidos por la Sharia, mostrando el extremismo y odio antieuropeo que almacena su gente, hasta junto con los jóvenes del colectivo nacionalista Generation Identitare intentaron frenar un barco de refugiados que llegaban a costas italianas, por lo que fue arrestada y puesta bajo investigación.
    Después de finalizar unas lecturas que tenía pendientes pude sentarme y leer el libro, más que un libro en realidad es un manifiesto que no llega a las cien hojas, usa un lenguaje claro, con un tono serio que condensa con su sentido del humor lo que hace que la lectura sea ligera y no sea un libro pesado y lúgubre.
    ¿Cuál es mi opinión? Creo que es una lectura fresca y políticamente incorrecta, un manifiesto para una generación arruinada y que continua arruinando su propia civilización moribunda, es una lectura que invita a la reflexión sobre cómo es la juventud occidental la que está destruyendo el legado de sus padres y abuelos.
    El primer capítulo “El Occidente está muriendo” sirve como un prólogo, en el la autora le habla al joven de forma sarcástica y su hedonista estilo de vida para hablar de su experiencia escolar y lo deficiente del sistema educativo occidental y los profesores progresistas, ella señala que ella se educó de forma autodidacta para rebatir el progresismo de las escuelas. En este capítulo señala como la narrativa progresista ha hecho que su—nuestra—generación odie los valores y los hombres que forjaron la civilización occidental, como nuestra generación ha olvidado a grandes hombres como Carlomagno y ha tomado a idiotas políticamente correctos como Justin Tradeau como ejemplos morales. En este capítulo llama a nuestra generación a recuperar los valores occidentales y no sentirse avergonzados por su historia.
    El segundo capítulo “Como los hippies arruinaron todo” comienza con una anécdota suya en la universidad con un profesor progresista con el cual tuvo un antagonismo, ahí pasa a hacer una crítica a las universidades americanas y como quienes fueron los teóricos de los hippies—y estos—quienes terminaron tomando la educación superior, en este capítulo critica los movimientos estudiantiles de los sesenta y a sus principales autores, señala que fueron hombres como Focault y Derrida los culpables de la destrucción de la educación universitaria al introducir conceptos como la “construcción social” (término usado hasta el cansancio por los liberales), por más risible que sea su “filosofía” esta es parte vital de la educación universitaria y de los colectivos de SJW que abundan en estas.
    El tercer capítulo es el más político del libro y en este se dedica a criticar el viejo neoconservadurismo americano que se opuso a la campaña de Trump, el capítulo puede resultar tedioso si no conoces a fondo la política norteamericana pero a grandes rasgos señala como los neoconservadores son en el fondo liberales que quieren perpetuar el mismo sistema y pensamiento dominante, señalando también que el viejo conservadurismo es a estas alturas ya obsoleto.
    Los siguientes capítulos están dedicados a la inmigración y al Islam respectivamente y en ellos Lauren lanza una crítica mordaz sobre como la inmigración masiva destruye un país, como la natalidad descontrolada de los inmigrantes se le está saliendo de las manos al gobierno, señala como el resultado del multiculturalismo resulta ser el relativismo cultural y este es más destructivo que el multiculturalismo mismo, como la inmigración masiva lejos de ser un beneficio es más un peligro al ir incrementando, exigir más derechos sin obligaciones, vivir en sus propias zonas sin integrarse y odiando el país que les da asilo.
    En el capítulo sobre el Islam Lauren señala como la palabra “islamofobia” es un absurdo, el temor al islam no es una fobia sino sentido común ante los ataques cada vez más sangrientos de los yihadistas, en este capítulo además de hacer una crítica a la defensa del islam por parte de la izquierda, hace una apología a las Cruzadas, nuestra generación y la narrativa políticamente correcta condenan a estas como una forma de “invasión”, tanto los medios como los profesores progres muestran un odio al abordar la heroica gesta europea y por eso es muy importante que una autora joven—Lauren Southern apenas tiene veintidós años—haga una abierta defensa y apología hacia las Cruzadas, cerrando este capítulo haciendo un llamado a la juventud a realizar más Cruzadas y realizando la proclama 2Deus Vault”.
    El siguiente capítulo aborda como nuestra generación ha arruinado todo y en este capítulo aborda que la principal razón de la situación actual se debe principalmente a nosotros, aquí no hay conspiraciones judeo-masonicas, Illuminati, reptilianos, la culpa de la decadencia actual es de nosotros y debemos tomar esa responsabilidad, criticando mordazmente el feminismo y la corrección política de nuestra generación.
    En el último capítulo la autora señala ideas para dejar de arruinar todo, propone el nacionalismo como frente al globalismo, propone volver a la meritocracia en lugar de seguir premiando la mediocridad y reivindicar los valores que forjaron Occidente.
    Lauren hace una abierta defensa del nacionalismo como forma de volver a la grandeza occidental, un nacionalismo combativo contra los valores globalistas.
    En este capítulo se aleja de la figura de Hitler al que hace una fuerte crítica por su admiración al islam entre otras cosas, esta parte disgustara a muchos nacionalistas que quieran acercarse al libro.
    El libro cierra con la esperanza que los jóvenes de derecha y nuestra generación le den la bienvenida de nuevo a los valores occidentales.
    Barbarians es un manifiesto a toda una generación arruinada y que está arruinando lo que es Occidente, es una buena lectura y es bueno saber que una joven escribió esto, ojala muchos jóvenes sigan su ejemplo y sigan los valores occidentales.
    El libro tiene un toque optimista dentro de todo y creo a manera personal que Lauren Southern tiene ideas que esperemos con el tiempo maduren, aunque temo que la alegre joven se vuelva más pesimista y amargada con los años—cosa que sucede con la madurez lamentablemente—recomiendo el libro a quienes quieran descubrir o leer sobre la nueva derecha y sus ideas, no esperen encontrar un tratado complejo sobre las causas de la decadencia de Occidente sino un libro por momentos agridulce, sumamente crítico y un manifiesto que reboza juventud.
    Una lectura que recomiendo para este verano.


    Junio 2017


    (En la foto me encuentro mostrando mi ejemplar recien salido del empaque)



    Libro de venta en Amazon Mexico


              Las universidades como santuarios del progresismo        


    Por Fernando Trujillo

    Decía el poeta italiano F.T Marinetti en su Manifiesto Futurista que las academias y todas las instituciones caducas debían de ser arrasadas. Cien años después esa proclama totalmente revolucionaria es más necesaria que nunca, en los años de Marinetti las universidades aun conservaban un estatus como templos de conocimientos a pesar de la mecanización y aburguesamiento de la educación pero en la actualidad las universidades han dejado de ser santuarios de conocimientos para ser santuarios del progresismo.
    En el mundo occidental el Pensamiento Único progresista y globalizador es un poder incuestionable en la educación universitaria, durante los años cincuenta y sesenta los miembros de la Escuela de Frankfurt en Estados Unidos y Europa se convirtieron en referentes culturales con su teoría crítica en la que ridiculizan y destruyen los valores de la cultura europea, acusándola entre otras cosas de “racista” y “sexista” así como calificando como “construcciones sociales”.
    Fue el origen del mal llamado marxismo cultural—en realidad liberalismo cultural—con Herbert Marcuse a la cabeza ejerciendo como docente en filosofía política en Columbia, Brandeis, Harvard y en la Universidad de California donde participó activamente en debates sociopolíticos siendo una gran influencia para el movimiento hippie y convirtiéndose en el padre de la nueva izquierda. Mientras que su colega Theodore Adorno propuso la idea de la “personalidad autoritaria” afirmando que el cristianismo, al nación y la familia crean un ambiente opresivo y “fascista” para el ser humano.
    Los miembros de la Escuela de Frankfurt aprendieron de las lecciones de Gramsci y tomaron el poder cultural. Pero este nuevo “marxismo” ya no estaba orientado hacia el proletariado sino hacia los jóvenes burgueses y minorías.
    “La Escuela de Frankfurt se vio frustrada por la persistente indiferencia de la clase obrera occidental hacia la rebelión. Herbert Marcuse hizo la pregunta: ¿Quién podría sustituir a la clase obrera como el agente de la revolución?
    Su respuesta fue: los grupos marginados, incluyendo a los militantes negros, las feministas, los militantes homosexuales, los antisociales, los alienados y los revolucionarios del Tercer Mundo, representados por el asesino de masas "Che" Guevara.” (Truman, 2014)

    Los años sesenta fueron la toma del poder del pensamiento liberal, los movimientos hippies y antes que ellos los beatniks, la pedagogía critica de Paulo Freire y posteriormente la pedagogía marxista de Peter McLaren—quien hasta el día de hoy expresa su ideología marxista en las universidades sin que nadie le moleste y siendo respetado por el mismo sistema capitalista—los movimientos estudiantiles de la mano de Marcuse y Adorno admiraban a Mao y su “revolución cultural” que adoctrinaba al pueblo en la ideología marxista mientras que destruía templos budistas en el Tíbet y organizaba hogueras para quemar cualquier vestigio de la cultura china.  Fue el inicio de ese terrorismo cultural llamado corrección política y de la educación liberal tal como la conocemos.

    La educación universitaria en Occidente es totalmente liberal, no existe una oposición conservadora, la docencia la ejercen militantes feministas, pro-LGBT, liberales y teóricos marxistas. Hablan hipócritamente de libertad de expresión pero censuran y persiguen a cualquiera que difiera de ellos bajo los epítetos de “fascista” entre otros.
    En las universidades del mundo blanco hay una proliferación de los llamados “espacios seguros” para los estudiantes, cualquier palabra que les disguste, cualquier acción puede ser considerada “ofensiva” y ser causa de expulsión o despido en caso de ser docente.
    Cualquier comentario en redes sociales puede ser considerado ofensivo, si una mujer o un alumno negro es reprobado puede alegar “racismo” o “sexismo” y despedir al profesor en turno, las cuotas de genero se dan sin importar si tiene las aptitudes o los conocimientos para ingresar, todo por la igualdad.
    A principios del presente año en la universidad de Berkeley en California una manifestación violenta se dio en protesta por la conferencia del periodista gay y conservador Milo Yiannopoulos en la que se quemó el inmueble, se saqueó un Starbucks y se agredió a simpatizantes del presidente Trump. Al final el periodista tuvo que cancelar la conferencia y el presidente Trump retiro fondos federales a la institución.
    En Estados Unidos este año han salido protestas universitarias contra el actual mandatario y contra cualquier tendencia calificada de “fascista”, el hiyab que hace algunos años la izquierda calificaba como “opresión de la mujer” ahora se ha vuelto un icono de liberación femenina, las consignas a favor de la entrada de refugiados, el Islam, la corrección política son parte del ideario de las actuales universidades.
    Esta tendencia no solo se da en el llamado primer mundo, también en Iberoamérica donde la UNAM la que alguna vez fue la máxima casa de estudios de México es actualmente un semillero de colectivos de izquierda que pregonan el feminismo, la teoría marxista, los derechos humanos y el indigenismo, estos colectivos posteriormente organizan marchas, tomas universitarias que terminan con la destrucción del plantel. Cada universidad hispana tiene un salón o un edificio con el nombre del comunista Che Guevara o de algún líder de izquierda, toda la literatura iberoamericana estudiada en las universidades pertenece a escritores que militan o simpatizan con la izquierda.
    Toda la educación universitaria está en manos de la nueva izquierda y cualquier oposición conservadora es llamada a la protesta, a la agresión física o a exigir su cancelación para no “herir sus sentimientos”.
    Actualmente el objetivo de la educación liberal ya es solo el adoctrinar a una generación berrinchuda y sin carácter en los valores globalistas.
    Esta hegemonía disminuye al mismo tiempo la calidad de la educación en nombre de la igualdad y la corrección política. Así no solo tenemos una educación universitaria cada vez más cara sino de baja calidad.
    “La educación vocacional, científica y tecnológica florece, y los departamentos de humanidades, habiendo sido sujetos de la purga igualitaria de toda la cultura elitista, parecen estar dividiéndose a sí mismos en departamentos de estudios de cultura pop y departamentos de revolución permanente: estudios de género, estudios étnicos, teoría queer, etc., tanques de queja dedicados permanentemente a la campaña política – y lugares de desecho para los de otra forma inutilizables símbolos de la ‘acción afirmativa’. La educación liberal se vuelve, en pocas palabras, educación por liberales –racial, étnica, y sexualmente diversos, para estar seguros – mientras que sean liberales. Su contenido se vuelve progresivamente más delgado después del repetido esfuerzo a través de la malla uniforme que forma las categorías a priori de la mente liberal.” (Johnson, 2015)
    Estamos saturados de licenciaturas que no sirven para nada excepto para engrandecer el orgullo de jóvenes y docentes progresistas así como entregar grandes cantidades de dinero al aparato universitario, hablo de la licenciatura en estudios de la mujer, la licenciatura en Frida Kahlo, la licenciatura en estudios de “alguna moda posmoderna” que no tienen ninguna utilidad salvo continuar alimentando el progresismo.
    Vale más un joven con conocimientos en carpintería, en aspectos técnicos, un survivalista que un joven con un título en estudios de género que como ser humano no sirve para nada excepto repetir los mantas liberales aprendidos en el aula.
    La educación está en manos de liberales, los colectivos SJW se dedican a perseguir y agredir a quienes difieren de ellos. Organizan marchas y amenazas de muerte para Anne Coulter y Milo Yiannopoulos cuando van a dar una conferencia porque como buenos niños berrinchudos son incapaces de tener una oposición o tener abiertamente un debate.
    En la actual educación todo concepto como el estudio de las diferencias raciales, el revisionismo histórico, el cristianismo, el identitarismo son las nuevas herejías y han sido expulsados de los templos del progresismo y sustituidos por una agenda educativa mediocre y conformista.

    No obstante en el último año ha surgido una oposición ideológica al liberalismo cultural en la educación universitaria.
    Actualmente se da una batalla en las universidades norteamericanas por la libertad de expresión, mientras que las hordas de antifascistas, SJW y feministas aterrorizan y exigen por medio de la violencia imponer su voluntad, colectivos de nacionalistas buscan defender la libertad de expresión.
    Este año se dio la comúnmente llamada “batalla de Berkeley” en el que nacionalistas se enfrentaron a un ejército antifascista ayudado por las autoridades universitarias y la policía, ellos tienen dominada la cultura y nosotros somos la nueva anti-cultura en su oposición.
    Periodistas y defensores por la libertad de expresión como Lauren Southern han debatido públicamente en las universidades a pesar de los insultos y amenazas a su integridad física, Lauren fue una participante de la batalla de Berkeley en el que debatió y enfrento a estudiantes histéricos y violentos.
    La guerra cultural en las universidades de Estados Unidos ha empezado, los jóvenes nacionalistas ya no quieren ser intimidados o censurados por la horda políticamente correcta, se da una lucha desde los debates hasta la pelea con los puños, la situación en México por otra parte es totalmente diferente, la cultura de izquierda es la dominante y no existe ninguna forma de oposición.
    Para generar una disidencia dentro del ambiente universitario se necesita auto-critica, debates, argumentos y contra-argumentos que en las universidades hispanas aún no hemos comenzado.
    Estamos regresando a los sesenta solo que en aquel entonces la nueva izquierda nació y tomo el poder, actualmente una nueva derecha ha nacido y busca tomar el poder cultural de nuevo. La guerra se da en los campus.
    La lucha de la nueva derecha es válida pero es en este punto cuando recuerdo a Marinetti y su manifiesto, su consigna de derrumbar las academias ¿Sigue siendo válido? Creo que definitivamente sí o por lo menos derribar el aparato liberal que lo controla.
    La educación se encuentra mecanizada, produce masas de jóvenes presuntuosos con caros títulos con mentes liberales que al final terminaran trabajando para el gran aparato burgués.
    Los títulos y las cedulas son caros, estudiar una carrera es un enorme gasto de dinero para tener un papelito que te servirá para presumir pero que a la larga te servirá de muy poco o nada ¿Vale la pena conservar las universidades?
    La educación liberal definitivamente no y su combate debe de ser aplaudido y apoyado pero para crear una nueva pedagogía se tiene que derrumbar todo el aparato universitario actual y formar una nueva educación.
    De nada le servirá a la nueva derecha ganar las universidades si continuaran ideas y conceptos aplicados actualmente asi como si siguen manteniendo el aparato burocratico actual. Freire, McLaren y toda la Escuela de Frankfurt deben de ser removidos para una nueva concepción educativa.
    Sin embargo para generar una nueva pedagogía se debe primero ganar el combate cultural y como mencione este apenas ha empezado.
    Las universidades enfrascadas en su ideología progresista ya no sirven para nada, ya no educan, ya no formar una crítica, solo son enormes aparatos burocráticos que consumen cantidades de dinero por una educación mediocre.
    Las universidades en su fase actual son aparatos caducos que es necesario arrasar para construir algo nuevo.
    Por el momento las universidades ya no son templos de conocimiento, son semilleros de progresistas, antifascistas y la corrección política. Básicamente, son el enemigo.



    Junio 2017


    Referencias


    Johnson, Greg (2015). Pensamientos sobre la educación liberal. Counter-Currents. [En red] Recuperado de https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/02/pensamientos-sobre-la-educacion-liberal/

    Truman, David (2014). ¿Qué es el Marxismo Cultural? Editorial Streicher. [En red] Recuperado de http://editorial-streicher.blogspot.mx/2014/12/sobre-marxismo-cultural-y-progresismo.html

    Southern, Lauren (Director). (2017). Battle for Berkeley [Video] Estados Unidos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSMz0pcrM18




              â€œWhite Left” as Chinese Insult        


    By Professor Doom

         Intelligence is a tough thing to measure. We have all sorts of tests, and all of them are subject to various criticisms, many valid. Despite this, it’s clear the tests are at least a little reliable, because one ethnic group consistently comes out on top: Asians (statistically, which means very little when addressing a specific individual).

          It’s no secret that the status of the Social Justice Warrior has dropped a bit in the last six months. Despite their deep self-righteousness and assertions of well-meaning, they’re often held in disdain. This disdain is returned, of course,  and we’re told ad nauseam how people that don’t like SJWs are rednecks, hicks, fascists, Nazis, or, of course, deplorable.

         The Chinese, of course, can hardly be called rednecks or Nazis, and they even adopted communism, the favored ideology of the SJW. And, they’re smart. So what do they think of the beliefs of the SJW?



         They have a word for the SJW, bai zuo (literally, “white left”). To be sure, they’re talking about the SJWs with this expression:

    baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.


         While there’s no assertion of insanity in the above, it’s a fairly close description to what a deplorable would call a SJW. What’s interesting here, is this loathing comes from Chinese who have no actual personal experience with SJWs. Yet, they still can formulate a strong opinion.

         For quite some time, the US higher education system has had, especially at the graduate level, a high number of Chinese students. While not true today, the US higher education system used to be the best in the world, and we still have that momentum which causes wealthy Chinese to send their kids here to study. For a while, we worried about “the Chinese problem,” wherein China sends so many students here that it overwhelms our system. Luckily (?), our leaders in higher ed have corrupted and debased higher education to the point that there’s little risk of that anymore.

          Anyway, the Chinese higher education system is now getting the good reputation, and they’ve opened their borders enough to accept foreign students onto their campuses. This is a big deal—as a visitor to China, I assure you a  non-Chinese person really, really, stands out in a way that someone born and raised in America can’t readily appreciate. In any event, Chinese universities that quite literally have never had a non-Chinese student on campus now are getting “foreigners” in numbers. This provides a unique opportunity to see the ideas of social justice in action.

           A white professor at one of these “newly integrated” universities in China is in a unique position to observe how this is working out:

    I’m particularly well positioned because my university has an especially large number of students from Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa. As one of the few white people in my province, I am able to witness interactions between these diverse racial groups who have rarely, if ever, come into contact before they went to college. Some of my students have told me I’m the first white person they’ve ever seen, and almost all say the African students are their first blacks.

               It’s not so rare for have white professors in Chinese universities. Due to the massive glut of Ph.D.s in America, we have lots of scholars looking for work, and there’s great demand for English teachers in China, whatever their doctorate may be in (I myself have even considered it).

         He may be an English teacher, but he’s a scholar, and thus knows to have a nuanced view of things:

    I have around 200 students every semester, and about 90 percent are girls. This has something to do with the way the system approves students for certain areas of study, and a lot more girls than boys end up in my English classes. In a class of 30, it’s not uncommon to have no male students. As a result, I am far more familiar with the girls’ perspectives than with the boys’.  The average age of these girls is 19-21, so they are fresh enough not to have fixed views about race, but old enough to want to explore the question.


         So, the professor breaks views down by gender, and has some fascinating insights (although I’m so jealous that his classes only contain 30 students…). So what do his female students say?

    When I ask my students what they think of black people, they express mixed results depending on sex. The girls often react with disgust, revulsion, or pity…
    The girls’ disgust is often combined with fear, and they associate blacks with crime…


         Part of why the SJW is hated in the US is because of their blatant lies, lies in obvious contradiction with truths most people can see with their own eyes, in addition to their willingness to use violence to silence any who dare speak truth.

         The professor’s university also takes students from Pakistan, a largely Muslim country. How’s that working out?

    The Pakistani boys have mixed results. Some of them are successful, but if they are too traditional in their Islamic behavior, the Chinese girls reject them.


         Obviously, dating is a big deal for Chinese females. With different priorities, the Chinese males have a different view of African students:

    The opinions of Chinese boys about black people are almost exactly the opposite of the girls. To understand this difference you must understand how important basketball has become in China within the last few years.


         Chinese universities don’t have the corruption and foolishness of official sportsball teams, but they do have courts and such for the students. I do hope they don’t make the mistake of going the route of having school teams. They probably won’t, though if they do, I suspect it’ll be little different than the U.S., with sportsball players completely isolated from the “normal” students. In this case, it’ll be even more clear that the sportsball players are not even remotely related to the actual students on campus.

          Dating is still a factor to the boys, of course, and their views are as insular as anyone familiar with Chinese culture would expect:

    However, Chinese boys are not attracted to black women and would never think of marrying one. I was once in a group discussion in which it was jokingly suggested China should invade Africa to acquire women to fill the sex gap plaguing China (thirty million Chinese boys have no girl to marry). One of the Chinese men in the group looked perplexed, and said: “But there are no women in Africa for us to marry; there are only dark-skinned people there.”

    --a thinking person who does not wish to be highly alarmed should under no circumstances consider how those 30 million males will eventually get wives…


         What’s most interesting about these views is the students are not getting this message through the official Chinese government schooling. One might suspect as much, as these students do get some of their views from government school (much like in the U.S.):

    Despite their obviously low opinion of blacks, when I ask my students whether blacks are as intelligent as whites and Asians, they almost universally reply, “Yes.” This is because of their [Chinese] schooling…


         Now, obviously, when a child learns something in school from a government official, it’s generally taken as fact (there’s a reason government wants control of your children, after all). But, at some point, a child grows and is exposed to the real world and, well, reality sets in:

    I often get interesting reactions when I explain the actual IQ scores for each race. My students’ first reaction is laughingly to celebrate the Asian results: “Ha! We’re smarter than white people!” After we joke about this, I ask them what they think about blacks being so far below whites and Asians. Almost without exception, they cite the arguments made by the American Left: “It’s because of white racism,” “It’s because of European colonialism,” “It’s because they have bad nutrition,” or “It’s because they don’t have proper education.”


         Hey, there are some issues with racism on intelligence tests, and absolutely “intelligence” is a vague concept even on a good day…but it’s funny to hear the Chinese students recite the same things our kids recite. Funny, but no accident.
          But, again, propaganda is one thing, reality is another:

    My race-realist perspective is almost always vindicated when my students travel to America with foreign work programs. One of my students worked in Ohio over the summer. When he returned, I met him in a tea shop and asked him what he thought of America. The first thing out of his mouth was: “The black people . . . they’re so . . . dangerous.” I got a similar unprovoked reaction while I was sitting at a gate in the Shanghai airport. A complete stranger was returning from Massachusetts and suddenly delivered a rant about how blacks were brutish and weird.

    When African students began arriving at my university in higher numbers last year, the Pakistani and Chinese students were initially excited about getting to know them. I watched the excitement turn to confusion and disgust.


         Now anecdotes like the above are essentially meaningless. Some things, some people need to see with their own eyes. On the other hand, for the sufficiently intelligent, reviewing data and considering empirical evidence can help:

    One of my Chinese friends couldn’t believe there was evidence for blacks having lower IQs and higher crime rates than whites and Asians. I pulled up Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance video “Race Differences in Intelligence” on YouTube and let her watch. I then showed her videos of the Ferguson riots, flash mobs carried out by “youths,” and videos of the knockout game. Her perspective changed in a single evening. She was shocked, and told me her whole perception of America and race relations had changed. She’s been “red-pilled” ever since.


         Now, I’ve quoted lots of “unpopular” things from the article above (and left a few things out that are just too dangerous for me to even quote), things that would easily cost a person his job if he dared say them in the United States. As always, one must review the comments section to see how well the ideas fly. None of the comments dispute what’s being said above, none of them are particularly critical, and most are in agreement.

         On the other hand, when I look at an article that says the things SJWs say are politically correct to say, the comments—the few articles that even allow them—consistently have people laughing at how ridiculous the ideas are.

         Why is that?











              Duke Divinity Crisis Shows SJW Tactics        


    By Professor Doom

         As we see our campuses descend into riots over the most idiotic, non-academic issues of concern only to the most rabid of Social Justice Warriors, many huge questions arise. Why did Berkeley police stand down in the face of Leftist rioters? Why are the administrators and staff assaulting students who support free speech? Why is it the independent press that identifies the attackers, and not the mainstream media or police?

          One question stands above all others: how did the SJWs take over higher education? While the answer is “one position at a time,” it’s interesting to follow the tactics involved. An incident at Duke Divinity demonstrates how it works, and while the incident occurred a few months ago, only recently did the documentation finally get leaked to the public.

          The beginning of the incident is simple enough, yet another SJW-inspired meeting on campus:

    On behalf of the Faculty Diversity and Inclusion Standing Committee, I strongly urge you to participate in the Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training planned…


          I’ve certainly been to a few of these, and they are positively nuts. One quick standout line from a Diversity meeting I was forced to go to:

    “You should teach blacks the same way you teach pedophiles and rapists…”

    --I’m serious, and this wasn’t even the most insulting part of the ‘training’ I was given credit for at the meeting...


         In a word, these meetings are excruciating. Other, less professional, words come to mind, of course, but bottom line the meetings are a huge waste of time, on top of just how insulting much of the material is. Of course, the people putting on the meeting do what they can to make it sound like a great idea:

    Those who have participated in the training have described it as transformative, powerful, and life-changing. We recognize that it is a significant commitment of time;


          Life-changing is one of those buzzwords that’s turned into a flag meaning “avoid at all costs.” I’ve mentioned other disastrous things in higher education presented as life changing; if you have to overblow what you’re selling by such a huge margin, you must be selling crap so foul that any positive description would be a massive exaggeration, so you may as well go with something huge like “life changing.”

         I really want to emphasize just how painful these meetings are:

    8:30—5 pm both days. Participants should plan to attend both full days of training…It is the first step in a longer process.


          The very highly paid commissars who put on these shows really have nothing better to do with their time…but I assure you scholars can easily find something superior to being subjected to 16 hours of being insulted, and being told that more is to follow doesn’t help.

          Now, the first time around, faculty don’t know better, and we diligently file in to the meeting. These meetings pile up, however, and sooner or later, one faculty snaps, and decides to try to kill some of this infestation with a touch of truth. This is what happened at Duke Divinity: a professor tried to speak out against the madness the commissars are trying to impose.

           Let’s see what the professor has to say. Normally I’d snip the highlights but a quotation in full is in order here:

    Dear Faculty Colleagues,

    I’m responding to [Commissar] Thea’s exhortation that we should attend the Racial Equity Institute Phase 1 Training scheduled for 4-5 March. In her message she made her ideological commitments clear. I’ll do the same, in the interests of free exchange.
    I exhort you not to attend this training. Don’t lay waste your time by doing so. It’ll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show. Events of this sort are definitively anti-intellectual. (Re)trainings of intellectuals by bureaucrats and apparatchiks have a long and ignoble history; I hope you’ll keep that history in mind as you think about this instance.


         We here at Duke Divinity have a mission. Such things as this training are at best a distraction from it and at worst inimical to it. Our mission is to thnk [sic], read, write, and teach about the triune Lord of Christian confession. This is a hard thing. Each of us should be tense with the effort of it, thrumming like a tautly triple-woven steel thread with the work of it, consumed by the fire of it, ever eager for more of it. We have neither time nor resources to waste. This training is a waste. Please, ignore it. Keep your eyes on the prize.

        
         Now, Duke Divinity is a religious school, and he reinforces what the school’s mission is. All our institutions of higher education have mission statements, and, much like at Duke Divinity, they’ve fallen far astray.

         The Dean had to respond with a mass e-mail to counter our brave professor’s heresy. Naturally, she (at the risk of being redundant) smacks down the heretic in her response, and one line in particular is obnoxious:

    The use of mass emails to express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry is offensive and unacceptable, especially in a Christian institution.


         Wow, good thing I quoted the professor in full above. Does the gentle reader see any racism, sexism, or bigotry in the professor’s rant? Why is it that every…single…time…someone tries to speak out against what’s happening on our campuses they get buried under such labels?

         Administration has incredible power over faculty now. The professor’s heresy is not simply countered with a mass e-mail/libel/humiliation from the Dean, there’s more, as the professor explains:

    My speech and writing about these topics has now led to two distinct (but probably causally related) disciplinary procedures against me, one instigated by…our Dean, and the other instigated by [Commissar] Thea Portier-Young, our colleague...
    These disciplinary proceedings are designed not to engage and rebut the views I hold and have expressed about the matters mentioned, but rather to discipline me for having expressed them.

    --in case the gentle reader is curious, the exact charges against the heretic are “unprofessional conduct” and “harassment.” One can be certain the kangaroo committees will be unanimous of their findings.



         This is key to what happened in our institutions of higher ed: you speak out, and you are punished. Instead of the two full days of being insulted at the training session, the heretic will now endure weeks of being disciplined and dealing with hearings and written responses. It’s nuts, and the other faculty realize that in terms of time wasted, they’re better off with the indoctrination.

         The kangaroo court system gets away with so much because it operates in secrecy. The heretic is doing what he can to reveal it:

    [Dean] Heath’s and [Commissar] Portier-Young’s disciplinary proceedings are not public: they’re veiled, and accompanied by threats of reprisal if unveiled. I’d like them to take responsibility for what they’re doing, and so I’m making it public...


           This is not simply a disgruntled professor making wild claims. I’ve been on secret committees where, after the accused made his defense, the accuser was secretly invited in to provide more secret testimony and secret evidence the accused never knew about, or had a chance to respond to (I’m certain much of the testimony/evidence was rubbish, but there were threats of reprisal if we didn’t do as admin wished…).

         There are numerous documents regarding what’s being done to the heretic. Yes, he has tenure, but the endless harassment and piling on of charges can lead to only one conclusion because this treatment will not allow him to pursue honorable work:

    According to a source close to [Heretic] Griffiths, he has resigned, effective at the end of the 2017-18 academic year.


         And this, gentle reader, is how our educational system was lost. A faculty member makes even one complaint in an attempt to stop the takeover, and he’s buried under accusations of racism, unprofessionalism, harassment, or a host of other ridiculous possibilities. He can try to defend himself, but our institutions use a kangaroo court system where even the most ridiculous of charges merit convictions and punishments (with the Game of Thrones Professor saga being the best example so far, even if he did eventually get a pardon by taking things to the “real” court system).

           In the face of a system completely hostile to the mission of higher education, the scholar sees no better option than to leave. His position will be filled by another Commissar, and she’ll do a fine job.

          As always the comments section gives a bit more information:

    [Commissar] Anathea Porter-Young…A quick Facebook search allowed me to investigate exactly what it is she teaches about the bible. She’s bragging on Facebook about ‘queering’ the bible and inserting Transgender Teachings as required Textbooks. Once again, another Institution has been successfully subverted by dead-eyed, socialist creeps.


          Hey, remember when a professor at a Jesuit school was suspended for being pro-heterosexual marriage, and saying as much publicly online? I do. Why doesn’t this madness go both ways? Oh yeah: madness.








              â€œSMACK MY B*TCH UP”: @Google SJW @AnthonyBaxter’s Social Media Past Full Of Sexism, Fat Hate, Hitler Jokes, & More        

    Google SJW Anthony Baxter, an engineer who implied fired fellow engineer James Damore was a Nazi who should be punched, has a social media past full of sexism, fat hate, Hitler jokes, and more. Ironically, he even once invoked Godwin’s Law and complained that comparisons to Nazis are overdone. Hypocrisy, much? Baxter’s pro-violence post on […]

    The post “SMACK MY B*TCH UP”: @Google SJW @AnthonyBaxter’s Social Media Past Full Of Sexism, Fat Hate, Hitler Jokes, & More appeared first on GotNews.


              BREAKING: @Google Engineer Demands Job Applicants Undergo SJW Struggle Session for ‘Diversity’        

    Google engineer Thomas Bushnell pledges to devote job applicants’ interview solely to the topic of diversity. GotNews exclusively obtained Bushnell’s pledge to enforce “diversity” at all costs, including IQ points and company money. “I’m going to do my part to address this problem until recruiting comes up with a coherent strategy,” Bushnell wrote in an […]

    The post BREAKING: @Google Engineer Demands Job Applicants Undergo SJW Struggle Session for ‘Diversity’ appeared first on GotNews.


              The Incredible President Trump        
    It's been nine days, and I think I've finally wrapped my head around the election of Donald Trump. Sometimes, you're just wrong. On this election, I was wrong.

    I'm kind of cool with it. The victory of Trump over the Democratic establishment made me feel oddly self-satisfied, as if some of the problems I see were seen by others and they responded. Much as I loathe democracy, there's a pleasure to that, as for the first time in a while I didn't feel like a man without a country.

    This lasted one night.

    Since then, of course, protests and riots and assorted childish stupidity. THIS does not surprise me. Laziness and arrogance lost the election for the left. No other candidate could have failed to win this thing except Hillary Clinton, arguably the least trustworthy career politician on this earth. Bernie would have won. Shit, Al Sharpton might have won. This was a freakish fluke.

    But it's still an educational experience. Here are some things I learned, a couple things that are pleasant to see, and a couple that are definitely not.


    First lesson: Donald Trump is not an idiot.

    Of course lots of people have problems with political correctness, with the hollowing out of the industrial base through globalist trade, with the nakedly hypocritical leftist philosophy on race, and with general leftist intellectual arrogance. But what I expected was that the moral conditioning given to us by two thousand years of Judeo-Christian thought would simply not allow a majority of people to elect a man who looks like the stereotype of every big business bad guy from film and TV, electoral college be damned.

    But evidently, Trump operates at a visceral level for a lot of people. I just happen to not be one of them. Others read between the lines of his rhetoric and concluded that he was on their side, regardless of his long-standing 1%er public persona. Looking back, it's not so surprising. But at the time, it was absurd to the point of laughable.

    And I did laugh when he was elected. I damn near needed oxygen from a medical supply company, I was laughing so hard.

    Eventually, I should probably admit that there are still a lot of people in this country who know that having rights and quality of life and security require exclusion, boundaries, and strategic concern for their culture. We still retain a touch of structuralism around these parts. I was worried the average person was too stupid to get this. And it was close; Hillary won the popular vote, despite being arguably the most passionless and untrustworthy candidate the left could have possibly brought forward.

    But still, she lost. The conditioning is soft in the boondocks. Trump figured that out. And I, for one, welcome our newfound meme-tastic orange overlord who has risen from the ashes of their voting rage.


    Second Lesson: The left's power is still limited

    You know the saying: you can fool some people all the time, you can fool all people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Accusations of bigotry and small-mindedness come with limits, and right now, the left is scrambling internally to figure out how to deal with their own epic, insane failure, and the temper tantrum of last couple of days is not the way.

    Jonathan Haidt knows this. He's one of the smarter ones, throwing out some very sophisticated ideas to explain away what just happened, trying to sound even-handed. He's still a partisan, mind you, and he knows that this reaction can go a long way in justifying a similar reaction from the right the next time they lose an election. Meanwhile, Slate is saying there's no such thing as a good Trump voter. Such sentiments are everywhere. That should bring them over to the side of good, post-haste!

    Then there are the multitude of examples of blatant media partisanship from sources that, until this election, would tell you with a straight face that they were reporting the news and not creating it. This really won't hurt them in the long run, but the clear lack of trust in the MSM from Trump's constituency has set off alarms and the overbearingly superior attitude is currently in disarray.

    If you were on Trump's side, then here, have some schadenfraude. Then top it off with some even richer, creamier hardcore schadenfraude.

    Also, please note that, when it comes to Sanders, there's a tremendous appropriateness to this entire situation. Yes, Bernie would have won the general election. Free shit combined with his earnest idealism certainly would have done the job better, and it only needed to be a little bit better.

    But the DNC fucked him, and this is beautiful. Why? Because Bernie is a socialist, meaning that he stands for the abandonment of individual agency in favor of a large, bureaucratic organization making decisions for people based on a politically pragmatic vision of what its leaders think is right.

    And Bernie got fucked over by a large, bureaucratic organization making decisions for people based on a politically pragmatic vision of what its leaders thought was right.

    And, as it turns out, it wasn't right, it didn't work, it didn't do the job, and the hubris was matched only by the complete disinterest in what their people really needed.


    Third Lesson: The alt-right sucks now

    This came from a brief period before the election, after the "deplorables" comment from Clinton, when I renewed my interest in things political and checked out some alt-right message boards. What I found was... interesting. Basically, I heard this:



    Yes, the Jews. Covetous Jews.

    Why, you ask, did it come down to this? Well, to gain voter support, leftists use ideas like "free shit, paid for by taxes on the rich" to bring in stupid people. This is compatible with, but quite different from, their more sophisticated ideas on class, morality, and the role of government. The alt-right, when they want to bring in voters, also has to simplify its message. And so while it might be able to trace some of its ideas back to neoreactionaries like Moldbug - sorry, (((Moldbug))) - it will go for the simplest, stupidest explanation possible. And that explanation is basically that the fuckin' Jews did it.

    They mixed this with a general slagging of blacks, Muslims, and Mexicans, some shitposting and legitimate ideas, some very obviously genuine supremacist garbage that's contradictory and brazenly stupid. Some have called this a breakdown of a racial detante. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. It's simple. It gets attention. It's a conspiracy that directs no blame onto the dirt-poor country bumpkins these people think they're defending. Fucking perfect. There are even NRx guys who have given this lowest common denominator solution their full blessing. And I'm sure that after decades of PC culture, taunting the heebs and their hidden Jew gold is way too much fun.

    The alt-right had to go low because voting! God, I hate democracy. 

    To these people, Trump is incredible. And I agree: he's incredible. As in not credible. Whatever wondrous magic they think he will accomplish in their name, disappointment is around the corner.


    Lesson Four: this doesn't change anything

    Once again, fucking democracy. Trump has four years. Since a fairly conventional Republican congress is waiting, he's already moderating his positions, largely because he's not an idiot. He will be burning a lot of his political capital to get healthcare reform passed - again - and any new infrastructure spending funded.

    His economic policies are mostly meh. I'm the most hierarchical, pro-capitalist asshole I know, and I still don't think that radical reductions of the tax rate for the rich will be slamming growth into overdrive, certainly not enough to be revenue neutral. There's just as good of a chance that it will raise inflation for nothing, because we aren't going to see a mass influx of industry coming back to America and productivity changes from this kind of policy take forever. He's probably not going to be able to get those tax breaks passed regardless, and either way, we're going to continue with deficit spending for the next four years.

    On social policy, Trump seems ready to do... nothing. There's certainly not going to be a rollback of gay rights or any such thing under his administration, no matter what Slate.com says. Right wingers of all stripes are certainly hoping for a few years of peace and quiet when it comes to social issues, even though the press is far more responsible for the promotion of SJW causes than the government. This peace and quiet is not going to happen.

    And that's what we have to look forward to: the combination of the MSM losing and Trump's inevitable moderation of what he's promised means that the backlash over the next four years will probably hurt right-wing thinking more than help it over the long run.

    It's starting already. Twitter just banned alt-right posters from using their service, because on top of them being repugnant to their way of thinking, they're also now considered dangerous, largely due to Steve Bannon getting an advising post in the White House. And while Bannon probably won't get anything done besides being a spin doctor, he's thrown fuel on the fire. Same goes for Richard Spencer, who is rapidly becoming a common political pincushion for writers at every MSM outlet. 

    In four years, having the memory of a vicious election behind them, you can expect an equally vicious "hate doesn't work" campaign from MSM pundits that will galvanize the left against Trump even more. Having lost the popular vote in the last election, the media and the reformed Democrats will pay attention this time and probably win.

    So I'm not thrilled with this, after having some time to reflect. I was hoping the alt-right would be an intellectually respectable subculture that could help to undermine liberalism and Judeo-Christian morality into the next few generations, as the globalist/individualist scheme fell apart at the seams. But it's not happening; the alt-right, instead, has decided to try and become a voting block, which has already started crumbling into a emotionally volatile mess of idiots. In going full retard for democracy, it's handcuffed itself to its new hero, Trump, assuming he can do something positive and legitimize them. 

    That won't be easy: we're handing over an economy that's a mixed but good-looking situation: low unemployment, fairly high discretionary spending, cheap gas, mediocre but respectable growth. This is all cyclical, and not really a sign of Obama's policies working, but it's hard to tell for laymen. The underlying sicknesses, like low labor force participation and unsustainable Fed interest rates, are policy wonk crap the average urban voter won't care about. If Trump's economy doesn't boom, the right, especially the alt-right, loses.

    Sorry to burst the bubble. I enjoyed it for a little while, too, and hopefully I'm wrong. The best possible thing that could come from this is an escalating, virulent conflict that eventually splits the country apart. I'm hoping for this.


    ------------------------


    Jon Stewart - sorry, (((Jon Stewart))) - has had some things to say. This simple quote sums up leftism, on at least somewhat honest terms.

    America is not natural, natural is tribal. We're fighting against that, and that's what makes America great.

    So Stewart has read Jonathan Haidt, and knows leftism is unnatural. And this is good. It's actual progress, because there are a lot of leftists who think of tribalism as unnatural, who think of cultural identity as something imposed on the individual, who think of conflict between peoples as a residue of hierarchy and class and power that could be eliminated with few issues. They might continue to push the PC line, but at least in the back of their minds, some of them know they are manipulating people for their own purposes and what they're preaching is ultimately as coercive as any other ideal.

    Some of us would rather risk conflict than give up and shut our mouths and go along with this narrative. For some people, like the mouth-breathing portion of the alt-right, this willingness stems from a need to be above other people by cultural fiat. For a tiny handful of us who have been in the more intellectual nether regions of the alt right for years, it's because there are flaws in this narrative which make it deeply hypocritical, and once thought through, illuminate it as an extremely arrogant meta version of the same idealistic crap Western society has been chewing on for centuries.

    The struggle continues.


              More on the Google Memo & Firing        
    Google’s auto-da-fé SJW logic The paradox of diversity dogma 1 Michael Brendan Dougherty identifies James Damore’s Google memo as a sort of 95 Theses and, tacitly, Google’s response as a sort of counter-Reformation: One could describe the tone of this memo as “cooperative.” The author doesn’t make any claims that he is victimized. He doesn’t […]
              Independence Day post: An unintentional back-handed tribute to the USA        
    Via “masgramondou”, comes a mindblowing story. Sure, it’s VICE, so full of SJW virtue signaling and hand-wringing. But in a nutshell: there are lawyers for illegal immigrants who are actively trying to get their clients incarcerated at Riker’s Island in order to avoid deportation. Let that sink in. They would rather sit in jail in the … Continue reading Independence Day post: An unintentional back-handed tribute to the USA
              Morgan Freeman Silences a Jewish SJW - Shows How to Stop Being Helpless ...        

              Comment on Marvel’s Avengers: Age of Ultron Trailer #3 – All New! [HD] by venom829bane        
    I thought it was meh, pretty much episode 4 dressed up and called episode 7, biggest problem I had with it was it being a feminist social justice warrior mouthpiece (like we don't have enough of them these days) it just became too much, and I felt like Disney had purposely sabotaged the story of Star Wars for SJW propaganda
               Comedian Tells Congress Why College Students are Weak         
    The one and only Adam Carolla testifies to Congress on how today's college students are weak snowflakes. He doesn't lie when he dives into the quick, yet deep, truth about this rather annoying generation of potential losers. College used to mean something, but these SJW students and protesters are taking their nonsense too far. They literally cannot handle reality. If they fail to handle the toughness and grit of society, then they will be losers forever. GROW UP, KIDS! Adam Carolla
              The Confederate Battle Flag is back in South Carolina… sort of        
    In 2015, after a prolonged battle in the courts and the national media, the Confederate Battle Flag was lowered for the last time at a monument on state property in Columbia, South Carolina. At the time it was hailed as a glorious victory for the SJW and a very sad day for many southerners. Now, less than two years later a different version of the flag is back up again, but at a different location. The Confederate battle flag is going back up at a monument in a northwestern South Carolina town. Luther Lyle had maintained the memorial in Walhalla...
              Navy investigating SEALs unit that rode with Trump flag in Kentucky convoy        
    ....[SEALs unit spokeswoman Lt. Jacqui] Maxwell described the investigation as a command inquiry that could lead to punishment if warranted. She also said it wasn’t immediately clear if those involved were SEALs or support staff. .... The paper reported Thursday that a Kentucky-based anti-Trump group was one of the first to post video of the incident on its website, calling it “a fascist tactic” that “is not acceptable. RESIST!!!” [Apparently a KY goat farmer took the photo/video and posted it as a lark, and then some KY SJW noticed it and alerted the Antifaghi or whatever they're called.]
              Thursday Sector Leaders: Water Utilities, Trucking Stocks        
    In trading on Thursday, water utilities shares were relative leaders, up on the day by about 2.2%. Leading the group were shares of SJW Corporation (SJW), up about 14.7% and shares of Aquaventure Holdings (WAAS) up about 2.5% on the day.
              Ep. 912 How to Get the Last Laugh Against SJW Totalitarians: Colin Moriarty Edition        
    Colin Moriarty spent 14 years of his life in the video game world, until one day he published a joke on Twitter that only an idiot would take offense at, and everyone swarmed for the kill. But he got the last laugh, as we note in today's episode. Show notes for Ep. 912
              Ep. 808 Deplorable NYU Professor Wins Victory Over SJWs        
    Michael Rectenwald, a professor of liberal studies at New York University who describes himself as a lifelong left-liberal, took to Twitter not long ago to express his disgust with political correctness, safe spaces, and SJW intimidation. You can imagine the response from those tolerant lovers of diversity. But he had the last laugh. Show notes for Ep. 808
              Ep. 703 Social Justice Warriors: Who They Are, and How to Deal With Them        
    What exactly is the ideology of the "Social Justice Warrior"? What do you do when you're targeted by one, whether at work or in general? Vox Day -- popular blogger, author, SJW slayer, and polymath -- joins me for background and strategy. Show notes for Ep. 703
              Sexist Australian SJW Senator gets put in her place.        

    Australian SJW Senator gets put in her place when she accuses a fellow senator of "mansplaining."

    The post Sexist Australian SJW Senator gets put in her place. appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.


              Comment on Stars ‘strongly opposed’ to Texas ‘bathroom bill’ (Updated) by hankbemis        
    what hockeyflow is saying if you merely disagree with the CONCEPT of - not the right to - mutilate ones genitals, you're crucified by the SJW's who at minimum will think you no longer deserve to be employed. meanwhile, if you're on the left (take bill maher for example, who is not PC), you can get away with anything. he literally said "work in the field? Senator, I'm a house (n-word)" and NOTHING happened. Imagine literally any public figure who is right of center, using that term, and the SJW reaction that would follow.
              Comment on Google, Facebook, Twitter Vow To Censor Hate Speech In Less Than 24 Hours by Anti-SJW Internal Google Manifesto Calls Out Leftist Discrimination | One Angry Gamer        
    […] new roll-out of the Limited State content policy, which they will be implementing as part of their fight against hate speech, something that they’ve been working with Facebook and Twitter on over the last […]
              Dishonored: Death Of The Outsider Won’t Let You Play As Daud; SJW Dissent Rises        
    Arkane Studios’ Harvey Smith provided a little bit of commentary about the upcoming release of Dishonored: Death of the Outsider....
              Comment on Macron, Ike Turner and the psychology of marrying your alleged rapist by The Saker        
    you obviously don't understand the concept of statutory rape, as for your characterization of young male psychology - it might fit you but I assure you that it does not fit every boy out there. But what really bothers me is the useless insults ("SJW dribble from the usual suspect" or "degrading yellow ‘journalism’"). You are more than welcome to disagree with Ramin, but not to insult him. One more insult like that and I will ban you. An apology to Ramin from you will make me forget this. Your move. The Saker
              Comment on Macron, Ike Turner and the psychology of marrying your alleged rapist by twilight        
    Young men are not young women, so why do we get this SJW dribble from the usual suspect. When I was growing up, the autobiographies of famous men frequently had the same men boast about their ***very*** early sexual activity with older women- and no-one in society at the time blinked, or suggested 'abuse'. The real abuse of young men tended to come from older male predators- at school, in the army (in nations that allow child soldiers like the UK), in sports and apprenticeships as part of an 'initiation' ceremony. The ***only*** reason women started being prosecuted for these types of 'crimes' was because of a perverted act of revenge by males in positions in power angered that they were finally being punished for abusing their authority with young women they had power over. During my childhood, newspapers would constantly have stories of powerful men taken to court for having sex with young girls- where the male judge would blame the girl and give the guy a small fine at worse. Only when the crackdown finally came did certain vile people start saying "if men are punished, so should the women who have sex with young men". Today, sheeple have the 'proof' of men in their 40s and 50s seeking prosecution of the women they had sex with when they were 13-15 years old. But the reason is really the giant financial payout these men get if the woman is convicted. As I said, men and woman are different, and have differing societal positions. To be forced to sex by a person with power over you is soul destroying. But the key word here is 'forced'. A male teacher who targets emotionally vulnerable girls in his class in a series of serial 'conquests' most certainly fits the definition for 'force' even if the targeted girl thinks she wants the 'relationship'. The psychology of young males is entirely different. They don't respect older women but lust after them. After all is said and done, in any society, a small number of men will marry much older women, and a larger number of women will marry much older men. And if the marriage is a good, lasting one we should be happy for them. But bottom feeding journalistic scum will try to make something out of such a relationship- while neatly ignoring the real society horror of ever growing divorce rates. Attacking Macron over details of his happy marriage is like suggesting Hitler was a bad person because he was a bad painter. Macron is beneath contempt for many reasons, but since most of these reasons revolve around his 'affection' for 'friends of Israel', journalists who only pretend to be on our side will continue with this degrading yellow 'journalism' and neatly ignore the elephant in the room.
              Has Secularism Hurt Social Cohesion/Preservation and Made the West Weak?        

    I think there are some cold, hard realities which most atheists are in denial about or avoid discussing.  But let me preface this post so that the topic doesn’t get bogged down unnecessarily.

    I was raised in the Christian church but have not believed in God ever since I can remember.  I do not feel ill will towards the Christian church, nor do I see it as a viable solution to this problem of nihilism.  I am glad that religion has lost its essential monopoly over the question of values, morality, and public discourse.  I am approaching this issue from mostly an American perspective, and this important because America has not had the religious warfare or conflict that Europe has had in the past, and as such bringing up the conflict caused by competing religions (while an important point in some regions) is not particularly important in America, as it was not actually a major destabilizing issue throughout the majority of US history.

    All that being said, there are some obvious problems which atheists I think instinctively avoid, and which I’ve seen no viable proposed solution for.

    1.  Churches used to be a place where a significant proportion of people would go on Sundays, regardless of their class, regardless of their political beliefs, etc.  This created a sense of community which transcended the typical social demarcations which has never been matched or even attempted to be matched by atheists.  Is losing this social connection hub and not replacing it with anything else really consequence free when it comes to social cohesion and social trust?

    2.  I do not believe that most Christians ACTUALLY believe in God - I believe they feel positively towards the church as an institution and their fellow Christians, and that feeling of connectedness, they refer to as God. This would go a long way towards explaining the futility of rationally debating a Christian on the existence of God.  Remember, most people (including Christians) aren’t versed in philosophy, what existence is, and what it means to say something exists.  It’s pointless to argue about existence because you’re trying to reason someone out of a positive emotion, and existence as a concept is not generally understood (which is a pretty sad indictment of our education system).

    3.  Is a view of the world without religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to put aside their differences and see themselves as being on the same team?  From what I’ve seen talking to atheists (myself not being on the left) and Christians alike, I would say that atheists are more hostile to each other than Christians are to atheists.  I can count on one hand the number of conversations with a Christian which ended with them name calling and engaging in toxic behavior towards me - It would take me 10 pairs of hands to count the number of conversations with an atheist in which they engaged in that abusive and toxic behavior, and even had that behavior socially reinforced by other atheists.

    This goes back to Richard Dawkins’ quote on Christianty -  “.....I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”   Even if you feel I am not arguing the case well here, I would ask you to explain what you THINK Richard Dawkins meant when he said that…..he is not known to flippantly speak on issues.

    As many atheists rightly say, “Atheism doesn’t unite because it is a lack of belief rather than a belief itself.”  This is obviously true.  However, does that therefore mean that that vacuum of unity will not be filled with some even worse attempt to unify people - (like postmodern cultural relativism or SJW platitudes or even Islam)?

    4.  Is a view of the world without a unifying religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to protect that society from outside and hostile forces?  If it can be, then atheists have colossally failed in this endeavor (or didn’t try), because it is all the secular countries which are bowing down to Islam and its invasion.  Which countries have resisted Islam?  Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary all seem to have no interest in giving up their countries to Muslims - is it pure coincidence that they are all majority Christian countries?  Is it pure coincidence that Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK are all majority secular countries?

    There are certainly specific historical reasons why those 3 Eastern European countries are skeptical of the value of foreigners (and specifically Muslims), but it is also possible that the church remained strong in those countries precisely because of the very real and dangerous existential threats, and that that cohesion of faith is one reason why those countries have kept their identities relatively intact (even after all the turmoil caused by the USSR) and more importantly CONTINUE to do so in the face of the largest migration event since WWII, despite financial pressure from the EU in some cases.

    America is another country which has admirably pushed back against the invasion of Islam.  Christianity has been on a steady decline both in terms of piety and as a % of the total population, but it is still strong enough that Christians make up the majority of the people who oppose bringing Islam to the US.  It seems that atheists make up the majority of people who oppose those who oppose bringing Islam to the US…...again, another total coincidence?  The biggest common thread I see between the US and those Eastern European states is the Christian religion…....

    I fully realize much of this is an argument from effect for the value of some form of unifying religious mythology, and I try to avoid arguments from effect.  But in this case, the side effect of losing that unifying religious mythology seems to consistently and globally lead to the erasure of one’s secular culture and one’s way of life - therefore I argue that we MUST consider this phenomenon no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, no matter how tough of a problem this is to solve, and no matter how many atheists are unwilling to consider that religion or at least religious beliefs/culture MAY be as integral to social organization and preservation as the state itself.

    I’m here to point out my observations (which are becoming more and more common to hear from intellectuals like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, or Stefan Molyneux) and hopefully inspire some thought on this topic.  This does not mean I am advocating a return to Christianity, nor does it mean I would ever try to convince someone that God exists.  However, I think especially in the US that if we do not address this problem, we will share the same fate as Europe, and the overall proportion of secular people living safely will continue to shrink until secular people are persecuted minorities globally.

    In other words, if we cannot figure out how to maintain a secular society (and what Europe is doing obviously doesn’t work), we seem doomed to be replaced by a brutal, totalitarian religious/political ideology which will stamp out secularism.  Therefore, what problem could be more important than this one?  How rational can atheists really claim to be if they are unable to preserve their way of life?  How much influence would Islam have to obtain over the UK, France, and Germany before the rational thing as an atheist would be to compare the costs/benefits of living in a Christian country vs the costs/benefits of living in an Islamic country?

    I welcome all debate, but would most welcome attempts to answer the questions which I have formatted as bold, because I don’t want this discussion to be about what I think - I want to know what YOU think the answers are to these big questions, the answers to which may determine the future existence of secular values on this precarious planet.


              Comment on Footy Show returns to safer turf by robbie1979        
    Street Talk was canned years ago, to appease our PC SJW world we live in now
              Me: Oh wow, Jodie Whittaker as the new Doctor! She's so incredibly talented, I love her work in Broadchurch and Black Mirror, can't wait to see what she does with the role of Doctor! Plus, it'll be really cool to see how a female Doctor will bring new complexities to the character.        
    Me: Oh wow, Jodie Whittaker as the new Doctor! She's so incredibly talented, I love her work in Broadchurch and Black Mirror, can't wait to see what she does with the role of Doctor! Plus, it'll be really cool to see how a female Doctor will bring new complexities to the character.
    My SJW friends: Ugh, another white, young, conventionally attractive doctor. Really? They couldn't have found a Queer POC for the role? Or a fat woman? They never seem to be concerned with getting an attractive male Doctor, why do TV people always have to pick young, pretty women???
    Me: Are you people never happy?!?!
              Exotic4K        

    Western standards of beauty might be arbitrary-as-fuck when viewed in a global context, but there's at least one benefit of this anglo-centric attitude: non-white women are elevated to objects of erotic worship and adoration. Sure, some might say this is exploitative casting, but Exotic4K's Ultra-HD videos bring such devastatingly sexy scenarios to your screen that you'll be too busy 'batin' to get all SJW about it. Exotic4K isn't perfect but, hot damn, if this isn't one of the most exciting ethnically-oriented porn sites around, I don't know what is!


              Comment on The Dragon Awards are Teh Stupid by Brian Niemeier        
    There are two remedies that must be applied: 1) Fans should contact Dragon Con and request that any author who renounces a Dragon Award nomination be permanently banned from all future ballots. 2) The SF SJWs who are attempting to influence the Dragon Awards have received a major morale boost from this poor decision. The voters must ensure that John Scalzi does not win the Best Science Fiction Novel award. His defeat will mean a total SJW shutout, which will strike a devastating blow to their morale. Accomplishing these steps should buy Dragon Con enough time to grow the voter base to the point that no one bloc can dominate the awards.
              Mailvox: IT in a converged company        
    It will be poisonous if the tech right feels compelled to not only hide their beliefs but also to actively pretend to believe in progressive diversity values. This pretending will embitter them, probably pushing many to the more radical alt-right

    This is EXACTLY what happened to me!

    One HR director in particular was hard-core SJW and good friends with one of my managers so I was stuck.  One of the things she did that still sticks in my mind was an online training/brainwashing course where 1) we HAD to pass it in order to remain employed and we were told that this was because it was the company's responsibility to demonstrate nondiscrimination in order to meet federal requirements - which was, first of all, bullcrap, and second, a way to shift the responsibility for the nonsense onto the employees. 2) it contained questions such as "Check the boxes next to groups which are discriminated against" and "white men" was an incorrect answer.  You could select it, and it would just make you redo the question over and over until you gave the "right" answer.

    I wasn't familiar at the time with Vaclav Havel's "Power of the Powerless" but he totally nailed what was going on: the point wasn't to make us believe something we didn't agree with, the point was to make us complicit.

    My reaction - which SHOULD have been to quit and find another job, but I wasn't wise enough yet - was to manipulate my own responsibilities and the work that needed doing such that I could get everything done for the week in a couple hours, then spend the rest of the time goofing off and surfing the net.  Not a good use of time on my part; a worse use of employee resources by the people in charge.  My morale basically went to zero for several years as a result of these sorts of policies, and the value they got out of me correlated.

    I'm out of IT now.  I've gotten the impression this sort of problem is too widespread for me to want to put up with it.
              Comment on Blame Tom Welling for why Smallville never had a proper Superman scene by Admiral Chief        
    Agreed. She is quite the actress, but the show's writing is too much SJW propaganda and not enough story
              new doujinshi (4 months worth), nursing, life, etc        
    So, been awhile...

    Nursing & College: Mental Health rotation is over next week. Not sure if I'm gonna pass. Been taking 900mg/day (1200mg when I need the extra push) of St. John's Wort to help stave off the physical manifestations of my anxiety, but it doesn't do much to make me more talkative/social. I think it's more mood stabilizer than anxiolytic. Gives me a slight, dull buzz in the head. Noticed it's blunted the usual mental chatter and spiraling feeling of doom I get whenever my anxiety spikes high...so guess that good? Could also be placebo effect.

    I had a list of supplements to buy, but CVS only had 2 (SJW & Valerian root). Gonna buy some 5-HTP, skullcap, passion flower, and kava kava...and think there were more, but all I can remember atm. Bought Kava Yogi tea but the dosage probably isn't high enough for any effect.

    Self & Style: Dyed my hair auburn using Garnier Ultra Color R2. Dude, it's perfect. Think I'll keep my hair this colour forever, lol. Gotten a lot of compliments. Actually bought 2 backups of Garnier Ultra Color R3 which is the brightest red in this line, but worried from some of the online pics that it might be too 'fire engine' or fake. Seeing how bright R2 is, kinda scared to even use R3. Probably try after nursing or during the summer. The best thing about this dye is that there's no need to bleach dark hair (my natural colour is dark brown, maybe 1 or 2 shades away from black).

    Finally got the hang of this top lid eyeliner thing. Yay. Still working on wingin' it asian style...aiming for dramatic cat-eye. Think the problem is I don't keep my eye open while drawing.

    Watching: Working my way through Netflix's selection of Korean dramas. Seen 49 Days, Manny, and Vampire Prosecutor. Currently on 'Bread, Love, and Dreams' (kicks ass). I've noticed a pattern to these shows...Koreans like being unhappy. And if there's an old dude, mark my words that old dude will die eventually. Either in the beginning or at the end to spur the MC into drastic change or to make more dramaz.

    Playing: 01/28/2013 - omg, playing Dark Souls and the hydra in Ash Lake just committed suicide, lol. He fucking flies and goes off like a water canon if you run away from him. Best part of the game so far as I was not expecting any of that, haha.

    Doujinshi & Website: Umm, updated the online store with most of the items below. Collection website is updated on my HD but not online...dunno when I'll get to updating anything other than the sales.

    This is everything I've gotten over the past 3-4 months (since 1st semester nursing let out). Got a new phone so my camera got upgraded as well (see how different some pics look. 3 different batches xD). Dunno why Photobucket keeps resizing the pics from my new phone. My older phone pics look better+bigger. :/

    Let me know if anything looks interesting, I'll probably scan it...eventually...haha.

    Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
    Arcana Famiglia doujinshi - Jolly/Felicita, Luca/Felicita, Ash/Felicita, Nova/Felicita. Whoo, my latest fandom. Hoping it will be the last big one (this is what i said for Hakuouki and see what happened...sigh).

    Photobucket Photobucket
    Arcana Famiglia official merchandise. 2 art books, 2 novels, 1 comic anthology, 2 phone straps, some cards, 1 magazine poster. Usually don't buy posters, but I love the artwork so much. @@ The 1st artbook is apparently HTF now? The 2nd artbook is only worth it if you like Ash + has a few more of the newer released artworks. I was kinda disappointed but do love it anyway.

    Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
    Fate/Zero - Kiritsugu/Irisviel, Kariya/Sakura, Shirou/Sakura, Kirei/Rin, Gilgamesh/Saber. Umm, my other newest fandom. Trying to cut down and buy only really nice books... Been trying to get 2 earlier Kirei/Rin works by 'color' but auctions always going up to $50-$60+. I don't love this series that much, haha. One day I shall have them. *stalks long and hard*

    Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
    Hakuouki - Kazama/Chizuru. Top two here cost $40 each. Most I've spent on single doujinshi in a loooong time. T_T The popular artists for this series always have bid wars. x.x Actually, a lot of the books here were pretty expensive, lol. At least $20+ each. *wallet is sad*

    Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
    Hakuouki - Okita/Chizuru, Saitou/Chizuru, Heisuke/Chizuru. That orange thing in the last pic is a novelty that came from one of the C83 books. It's filled with water and has a cute pic of chibi Okita, Chizuru, and Saitou.

    Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
    Tales of Xillia - Jude/Milla. Books for this pairing get expensive (depending on circle) and rarely seen on auction. Lost 2 bids for Gaius/Milla books (went to $30+ each x.x). Hoping the artist has some leftover at the next major event.

    Photobucket
    Steins;Gate - Okabe/Kurisu. Always some good stuff. I'll scan one of these soon.

    Photobucket Photobucket
    Final Fantasy XIII - Hope/Light
    Final Fantasy VII - Tseng/Aeris, Cloud/Yuffie
    Valkyrie Profile 2 - Rufus/Alicia, Lezard/Lenneth
    Xenosaga - some chaos/KOS-MOS, Allen/Shion, Jr/MOMO?
    Star Ocean 3 - Albel/Sophia. completing my Alphia collection, lol
    BlazBlue - Hakumen/Tsubaki, Jin/Tsubaki
    Rockman X4 (Megaman X4) - Zero/Iris, general. wishing i bought more from this circle but wasn't sure if their books were comic or novel only.
    Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess - Link/Midna

    Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
    Reborn - Hibari/Chrome, Gokudera/Haru, Mukuro/Tsuna, Byakuran/Shouichi, Ryohei/I-pin, Roll general. Finally, another Hibari/Chrome added to the collection. Mwahaha. Only need 1 more book from this circle. More GokuHaru books but sold some already...forgot to take a pic of G-sama. Ryo/I-pin cuz it's cracky as hell. Apparently, I can still get excited over 6927 books cuz I love that GA-CHUCK anthology. Hmm, think I forgot to include 1 ByakuShou book...one of the newer releases by microcuts, has Byakuran w/ wings on the cover.

    Also some Bleach - Urahara x Yoruichi, Ulquiorra x Orihime in the last pic. Already sold the UlquiHime. Love the 2 UraYoru, such great art.

    Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
    Aquarion EVOL - Kagura/Mikono
    Macross Frontier - Alto/Sheryl, Brera/Sheryl, Michael/Klan

    Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
    Pokemon Black & White - Subway Master/Touko. Ooh, forgot...this is actually my newest fandom, wtf. Haven't even played this game but one of my friends likes it..and well...yeah. This shit gets expensive tho cuz apparently Nintendo goes after anyone that uses their stuff, so no mail order. Spent around $40 on that anthology after bidwar auction but managed to get an extra from C83. Huhu, oh well. T_T Hoping to sell that auction book.
    Tiger & Bunny - Koutetsu/Karina
    Vocaloid Gakupo/Luka
    Ao no Exorcist - Amaimon/Shiemi
    Darker Than Black - Hei/Yin
    Hiiro no Kakera - Yuuichi/Tamaki
    Clock Zero - Madoka/Nadeshiko
    Inu x Boku SS - Miketsukami/Ririchiyo, Renshou/Nobara
    Yondemasu yo Azazel-san - Beelzebub x Sakuma

    Photobucket Photobucket
    Pic 1: Fate/Zero KireixRin doujinshi clearfile, Hakuouki KazamaxChizuru clearfile, Steins;Gate clearfile, DOA4 Kasumi postcard
    Pic2: Steins;Gate clearfile, Arcana Famiglia poster & card, Toranoana freebie shitajiki

    Photobucket
    Assassin's Creed Encyclopedia v2, Hakuouki 2 set collection artbooks
              Comment on The fifteen most popular search engines by wayne        
    Edward- good stuff. The home page of my ISP (circa 1998) consisted of search boxes for 10 different services. Alta Vista comes to mind as one that functioned fairly well on my dial-up connection. Google’s Entirely Far Left Leadership! -Louder With Crowder 8-8-17 https://youtu.be/5aZ0DgK0_C8 (7:43) "Following Google’s viral debacle and the firing of James Damore’s “anti-woman manifesto”, we decided to do some digging to find out just how “diverse” Google’s leadership actually is! Hint: they’re all hard core liberal SJW activists."
              Has Secularism Hurt Social Cohesion/Preservation and Made the West Weak?        

    I think there are some cold, hard realities which most atheists are in denial about or avoid discussing.  But let me preface this post so that the topic doesn’t get bogged down unnecessarily.

    I was raised in the Christian church but have not believed in God ever since I can remember.  I do not feel ill will towards the Christian church, nor do I see it as a viable solution to this problem of nihilism.  I am glad that religion has lost its essential monopoly over the question of values, morality, and public discourse.  I am approaching this issue from mostly an American perspective, and this important because America has not had the religious warfare or conflict that Europe has had in the past, and as such bringing up the conflict caused by competing religions (while an important point in some regions) is not particularly important in America, as it was not actually a major destabilizing issue throughout the majority of US history.

    All that being said, there are some obvious problems which atheists I think instinctively avoid, and which I’ve seen no viable proposed solution for.

    1.  Churches used to be a place where a significant proportion of people would go on Sundays, regardless of their class, regardless of their political beliefs, etc.  This created a sense of community which transcended the typical social demarcations which has never been matched or even attempted to be matched by atheists.  Is losing this social connection hub and not replacing it with anything else really consequence free when it comes to social cohesion and social trust?

    2.  I do not believe that most Christians ACTUALLY believe in God - I believe they feel positively towards the church as an institution and their fellow Christians, and that feeling of connectedness, they refer to as God. This would go a long way towards explaining the futility of rationally debating a Christian on the existence of God.  Remember, most people (including Christians) aren’t versed in philosophy, what existence is, and what it means to say something exists.  It’s pointless to argue about existence because you’re trying to reason someone out of a positive emotion, and existence as a concept is not generally understood (which is a pretty sad indictment of our education system).

    3.  Is a view of the world without religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to put aside their differences and see themselves as being on the same team?  From what I’ve seen talking to atheists (myself not being on the left) and Christians alike, I would say that atheists are more hostile to each other than Christians are to atheists.  I can count on one hand the number of conversations with a Christian which ended with them name calling and engaging in toxic behavior towards me - It would take me 10 pairs of hands to count the number of conversations with an atheist in which they engaged in that abusive and toxic behavior, and even had that behavior socially reinforced by other atheists.

    This goes back to Richard Dawkins’ quote on Christianty -  “.....I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”   Even if you feel I am not arguing the case well here, I would ask you to explain what you THINK Richard Dawkins meant when he said that…..he is not known to flippantly speak on issues.

    As many atheists rightly say, “Atheism doesn’t unite because it is a lack of belief rather than a belief itself.”  This is obviously true.  However, does that therefore mean that that vacuum of unity will not be filled with some even worse attempt to unify people - (like postmodern cultural relativism or SJW platitudes or even Islam)?

    4.  Is a view of the world without a unifying religious mythology ACTUALLY compelling enough to convince people in society to protect that society from outside and hostile forces?  If it can be, then atheists have colossally failed in this endeavor (or didn’t try), because it is all the secular countries which are bowing down to Islam and its invasion.  Which countries have resisted Islam?  Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary all seem to have no interest in giving up their countries to Muslims - is it pure coincidence that they are all majority Christian countries?  Is it pure coincidence that Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK are all majority secular countries?

    There are certainly specific historical reasons why those 3 Eastern European countries are skeptical of the value of foreigners (and specifically Muslims), but it is also possible that the church remained strong in those countries precisely because of the very real and dangerous existential threats, and that that cohesion of faith is one reason why those countries have kept their identities relatively intact (even after all the turmoil caused by the USSR) and more importantly CONTINUE to do so in the face of the largest migration event since WWII, despite financial pressure from the EU in some cases.

    America is another country which has admirably pushed back against the invasion of Islam.  Christianity has been on a steady decline both in terms of piety and as a % of the total population, but it is still strong enough that Christians make up the majority of the people who oppose bringing Islam to the US.  It seems that atheists make up the majority of people who oppose those who oppose bringing Islam to the US…...again, another total coincidence?  The biggest common thread I see between the US and those Eastern European states is the Christian religion…....

    I fully realize much of this is an argument from effect for the value of some form of unifying religious mythology, and I try to avoid arguments from effect.  But in this case, the side effect of losing that unifying religious mythology seems to consistently and globally lead to the erasure of one’s secular culture and one’s way of life - therefore I argue that we MUST consider this phenomenon no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, no matter how tough of a problem this is to solve, and no matter how many atheists are unwilling to consider that religion or at least religious beliefs/culture MAY be as integral to social organization and preservation as the state itself.

    I’m here to point out my observations (which are becoming more and more common to hear from intellectuals like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, or Stefan Molyneux) and hopefully inspire some thought on this topic.  This does not mean I am advocating a return to Christianity, nor does it mean I would ever try to convince someone that God exists.  However, I think especially in the US that if we do not address this problem, we will share the same fate as Europe, and the overall proportion of secular people living safely will continue to shrink until secular people are persecuted minorities globally.

    In other words, if we cannot figure out how to maintain a secular society (and what Europe is doing obviously doesn’t work), we seem doomed to be replaced by a brutal, totalitarian religious/political ideology which will stamp out secularism.  Therefore, what problem could be more important than this one?  How rational can atheists really claim to be if they are unable to preserve their way of life?  How much influence would Islam have to obtain over the UK, France, and Germany before the rational thing as an atheist would be to compare the costs/benefits of living in a Christian country vs the costs/benefits of living in an Islamic country?

    I welcome all debate, but would most welcome attempts to answer the questions which I have formatted as bold, because I don’t want this discussion to be about what I think - I want to know what YOU think the answers are to these big questions, the answers to which may determine the future existence of secular values on this precarious planet.


              #478 Part 1: Year Of The Juggalo        


    He Will Not Divide Us: Punching a Nazi and remaining not divided here in America

    Year Of The Juggalo: We learn that 2017 is apparently the Year of the Juggalo.

    Juggalo March and Blahzay Roze: We realize the announcement was the upcoming Juggalo March and we are introduced to Blahzay Roze.

    VAMPIRE KILLERS!, FROM DUSK TIL DAWN!, GOING TO THE SHIP!, SUPER BOWL!, PATRIOTS!, FALCONS!, MATT RYAN!, SJW TEAM!, 49ERS!, REVIEWS!, ANTIKS!, PUNCH A NAZI!, PEPE!, ALT-RIGHT!, RICHARD SPENCER!, SHIA LABEOUF!, HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US!, ASSAULT!, WHITE SUPREMACISTS!, ARRESTED!, TROLLS!, 4CHAN!, HARASSMENT!, MEMIN!, JAYDEN SMITH!, CLICKS!, MURDER!, PUBLIC!, OPEN!, SKANKING!, LIGHTSABER VIGIL!, LOOK AT ME!, JUGGALOS!, YEAR OF THE JUGGALO!, 17!, THE GATHERING OF THE JUGGALOS!, BLAHZAY ROZE!, JUGGALETTE!, PSYCHOPATHIC FAMILY!, REPRESENT!, ROASTS!, BURNS!, THE BUTTERFLY!, JUMPSTEADY!, BEHIND THE PANT!, SCRIPTURE!, MUSHMOUTH!, METHMOUTH!, FATASS!, SKINNY!, THINNYBONES!, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!, ZOMBIE EYES!, ABUSE!, CYCLE!, WATERMELON FULL OF SHIT!, HOODOO!, CAN'T SEE ME!, MARCH ON WASHINGTON!, FBI!, GANG!, POWERS OF POSITIVE MIND!, WE AIN'T HAVING THAT BITCH!, WHOOP WHOOP!, DRUGS!, ABUSE!, VICTIM!, WHITE LIGHTS!, HIGH CONCEPT!

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD JIM AND THEM #477 PART 1 RIGHT HERE!

              #458 Part 2: Hugh Mungus        


    Adult Nursing Relationships: We get into the deep, dark, delicious world of adult breast feeding fetishes.

    Geeking Out: We check in on Kevin Smith's new show and wonder why is he acting like this?

    SJW Fails: First we watch a brat fake outrage over a hulu girl bobble head and then we hear a baby cry over being trolled by best guy, Hugh Mungus.

    VAGINA!, CUNT!, DRAWING!, VICE PRINCIPALS!, THE MESSAGE!, GRANDMASTER FLASH AND THE FURIOUS FIVE!, PAYPAL!, JSM0289@GMAIL.COM!, HAT!, POETRY!, UNCLE KRACKER!, FOLLOW ME!, FETISH!, BREAST!, BREAST MILK!, BREAST FEEDING!, ADULT!, ROLLING STONE!, OPEN MIND!, KINK!, MILK!, BABIES!, RELAX!, LACTATING!, SHOWER HEAD!, FED!, POWDERED MILK!, NURSING HOME!, PUNS!, PUBLIC SHAMING!, ANR!, ABF!, FETLIFE!, BDSM!, SUCKLING!, CUDDLING!, WATCHING TV!, OXYTOCIN!, CHEMICALS!, ROMANTIC!, CONNECTION!, KEVIN SMITH!, GREG GRUNBERG!, SAN DIEGO COMIC CON!, JJ ABRAMS!, K. SMITH!, UNIVERSAL!, PSYCHO HOUSE!, DEADPOOL!, GEEKING OUT!, WRITERS!, EXCITEMENT!, PHONY!, NODDING!, YELLING!, HOCKEY JERSEY!, BACKWARDS HAT!, YOGA HOSERS!, NERDS!, COMICS!, HAMMING IT UP!, MATT DAMON!, JASON BOURNE!, SJW!, LYFT!, UBER!, ATTACK!, HULU GIRL!, BOBBLE HEAD!, FREAK OUT!, VIRAL!, MEME!, GAWKER!, CONTINENT OF HAWAII!, PILLAGING!, VOCAL FRY!, NEWS!, INTERVIEW!, HUGH MUNGUS!, FEMINIST!, SEXUAL HARASSMENT!, SCREAMING!, RUDE!, OFFENSIVE!, BABY!, PETTY!, CAUSING A SCENE!, CRYING!, SPOILED!, BRAT!, SHAME!, TROLLED!, DISRUPTION!, HERO!

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD JIM AND THEM #458 PART 2 RIGHT HERE!