Amerika

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Detroiting And The Meta-Ferguson Effect

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

Detroiting occurs when a city has a majority of non-white voters. It does not matter which race they are, so long as they are non-white. It even occurs when a former majority of Western Europeans loses the demographic majority to a group of other European-descended people, like Irish, Eastern or Southern Europeans.

When a majority loses control of a city like this, a revenge pathology plays out. The new majority does not succeed as much as the old majority did, and so they fall into scapegoating the old majority for their problems, which conveniently justifies taxing the heck out of the remnants of that old majority.

Whether the mayor of that city is of the old majority or new majority matters little. The votes determine who wins, and so winners pander to the new majority, which wants government jobs with good benefits, welfare programs, diversity programs, and most of all, nothing to go to the old majority and its wealthy, ancient neighborhoods.

This pattern afflicted Detroit. After unions devastated Michigan, anyone with the ability to leave headed for the hills, looking for industries which were not ruined by worker greed. To keep the city thriving, government brought in new citizens, but those — whether legitimately or not — triggered white flight.

The city entered its death spiral. In order to keep the new majority happy, it raised taxes on the old majority, causing more of them to leave. This shorted revenues, and so the city raised taxes, eventually becoming a sea of hopeful faces looking for government help while the station wagons kept leaving for less unstable places.

Since that time, the city has endured minority rule. New majority voters — of whatever stripe — will never vote for what old majority people want, and instead, will always vote themselves more helpings of Other People’s Money (OPM), which old majority people will shrug off for a few years and then suddenly flee to the suburbs. Soon you have a third-world ruin of a destitute, bankrupt, and decaying city.

The more people flee, the more the city taxes and offers benefits to buy peace with its citizens, and then the more people flee.

Detroiting happens without a single African-American being present. It even happens in Asian communities, as in Houston, and is common in Hispanic communities. Some say it happened in Orthodox Jewish communities in New York. What this tells us is that detroiting is not the province of any specific racial group, but of racial difference. When a new majority rises, it draws everything it can from the old majority, so that it can get ahead on the wealth of the past, just like rich kids with inheritances.

It turns out that human behavior is fairly predictable after all.

When detroiting hits, most old majority people simply leave. To them, it is a business question: no matter how long their family has lived there, the civilization around them has failed on a local level, so they need to get on to another locality. They abandon the family home for pennies on the dollar, say goodbye to parks and churches, and flee to someplace else.

In the Boomer generation, people would often do this several times in the course of a career because there were many reasons why an old place had to be bailed out of. The big employer in town closed down, the military base moved, the freeway shifted, or a bunch of foreign ethnics moved in. They just shrugged and figured another good place got ruined, and moved on.

What stopped this mentality in 2016 was recognition of what we might call The Meta-Ferguson Effect. If you recall, the Ferguson Effect referred to what happened after a police officer shot a misbehaving felonious minority youth and after several days of riots and the police officer being fired, other police officers simply stopped noticing minority crime. If an arrest could end in a shooting, shatter their careers, make their names known worldwide in a negative light, and starve their families, there was no point risking it; let them eat each other.

The Meta-Ferguson Effect, on the other hand, refers to how people who are not police officers view what happened in Ferguson. When the police backed down, it signaled to the rest of us that any group of non-majority people can detroit any community by showing up, discovering “racism,” and driving out the majority people who want things like police patrols. This caused them to stop and think: if we spent three times as much as we did on our wars on eliminating poverty, set up massive anti-discrimination legal regimes including affirmative action, contorted our media to show minority people as the majority, struggled to make every aspect of our society multicultural (“diverse”), and elected two presidents — Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — on the promise that they would end the racial conflict, what would it take to stop the minority-majority conflict? They quickly realized that the answer was that there is no end to the conflict; it is Detroits all the way down.

Barack Obama was the turning point. He was elected in a misguided attempt to seal over the wounds of racial disharmony. Instead of fixing a problem, and letting normal life continue as majority people hoped, the election of Obama emboldened the racial grievances. “We’ve got them on the run now!” might express the attitude of professional race commentators, “identity politics” SJWs/SWPLs, and the ad hoc minority groups that form after a police shooting to protest injustice, or to demand more welfare and more political power. Obama was elected to end the outrage of minorities after an event like Hurricane Katrina, but instead, brought us seemingly endless Fergusons, with the dead minority person and ensuing three days of violent riots, looting, and burning becoming a national trope.

Majority people looked into the future and saw endless dhimmitude, or the state of being a conquered people subject to paying “tribute” to their new overlords. When well-meaning idiots declare every person to be equal so that they can overthrow the social hierarchy of their own civilization, this invites in those who have fewer illusions but may be even more stupid, and they will use that equality to construe themselves as victims and therefore, the majority as an oppressor, gaining access to the wealth and power of the civilization. You would think humans would have noticed this pattern repeats time and again, but the European-descended mercantile and lower castes apparently either were oblivious or did not care.

Very few people can understand that the problem is with diversity itself. It does not matter what the other groups are; they will behave this way because it is in their advantage to do so, and they are already at a disadvantage by being aliens in a civilization. No matter how much they “assimilate,” and only real idiots believe in assimilation which requires people to entirely give up their identity to serve the identity of a different group, they will always know that their people did not create this civilization, that it was not designed for them, and that they exist in it only to perpetuate it for the benefit of those not like them. They can have no pride in being mere tools of an empire which was never intended for them, and which uses them as means to its own ends.

Instead, fools spent their time arguing over which ethnic groups are permissible. “Oh, no, I like this one,” they say, with all of the wit of someone choosing an ironic shirt to wear because it makes them stand out in a group. This is all that altruism is, one monkey showing another that it has a shiny object that they do not possess, and therefore, it is a superior form of monkey. You can tell immediately who the useful people in a group are, and who the useless are, because the useful are focused on tasks or ideas, where the useless are focused on themselves and comparing themselves to others, including the base behavior of trend-following. They just want to be in the spotlight. They compete for attention. And they fear, more than anything else, any event which might make them look incompetent and therefore lose social status, so they demand that all standards be lowered to the absolute minimum.

When any two or more ethnic groups meet, a competition emerges. One group will rule the rest, and whoever is in that group is safe from being ruled by the rest. If one group seems to be permanently in power, the others adapt, but resentment grows. Soon they counter-attack with thousands of tiny acts of sabotage. This causes the majority to retaliate, and then out come the accusations of “oppression” and “racism.” Diversity is a dead end.

In our society, when Western Europeans are on top, you get Western Civilization; when another group is on top, they build their ancestral civilization. Mexicans make tropical chaos, Asians make frenetic hives, Africans make equatorial combat zones. This is nothing more than each group producing culture from its genetics; we each make whatever type of society fits us. These societies fit no one else, but this is to the advantage of each group, as it keeps itself from being assimilated this way. Humans have been capable of mass migration for thousands of years, and so any group that did not firmly and strongly assert its identity was quickly replaced with an ethnic hybrid of itself, which is essentially an act of genocide.

It was obvious that Mike Brown was guilty, but no one from outside the majority cared. The same was true of Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, Trayvon Martin and Hurricane Carter. Just as in prison, your skin is your uniform. You either find your tribe and work toward their dominance or you will be dominated by others, and they will use you as a means to their own ends.

Large Corporates Shift Toward Free Speech

Tuesday, December 5th, 2017

Yesterday, Disqus CEO Matthew Prince announced his commitment to free speech. Today however Disqus announced that it was being purchased by Zeta Global, a large interactive services company.

The relationship we have with publishers like you is important to us. So we want to share this news with you directly. Disqus is now part of Zeta Global, a marketing technology company that helps leading brands acquire, retain and grow customer relationships.

Don’t worry. We still are and will remain the same Disqus that you know and use. Our team, our product offerings, terms, pricing, and vision to help you succeed remain the same. We know that digital publishing landscape is changing rapidly and third party platforms are making it harder for publishers to control their own destinies. Our goal is to help you navigate this landscape successfully. Joining Zeta helps us achieve this goal and provide more value for publishers like you.

We plan to do this through continued investment in audience development tools to help you create, retain, and grow relationships with your readers. We recently outlined our roadmap and vision and would love to hear your feedback.

The implications of this are staggering: there is no way that the buyout happened suddenly in twelve hours, so Zeta Global approved of this statement and may in fact have requested it as part of the negotiations for the merger or purchase. Corporate America realizes that in the end, people do not like politically correct censorship. Maybe the rest of the world will stumble to this realization too.

Escaping Our Fascination With Nazism

Tuesday, December 5th, 2017

Hitler will always fascinate the West because his Reich was the last vestige of what most of us think of as the old order, where society had structure, there was a right and wrong, and a nation was defined by one ethnic group instead of being a nation-state of whoever showed up and paid taxes. His fall was the announcement that the West had given up.

At the same time, we should remember that in bad times, even good things are tainted with doubt, and so what Hitler thought was right was divergent from what was. His regime was not particularly traditional, not fully nationalist, and modern to the degree that it corrupted whatever message or principle he was hoping to establish.

Future historians may summarize the Nazis as dualistic; they both attempted to re-create an older social order, and chose to do so by using the modern method of finding a message that would motivate the masses toward a singular purpose. If Nazism had a thesis, it would be that we can use mass culture as a means of undoing mass culture, and not surprisingly, this paradoxical attempt failed.

The Left says Hitler was a Right-winger and in fact as far Right as we should dare imagine; the Right says that he was a Leftist. The Right is more correct: Hitler, while he incorporated some goals of the Right in his plan, chose to implement it through Leftist methods and a desire to create an egalitarian society, just one based on race and not citizenship.

In particular, he borrowed a great deal from the Communists:

Adolf Hitler, who admired Stalin for his ruthlessness and called him a “genius,” was also heavily influenced by Marx. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism,” Hitler said, “as I do not hesitate to admit.” Throughout his youth, Hitler “never shunned the company of Marxists” and believed that while the “petit bourgeois Social Democrat … will never make a National Socialist … the Communist always will.”

Hitler’s “differences with the communists”, argued Watson, “were less ideological than tactical”. Hitler embraced German nationalism so as not to “compete with Marxism on its own ground”, but explicitly acknowledged that “‘the whole of national socialism’ was based on Marx”. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Nazi Germany, with its concentration camps and omnipresent secret police, came so closely to resemble the Soviet Union.

How much did the Nazis learn from the Soviets?

In his 1947 memoir Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, Hoess recalled that the Germans knew of the Soviet program of extermination of the enemies of the state through forced labour as early as 1939. “If, for example, in building a canal, the inmates of a [Soviet] camp were used up, thousands of fresh kulaks or other unreliable elements were called in who, in their turn, would be used up.” The Nazis would use the same tactic on the Jewish slave laborers in, for example, munition factories.

Following their invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, wrote Watson, the Germans collected information on the immense scale of the Soviet camp system and were impressed by the “Soviet readiness to destroy whole categories of people through forced labor”.

As some have noted, the tactics of the French Revolution were applied in Nazi Germany, just more efficiently than neurotic French Leftists could imagine. Where the French marched whole families to the guillotine, the Nazis attempted to deport them, then used them as slave labor, and finally when that failed, began to liquidate them.

National Socialism, as an idea, combined the need for nationalism — rising in Europe as nation-states became unstable and fragmented — with the dominant strain of European government at the time, which was increasingly socialist, and incorporated some aspects of the capitalist-driven fascist corporate State.

It did not swing to the far Right, which has always been those who hope to conserve l’ancien régime which is a society with caste, aristocracy, elite culture, hierarchy, customs, and a code of honor motivated by virtue. No modern government can emulate that because the basic idea of modernity, mass motivation, requires an equal herd clamoring for some trend or another.

The Nazis chose to make their message one that would motivate a group and, in doing so, reduced its meaning to what fit the expectations of the crowd, instead of what was needed. Having done that, the Nazis could no longer control public expectation, and got carried away with their rhetoric, making them both arrogant and cruel.

People imagine that Hitler was a successful totalitarian, but in fact, he was ruled by his people as much as he ruled them. They rebuked him on his attempt to ban smoking, and enjoyed a more comfortable standard of living even during the war than people did in the rest of the West. The Crowd shared in the dictatorship.

Not surprisingly, the Nazis showed signs of crowd infiltration even in their political statements, as we can see with these excerpts from The 25 Points of The Programme of the NSDAP:

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

If we look at these through the wide-angle lens of history, they do not appear that much distinct from either those of the French Revolution or the Soviet Union: in the name of equality, a State is being formed to re-distribute wealth, and it requires total power to do so. The total power is not being taken from We The People, but from its natural hierarchy (aristocracy).

The West remains obsessed by Hitler mostly because the Left has used him as a convenient symbol for all things that they fear, which means all of the things that would un-do our current time, which not coincidentally are things that many of us crave because we detest the current time. But following their lead is to assign them power over us.

Perhaps the Left fixates on Hitler in order to distract us from the actual far-Right ideas out there like Traditionalism and Futurism, because if we get our hands on those, there is no way we will ever be satisfied with the managerial nanny state ever again. From a perspective that far to the Right, Hitler would appear as a slightly less Leftist version of our present time.

Nonetheless, Hitler still seduces us, mainly because he stands for the return of leadership that actually cares about civilization instead of using civilization as its own meal ticket. Democracy stands for nothing except hollow promises about free speech, free association, and use of your own property that turn out to be lies, as it goes in search of (endless) new forms of funding.

First it was taxes, then it was immigrants, and in the future, they will probably charge you directly to be part of their society, and then tax you. Sales taxes, property taxes, state taxes, licensing fees, income taxes, tariffs which the consumer ultimately pays for, mandatory inspections, and payroll deductions: they kill you with the death of a thousand cuts and it is not about money. It is about power.

Right now, we summarize WW2 by saying that Hitler was evil and the Allies were mostly good. In the near future, we will recognize that the Allies were not mostly good, mainly because they fought a war of attrition against Europe in the name of what became fully Communist Leftism. In the distant future, people will see the Allies as the bad guys, and Hitler as an unfortunate but predictable response. Years after that, they will see the Holocaust as predictable and avoidable too.

At some point, we will dig out Theodor Herzl and realize that he was one of the first — after Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and others — anti-diversity philosophers. His point was not that the French were bad, but that the Dreyfuss Affair was predictable, because when you stand out from the rest, you will get scapegoated in times of crisis.

This originates in practical reasoning. If the group is basically in agreement, and they are all doing the same roughly right thing, then if something goes wrong either “right was wrong” or there was a sabotage, and suspicion is naturally cast on those who are not doing the right thing like everyone else because they are different. It does not matter how they are different, or who they are, but just the fact of being different alone qualifies them to be a threat or scapegoat.

Jews have been booted out of 109 nations not because Jews are bad, but because being Other is bad. Diversity never works. Jewish groups also have a history of going into nations and taking things out of context, like “work hard, get ahead.” Among a native population, this is understood as part of a social process; to an outsider, it is a singular task that eclipses all others, and is more easily undertaken, because they have no need to participate in that culture and its intricate sorting rules that choose people above others.

Jews, like Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese in the current USA, throw everything normal out the window and go for the throat of education and business. This alone makes them a target, but perceived or actual nepotism — probably a mix of both — and a tendency to lean toward politics and behaviors that emphasize their Otherness also make them a perpetually resented force. This is why the Holocaust was predictable, and in more honest times in the future, we will say that, without approving of the Holocaust at all, because mass murder of families is a Leftist thing and Leftism is a form of brain disorder.

When the future looks back on the twentieth century, it will see that we created all of our own problems through theories that focused on what the audience wanted — equality, diversity, feminism, socialism — instead of what our best people knew must be done to make civilization as an organic whole thrive. As time goes on, Hitler loses his sting, but we still see him as the only force that stood up to the perpetual encroachment of herd behavior, which always focuses on what the audience wants.

The most terrifying taboo out there now is not Nazism; it is the idea that people want to restore Western Civilization, which in turn would make the Left obsolete and forgotten. It would also bypass the intermediate stage that Hitler tried to turn into a future, and avoid the fate he encountered by his own hand.

Robert Mugabe, Leftist Success Story

Monday, December 4th, 2017

Former US President James Earl Carter had a reputation for being a bumbler. When he famously told Playboy Magazine about the lust in his heart, a significant plurality of the electorate probably questioned whether he had any in his pants.

The Iranian Revolutionaries under The Ayotollah Khommeni certainly experienced a sadistic joy in treating him as a eunuch. He barely beat the unelected place-holder who pardoned Richard M. Nixon in 1976 and was both subsequently and emphatically vanquished from making important decisions in the Election of 1980. He did, however, accomplish a thing or two before he went on to build houses and lecture people on Leftist Morality.

One rather regrettable accomplishment Carter and Andrew Young had an evil hand in was the rise of Zimbabwian Socialist Dictator and Scourge Robert Mugabe.

Messrs. Carter and Young would only countenance a settlement in which Mr. Mugabe, a Marxist who had repeatedly made clear his intention to turn Zimbabwe into a one-party state, played a leading role. Mr. Young, displaying the willful naiveté that came to characterize Mr. Carter’s mindset, told the London Times that Mr. Mugabe was a “very gentle man” whom he “can’t imagine … ever pulling the trigger on a gun to kill anyone.” Mr. Mugabe already had pulled the trigger on many innocent people, though. And not long after taking power in 1980, he killed about 25,000 people belonging to a minority tribe, the Ndebele. In spite of this, in 1989, Mr. Carter launched his “Project Africa” in Zimbabwe, a program aimed at helping African countries maintain food sustainability.

So how well did “Project Africa” do? After twenty years of gentle leadership, President For Life Mugabe resorted to white genocide when nobody in the Zimbabweian electorate with a brain would provide him with a fig leaf of legitimacy.

In 2000 Mugabe organized a referendum on a new Zimbabwean constitution that would expand the powers of the presidency and allow the government to seize white-owned land. Groups opposed to the constitution formed the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which successfully campaigned for a “no” vote in the referendum. That same year, groups of individuals calling themselves “war veterans”—though many were not old enough to have been part of Zimbabwe’s independence struggle—began invading white-owned farms. Violence caused many of Zimbabwe’s whites to flee the country. Zimbabwe’s commercial farming collapsed, triggering years of hyperinflation and food shortages that created a nation of impoverished billionaires.

And just how well did Mr. Mugabe support Mr. Carter’s dedication to world democracy? Mugabe reminds me of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Elections are sancrosanct until a leftist actually fails to win one.

Before the 2008 elections, he said: “If you lose an election and are rejected by the people, it is time to leave politics.” But after coming second to Morgan Tsvangirai, Mr Mugabe displayed more characteristic defiance, swearing that “only God” could remove him from office.

And what impact did that have on the lives of his people? About what you’d expect from a guy who hired the North Koreans to train an internal repression force.

Mr Mugabe once famously said that a country could never go bankrupt – with the world’s fastest-shrinking economy and annual inflation of 231 million per cent in July 2008, it seemed as though he was determined to test his theory to the limit. Professor Tony Hawkins of the University of Zimbabwe once observed that with Zimbabwe’s former leader: “Whenever economics gets in the way of politics, politics wins every time.”

Ultimately Robert Mugabe accomplished what every Leftist who seeks power dreams of. He achieved equality. He destroyed the economy, the currency, the food production system and the entire old White Aristocracy represented by Ian Smith. Robert Mugabe did all of this while living in a $7 Million palatial estate. As befits a poor and dying nation; it serves as a Poor Man’s Versailles.

He often said he would only step down when his “revolution” was complete. He was referring to the redistribution of white-owned land but he also wanted to hand-pick his successor, who would of course have had to come from the ranks of his Zanu-PF party. Didymus Mutasa, once one of Mr Mugabe’s closest associates but who has since fallen out with him, once told the BBC that in Zimbabwean culture, kings were only replaced when they die “and Mugabe is our king”.

And now Mugabe reaches his twilight. He is a nonagenarian dotard clinging to consciousness as he simultaneously loses his grip on power. His purported successor is a former crony dubbed not-so-affectionately “The Crocodile”. The Crocodile will only devour the bloated corpse of a forlorn Land of Mordor laid to waste by a Leftist unfettered.

Even The Atlantic is forced to acknowledge the awful truth of unrestrained Socialism. Here they list the ten ways Robert Mugabe murdered Rhodesia.

  1. Destroy the engine of productivity – His genocide against White Farmers.
  2. Bury the truth – His control over media that makes MSNBC green with envy.
  3. Crush dissent – His ability to kill critics that makes ANTIFA green with envy.
  4. Legislate the impossible – His bevy of stupid scoialistic legislation that makes Obamacare look workable.
  5. Teach hate – His training an entire generation to hate his political enemies.
  6. Scare off foreigners – See steps 1 – 5.
  7. Invade a neighbor – His attempt to placate his military Kakistocracy by seizing Congolese diamond mines.
  8. Ignore a deadly enemy – Socialized medicine has worked about as well as you would expect it to against the African AIDS epidemic.
  9. Commit genocide – Both against white farmers and against other native Zimbabwian tribes.
  10. Blame the imperialists – You know, like Great Britain and Amerika who intervened to make sure he got into power back in 1980.

Now the Leftists try to run from Mugabe they way they are running from the Leftist Legacy of Charles Manson here in Amerika.

In June 2007 Mugabe became the first international figure to be stripped of an honorary degree by a British university when Edinburgh withdrew one it had awarded to him in 1984. The following year the University of Massachusetts revoked a law degree it had awarded in 1986 and the year after that, in September 2008, Michigan State University cancelled a law degree it had granted to Mugabe in 1990.

It is too late. The Left made Mugabe. The Left empowered Mugabe. The Left forever owns Mugabe. Who better achieved the goals every Leftist worshiper of The Zero holds near and dear to the heart? Certainly not Jimmy Carter who labors endlessly to build a habitat for a humanity that his leftist protegees like Yassir Arafat and Robert Mugabe labor manfully to exterminate or render forever equal in utter and complete immiseration.

While America Slept, The Alt Right Won The Free Speech Debate

Monday, December 4th, 2017

The Alt Right hovers at the edge of Western political life because it is one of those viewpoints that people secretly suspect may be proven right. This is why the Left scrambles to block it; they feel it is an infection — or are they talking about their own belief of egalitarianism? — that will seduce people, and then they will join the dark side.

As a result, the Alt Right has become sort of like a painter from the Romantic period. He whips out his palette and canvas and makes something both shockingly alien and subconsciously familiar to zero fanfare and much mockery, and then fifty years later, it is part of the canon and widely praised.

In Charlottesville, the Alt Right staged a successful series of protests with the theme that the Left was censoring viable ideas because of its own instability. Three months later, a report comes out saying that the Leftists in the city bungled the event and the Alt Right told the truth about what happened.

Following much the same pattern, the Alt Right recently suffered a series of Twitter, Reddit, Google, Facebook, and Discord purges, but now, it appears the Alt Right has won the debate as the internet mood turns against censorship with the most virulent and disturbing content as a test case:

“Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince hated cutting off service to the infamous neo-Nazi site the Daily Stormer in August,” reports Ars Technica. “And he’s determined not to do it again. ‘I’m almost a free-speech absolutist.’ Prince said at an event at the New America Foundation last Wednesday. But in a subsequent interview with Ars, Prince argued that in the case of the Daily Stormer, the company didn’t have much choice.” From the report:

Prince’s response was to cut Daily Stormer off while laying the groundwork to make sure he’d never have to make a decision like that again. In a remarkable company-wide email sent shortly after the decision, Prince described his own actions as “arbitrary” and “dangerous.” “I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet,” Prince wrote in August. “It was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company.” He argued that “it’s important that what we did today not set a precedent.” Prior to August, Cloudflare had consistently refused to police content published by its customers. Last week, Prince made a swing through DC to help ensure that the Daily Stormer decision does not, in fact, set a precedent. He met with officials from the Federal Communications Commission and with researchers at the libertarian Cato Institute and the left-of-center New America Foundation — all in an effort to ensure that he’d have the political cover he needed to say no next time he came under pressure to take down controversial content.

The law is strongly on Cloudflare’s side here. Internet infrastructure providers like Cloudflare have broad legal immunity for content created by their customers. But legal rights may not matter if Cloudflare comes under pressure from customers to take down content. And that’s why Prince is working to cultivate a social consensus that infrastructure providers like Cloudflare should not be in the censorship business — no matter how offensive its customers’ content might be.

Social media went from thinking that it should take responsibility for censoring itself, ostensibly to remove child porn and jihadi propaganda, to thinking that maybe it should not be their task at all to filter what comes across their lines. They could be — like ISPs and phone companies — “common carriers” with zero obligation to enforce anything but warrants.

After watching social media go on the warpath against Right-wing content by using those rules against jihad and child porn, many consumers pulled back from these services. There is something in the Western spirit that respects open communication and distrusts walled gardens. Watching their numbers fall, the services reacted.

Despite a lack of a clear law on this one, a cultural wave seems to be pushing back against Silicon Valley censorship. The Alt Right, having argued against speech filters from the beginning, seems to be winning again. Its protests will not be crippled and its words will ring out. As people grasp for something to explain the historical change underway, the Alt Right keeps winning.

Pervnado Is The End Of A Sexual Visigoth Holiday

Monday, December 4th, 2017

So why has “Pervnado” struck now? Andrea Peyser and Christine Emba both opine in the New York Post.

It seems odd that the New York Post has a monopoly on this story. NBC isn’t exactly excited to run exclusives on who has gotten bagged. CBS hasn’t covered itself with glory on this one either. Politicians such as Congressman John Conyers and Senator Al Franken, as well aspiring Senator Roy Moore, have all been accused of varying degrees of perverted and degrading sexual behavior. Even a perspective college football coach, Greg Schiano, can’t escape the destructive power of “Pervnado”. Again, why now?

The New York Post has run out two competing female perspectives on the story. Both ladies make some points, but I don’t feel think they’ve dug into this deeply enough. Peyser believes the #MeToo Movement has lost the willingness and ability to discern the difference between stupid, puerile mistakes and malicious male perversion. She posits this theory below.

My fear is that the pendulum will swing so wildly out of control, the fight against genuine sexually based offenses will be delegitimized as much ado about nothing. It makes me wince that comic Louis C.K., who admitted pleasuring himself in front of grossed-out females, is mentioned in the same breath as nonagenarian ex-President George H.W. Bush, accused of grabbing women’s backsides and telling a dirty joke. Wheelchair-bound at age 93 “his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures,” said his spokesman, Jim McGrath. “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner.’’ He apologized.

Christine Emba, I think gets closer to truth than Mrs. Peyser. She tells us part of the problem is that people are no longer sure what is and is not harassment. That’s what happens when you try to split hair follicles over whether it is rape or, you know, rape-rape. Mrs Emba offers her perspective on it below.

This #MeToo paranoia isn’t all baseless. While some worries should rate only an eye roll, others highlight the precariously gray continuum from annoyance to harassment to assault. But it’s also true that these questions hold something in common. They gesture toward America’s prevailing and problematic sexual ethic — one that is in no small part responsible for getting us into this sexual misconduct mess in the first place. At the bottom of all this confusion sits a fundamental misframing: There’s some baseline amount of sex that we should be getting or at least should be allowed to pursue. Following from that is the assumption that the ability to pursue and satisfy our sexual desires — whether by hitting on that co-worker even if we’re at a professional lunch, or by pursuing a sexual encounter even when reciprocity is unclear — is paramount. At best, our sexual freedom should be circumscribed only by the boundary of consent. Any other obstacle is not to be borne.

When I attempt what I admit is biologically impossible, and try to see how the average human female would look at this, I can see why Christine Emba and any other reasonable woman would be both frightened and pissed off at me if I walked around town thinking I was entitled to “git me some” just for showing up with a functional penis. She, and most women that I’ve ever associated with or dated, place a certain value on their wombs and the privacy of their bodies that pretty much precludes every Tom, Rick or Harry from getting their quota of “notches,” much like Rolls-Royce and Ferrari do not make low-cost economy cars. This disconnect between what men feel is their due and what basic level of respect and dignity that women feel they deserve is a biological and sociological problem every human society has to figure out and solve. But again, even the true and accurate points these two women made have been both true and accurate since Sumerian hunter-gatherers pitched their tents and started alluvial farms along the Tigris-Euphrates Fertile Crescent. Why now, ma’am?

Squaring what I’ll call The Emba Circle has been accomplished different ways under different cultural or religious social hegemonies. It always involves a bunch of frustrated guys with achy blue balls or Rosy Palm Disease. It usually also involves a crowd of offended women who feel their dignity is affronted and their perspective is not valued in some sort of constraining courtship process. Compromises are like that. Nobody gets all the things they desire. Santa doesn’t exist and most of the poor kids aren’t getting a pony for Christmas. Except now, our society has rebelled against the unpleasant externalities of squaring The Emba Circle. We had The Sexual Revolution and deliberately threw our particular solution, however flawed it may have been, into the dumpster.

Having essentially chosen the Hugh Hefner ethos over an old, boring set of written and unwritten rules for determining who gets sexual access to whom, we now have the type of problems Andrea Peyser decribed in her piece about “Pervnado.” People aren’t very sure they even know what harassment is versus someone just having a predilection to be a socially awkward jerk or a bore. Let’s call it The Peyser Uncertainty Theory. The old rules have been destroyed and nirvana did not set in. What’s worse is that a lot of butt hurt people have no clue how to properly seek redress or even whether they really should. You don’t get due process when their isn’t a replicable, accepted and well-understood process anymore. When in doubt, you channel George Patton and attack. When enough people have had enough and attack simultaneously you get “Pervnado” and it feels like society has struck a really bad resonance frequency that may well cause a bridge or two to collapse.

So I think I’ve established what happened, and have offered a plausible theory as to why. But I haven’t yet put a bow-tie on an answer for the question why now? I can get close, but not completely close the sale. There just seemed to be a lot more cultural capital and more of everything. Now that stuff, whatever it may be, is running out.

Grievances hurt more when the cold wind blows and you feel a wee bit threadbare. When people don’t feel they are receiving justice, nothing seems like an accident and anyone you can get your hands on just flat-out has it coming to them. And that is just what will keep on happening until a new set of rules and ethics gets defined. The beatings will continue until a new law is conceived. Pervnado is the reaction against sexual anarchy and will rage on until order is restored.

Time Is The Real Zero-Sum Game

Monday, December 4th, 2017

In any task, you will find yourself asking who “da real MVP” is, meaning the person without whom it would not have happened. When we look at decisions made about our future as a civilization, we have to figure out what the bottom line is: what of the many factors involved will draw the line between victory and defeat?

Any sensible analysis will say that the MVP here is time. Ordinary citizens exist in a kind of time-loop where they make decisions about very similar things, day in and day out. For them, a missed opportunity means a need to correct it with the next very similar decision. Life however operates on higher stakes at the civilization level.

Think of it in terms of your birthdays as a child. You can have only one birthday per year, and only one party, and therefore, only one type of cake. You choose lemon, or vanilla, chocolate, or cherry, and that is it. You do not get repeats; you cannot go back and do-over your sixth birthday. The same is true of civilization.

This means that time is the most valuable player because our decisions are a zero-sum game. To choose one thing is to exclude all of the others; to fail to actively select an option is to choose entropy. This means that we are not choosing from a perspective of the present time, but from that of the future. We are choosing our future.

With that in mind, our matrix of decision-making changes. We are no longer looking for threats to what exists as we have it now, but choosing which elements available to us now that will make the future we desire. What we choose will become our future, even if it is not a threat now.

When discussing diversity, many people say things like, “I don’t mind having a Japanese neighbor, because they are high intelligence and considerate.” But do you want to be replaced by Japanese people? To be a society of half- or a quarter-Japanese people? We will no longer be Western Europeans, but a new hybrid group.

People tend to focus on what they see as negatives with other groups. They will talk about crime, average IQ, laziness, resentment, or welfare use. These are disadvantages to having people among us, but can be overcome. What cannot be overcome is that these people will then replace us, and that diversity never works because our group will be in conflict with any other group dwelling among us.

To talk about another group in terms of its bad impact on the status quo requires that we think in negative terms. When we say that a group “fits in” and “does not cause trouble,” we are not thinking of the future, but the present. Our failure to extrapolate to the next stage reflects a lack of faith, hope, and attention to the future.

On the other hand, if we think in positive terms, we will simply ask, “Are these the basis of the civilization we need to be?” Even after our lives, our children and those of our friends and family will live on. Do they want to live on as Japanese hybrids? Once the ancestral connection to a culture is lost, it quickly evaporates too.

Modern people cannot get their heads outside of the mental ghetto imposed by equality, so they assume that culture is like government regulations, a series of rules and procedures which are written down and whoever follows them is getting the job done. In this view, as long as we brainwash random warm bodies into doing things our way, our civilization in theory continues to exist.

In actuality, culture is genetic, as history shows us. Only the group that produces the culture can understand it. They are genetically shaped by it, and it was designed for who they instinctively are, and so they are the only ones who can produce it. Western Civilization requires Western European people.

You can see the negative analysis in the wild in statements of patriotism and loyalty to ideology like this vapidity:

Proudly, we are composed of all kinds of people. People who have different heritages and religions. Though at times we have a cause – like WWII – or a hate – terrorism – that can bind us, it is not something that can last forever.

There must be something deeper, and everlasting, something that all citizens can feel and touch in perpetuity.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is patriotism and nationalism. In other words, the love and affection for one’s country and one’s fellow citizens.

Never mind that they have confused patriotism for nationalism, a common mistake in egalitarian societies, because they cannot face the ethnic and racial roots of culture.

These people are as indoctrinated as any Communist, Fascist or National Socialist. To them, civilization is a means to an end, and that goal is these abstract ideas. They assume that every person who reads the same words on a piece of paper comes away with the same interpretation, and that therefore they live on through their obedience to the rules.

In reality, you only live on if you live on genetically. Anything else means that you pass along your notes for the kids in your class next year, and they fit them to their understanding. If this class consists of radically different people, they will have a different interpretation, and everything you do will fail.

Think about how many civilizations across the third world have adopted Western methods like democracy, constitutions, capitalism, Christianity, and suburban living. Those implementations never look quite like ours, and their results have not been as good. Each society has an order which fits it because genetics is the origin of behavior and values.

You can only make one choice for the future of your civilization. The question is not what fears you have about others, but whether they can be you and your ancestors. If they are from a different tribe, they cannot, and they will replace you, whether by you taking on a Japanese wife, your kids having families with people who are 1/32 Asian or Black, or by the gradual process of outbreeding.

Tyrants — leaders who are concerned only with their own power and view their civilization as a means to that end — bring foreigners here because they know that people are dumb when they are young, and whatever they are sexually attracted to, they marry. Those children no longer have the genetic profile of the original culture, and so it is erased and replaced by the ideology the tyrant uses to justify his continued power.

We know what it is like to be a hybrid. Look at South America, Eastern Europe, India, Southern Europe, or Ireland. The group never attains the greatness of the original Western Civilization, and it forms a civilization that is rather exotic and more like its admixture, even if only in traces.

Still think that Japanese, Korean, Jewish, Greek, Italian, Irish, or Polish wife is a good idea? You are breaking down your genetic profile and replacing it with something that can never be the original. You are genetically erasing yourself, and with that, destroying your culture, even if your laws and economic system live on.

As the old saying goes, “Which way, Western man?” If we deserve to live, we have to realize that time is a zero-sum game and that therefore, we can make only one choice: we must defend ourselves and exclude all others, even if they do not cause problems, or are nice and well-mannered and love our educational systems.

It does not matter whether you replace yourselves with Nigerians or Japanese. Any diversity is the end of your people. If you think your people deserve to live, and want Western Civilization to exist, you have to exclude all racial and ethnic diversity, and choose a future that is exclusively Western European.

At Some Point, We Will Have To Admit That The “Homeless” Are Parasites

Sunday, December 3rd, 2017

Back in the day, we used to have a term for what are now called in politically correct mincing verbiage “the homeless”: bums, winos, drifters, hobos, grifters, beggars, and thieves.

That is not politically correct to say these days because egalitarianism demands that we consider all lifestyles equal. If you want to live in a ditch off handouts from government and guys trying to impress girls on a first date, we consider that a “choice” and the fact of its stupidity is not particularly relevant, at least socially.

However, in realityland, we recognize that the homeless are those who choose to avoid participating in our system and tend to live off of charity and theft. This has always been the case, which is why they never were viewed as anything but blight and risk by our ancestors. Our view was that it was easy enough to live a subsistence life without being a hobo, so hobo-ness conveyed instability.

Maybe five percent of them are Diogenesian geniuses wandering a vacant landscape, penning scripts of incomparable brilliance while the world misses their inner essence for their outer appearance and scorns them. Maybe. More likely, it is only a few per generation, and the rest are merely thinly-disguised parasites.

One hysterical recent article shows us the criminal nature of the homeless and how society, by making itself impotent in response, encourages more criminality:

The county moved to clear the encampment, located between Warner and Edinger avenues, following months of complaints from neighbors that homeless people were trespassing, harassing residents and stealing from nearby homes. Some of the discoveries, officials said, add credence to those neighbors’ complaints and fears.

…Though makeshift chop shops where bicycles are taken apart, cleaned and reassembled are a common sight along several portions of the lengthy riverbed homeless encampments, Pucket said he’d never seen a collection as big as the 1,000 bicycles hidden in Santa Ana. The bikes were found just south of the river’s Fairview Street overpass.

Puckett wouldn’t speculate how many of the bikes were stolen, citing the ongoing investigation, saying “common sense would dictate that if you have 1,000 bikes in a tunnel… some of them were stolen.”

…But neighborhood residents offer a different story, saying they’ve noticed an increase in bike thefts and other crimes.

Government is blind to the homeless problem because it throws the cost back to the victims. You go to the police department, wait in line, file the reports, and then get the shrug and explanation that they just cannot do anything. After one experience like that, you will never report a theft again; you will either go get the bike back, or buy a new one and take it out of your taxes. Screw The Man.

In the meantime, because of our pretense of egalitarianism, we tolerate among us people who are outright criminals but smart enough to keep their activities to such a low level that our bloated civil servants will never notice. This makes us bitter toward life, and cynical toward ourselves, just so some hobos can keep drinking and being useless in a valley somewhere.

Bio-Leftism

Saturday, December 2nd, 2017

Leftism destroys societies. It starts out by claiming that it defends individual rights and is “moderate,” but once it becomes more powerful, it attempts to eliminate any competing non-Leftist voices from the dialog through its “no platform” agenda. Finally, when it seizes complete control, it takes on aspects of tyranny, like a parasite host using a civilization as a means to enforcing an ideology.

Realizing this tells us that all Leftists are the same because they share the same ideology and it is an absolutist and universal ideology, so can be applied in degrees, but the goal does not vary by degree. “Moderate” Leftists are simply those who are willing to temporarily hold back on radical enforcement. When given power, these moderates become radicals.

If you burrow into Leftist ideas, you will find that “equality” is the root and core of every one of them. Their basic concept consists of making the parasite equal to the host, so that the parasite — which has fewer obligations — can take over with its lazy, narrowly-focused drive toward control.

The Leftist parasite, which is an idea as well as a social movement by individualists who want a guaranteed share of the pie, first protects its host, helping it succeed; then, once the hook is in, it induces the host to suicide, so that it loses any sense of self. Then the Left entirely takes over its brain.

Biological metaphors for Leftism have appeared in the past with Toxoplasma gondii and Ophiocordyceps unilateralis sensu lato, both of which follow the pattern of first protecting and then destroying the host.

Now, we have a new metaphor with Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, an eye fluke that keeps its host safe until it is time to breed, then sacrifices the host by making it commit suicide by predator:

The eye fluke Diplostomum pseudospathaceum has a life cycle that takes place in three different types of animal. First, parasites mate in a bird’s digestive tract, shedding their eggs in its faeces. The eggs hatch in the water into larvae that seek out freshwater snails to infect. They grow and multiply inside the snails before being released into the water, ready to track down their next host, fish. The parasites then penetrate the skin of fish, and travel to the lens of the eye to hide out and grow. The fish then get eaten by a bird – and the cycle starts again.

…[F]ish infected with immature fluke larvae swam less actively than usual – making themselves less visible to predators – and were harder to catch with a net than uninfected controls…The team found that [rainbow trout harbouring mature eye flukes] swam more actively than uninfected controls and stayed closer to the water’s surface.

…Immature parasites “are too young and innocent to infect a next host”, he says, so their goal is to protect the fish they are living in. Mature parasites, however, are ready to reproduce – and to do so they need to get inside a bird’s gut…This fits a pattern of young parasites decreasing their host’s likelihood of being preyed on, while older parasites increase it, says Nina Hafer, a parasitologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Plön, Germany.

This points to an interesting relationship between parasite and predator: the parasite weakens the host, and then the predator kills and consumes it, creating a feedback loop of codependency between parasite and predator. Both have one thing in common, which is that they wish to use the host as a means to their own ends.

Any species which wishes to survive must throw off the parasites and predators. In the struggle for survival, there is no absolute and universal truth, only many different threads of life struggling for survival and then supremacy. Leftism reverses this, parasitizing civilization so that individuals can life off it without being obligated to support it.

Survival In a Dead Culture

Saturday, December 2nd, 2017

Mike Pence has a rule for dealing with any females he is not related to and who are not his wife: do not meet them without someone else present.

Vice President Pence has said he doesn’t meet alone with a woman who isn’t his wife. People may accuse him of being prudish and misogynist, but at least he will never be accused of Mr. Weinstein’s sins.

And that, folks, is precisely the point. Mike Pence understands that he lives in a vile, degenerate culture that will slander people they do not like and effect scandal to destroy a man’s life just because they disagree with his politics or don’t particularly like his religion or the color of his skin. He is protecting himself. This sort of self-protection has a tradition grounded in some of the bad, old days of evangelical protestant Christianity. When the Reverend Billy Graham decided he would never be like the fictional archetypes Elmer Gantry or Arthur Dimsdale, we wrote out a code of conduct with some of his fellow evangelicals called The Modesto Manifesto.

The team gathered in a hotel room in Modesto, California. They drew up a compact that became known as the “Modesto Manifesto,” though they produced no written document. The manifesto included provisions for distributing money raised by offerings, avoiding criticism of local churches, working only with churches that supported cooperative evangelism, and using official estimates of crowd sizes to avoid exaggeration. These policies would help Graham and his team avoid charges of financial exploitation and hucksterism. But nothing loomed larger than sex. The most famous provision of the manifesto called for each man on the Graham team never to be alone with a woman other than his wife. Graham, from that day forward, pledged not to eat, travel, or meet with a woman other than Ruth unless other people were present. This pledge guaranteed Graham’s sexual probity and enabled him to dodge accusations that have waylaid evangelists before and since.

Now people on the left get all huffy and claim this hurts women.

Shutting women out in a supposed effort to ward off sexual harassment would be tantamount to punishing them for abusive male behavior, thwarting their career opportunities, keeping them from forming key professional relationships, and perpetuating the toxic bro culture that led us here—in the throes of the Weinstein allegations—in the first place. There’s a precedent for sexual harassment scandals like Weinstein’s making innocent men feel cagey around women at work, reluctant to mentor or sponsor them, for fear the relationship could be misconstrued as something romantic or sexual.

There are three former Duke LaCrosse Players, a former New York City District Attorney, a coed of Mattress Girl who graduated from Columbia U with a reputation in taters and countless other men who have received the dishonest Gloria Allred or Al Sharpton treatment who would totally like to see Vogue Magazine fvck off and die in a bonfire. The people who whine about shutting women out or reinforcing the patriarchy have never had a malignant tick like Tawana Brawley or Mattress Girl crawl up inside their rectum and start sucking blood.

They have never had their reputation guillotined in the column inches of dishonest and biased major media publications. Mike Pence hasn’t either. He won’t. He makes that sort of character assassination a difficult logistical task. But isn’t that just Mike Pence saving his own skin? To paraphrase Robert De Niro from the movie Ronin: “It covers his body.”

And from this aspect of Mike Pence’s success in our dying Amerikan Empire we can learn a lesson. Your honor is the one thing you get issued that doesn’t depend on your genetics, your heritage, your side of town, and the world around you. You have it and even your enemies have to treat you with a modicum or respect. If you lose it, go jump off a bridge. You are done.

Mike Pence builds a fortress around his. He knows he lives in a despicable human jungle and doesn’t care at all if the predators, weasels and snakes think his personal ethical decisions are fair and inclusive. It is his life. He insists on it remaining his life. From that, all men can learn a salutatory lesson. In a culture where societal honor is dead, you and only you can protect your own.

Recommended Reading