Sunday, September 25, 2016

When Hillary loses

Democrats are likely to be in trouble, because whites are being eradicated from the party leadership:
The shock for Democrats if Clinton loses will likely be more severe than for Republicans if Trump loses.

One option for Democrats would be to moderate their policies, as the New Democrats urged in the 1980s and Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. After all, that proved pretty successful.

Two decades ago, lots of self-described moderates and even conservatives voted in Democratic primaries. Not so these days. The slump in Democratic primary and caucus turnout, from 38 million in 2008 to 31 million in 2016, was due to a sharp decline in turnout by self-described moderates.

Hillary Clinton’s move from her husband’s 1990s triangulation to her near-total acceptance this year of Bernie Sanders’ left-wing platform was a rational response to changes in the Democratic primary electorate.

One lesson of recent presidential primaries is that Democratic voters are transfixed by identity politics, having elected the first black president and chosen the first female presidential nominee. Another is that there’s a large constituency for left-wing candidates.

What they haven’t been interested in is cisgendered white male liberals. The largely forgotten John Edwards fell by the wayside quickly in 2008, and Martin O’Malley, with credentials similar to those of Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis, attracted zero support in 2016.

That leaves them with no obvious choices if Clinton loses this year. Their most visible and attractive left-wingers, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, will be over 70 in 2020. Prominent black and Hispanic officeholders tend to represent overwhelmingly Democratic constituencies and have made few of the bows to moderation that made Barack Obama a plausible national candidate in 2008.
It's amusing that everyone is focused on the changes that identity politics will make to the Republicans, when the much more serious change is taking place in the Democratic Party. Just like in local Minnesota politics, where the bigamist Somali woman pushed out the long-serving Jewish representative, there isn't going to be any more white Democratic leadership.

And that's when even the most stauch white liberals will start to drift Republicanward.


Saturday, September 24, 2016

The anti-spam campaign

Ricky Vaughn is leading the campaign to get VP off Twitter's spam list.
Please help.
1. Click this link Click "I can't tweet a link"
3. Submit this link: voxday(dot)blogspot(dot)com
I appreciate everyone's efforts on my behalf.

Labels: ,

"Self-righteous Churchian Pharisaism"

Scott Moreland annihilates the feeble anti-Trump arguments of the Republican Party's Prince of Cucks, Erick Erickson on WND:
Erick doubles down on the insanity as the column devolves into self-righteous Churchian Pharisaism while ultimately rejecting both of the choices God Himself has obviously put before us.

And the logic he uses to do so is horribly, fatally flawed.

Erickson contrasts Clinton’s “tyranny of the minority” with Trump’s “tyranny of the majority” and his “corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism, and dangerous strains of nationalism.”

Since when, Erick, is putting America and Americans above globalist interests a “dangerous strain of nationalism”?

Trumpism, the movement Trump represents, can essentially be defined as taking our country back from foreign, globalist, corporate and establishment interests by securing our border and limiting immigration, establishing a fair, sensible trade policy that protects American jobs, and limiting foreign interventions overseas, among other things.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

By constantly bringing up the “racist” canard, people like Erickson not only lose credibility – because there is not one single shred of evidence that Donald Trump is a racist – but they insult, like Hillary Clinton did, the millions of Americans who passionately support Trump. It’s tired, old and increasingly ineffective, and yet just like the left, who see a “raaacist” behind every tree, hand-wringers like Erickson continue to deploy it to serve their rhetorical ends.

Further, the attacks on the supposed hypocrisy of prominent Christian theologian Wayne Grudem are beyond the pale, especially given the fact that Grudem made it clear that he did not support Trump in the primaries, just as he didn’t support Giuliani in 2012. However, he most certainly would have supported Giuliani over Obama had he won the primaries, just as he is supporting Trump now, with good reason.

Erickson uses the fact that a fellow parishioner at his church tried to make the argument for Trump based on other flawed men in the Bible God has used, like David, Abraham and Samson, as evidence that Trump has “poisoned” the church from within. He believes that while Clinton will do “long-term damage to the country,” Trump will “do far more damage to the church.”

Ironically, Erickson later writes of the church, “But Christ has already risen, so the true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.”

So, which is it, Erick? If you believe that Christ will protect and keep His church, surely you aren’t worried about a mortal human like Donald Trump wrecking it, are you?

You see, unlike our country, the church IS, at root, a spiritual institution impervious to the machinations of man.
It's really remarkable what a horrible, and horribly dishonest individual Erick Erickson is. It does not speak well of those Christians who insist on continuing to pay attention to the man and his incessant posturing.

Labels: , ,

The desperation of a failing superpower

Flailing would also be an appropriate adjective. Regardless, it should be increasingly apparent to any student of history that the USA is no longer a unitary superpower and that the Obama administration is no longer deemed credible by allies and enemies alike. The Saker describes the latest series of debacles:
After days and days of intensive negotiations, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov finally reached a deal on a cease-fire in Syria which had the potential to at least “freeze” the situation on the ground until the Presidential election in the USA and a change in administration (this is now the single most important event in the near future, therefore no plans of any kind can extend beyond that date).

Then the USAF, along with a few others, bombed a Syrian Army unit which was not on the move or engaged in intense operations, but which was simply holding a key sector of the front. The US strike was followed by a massive offensive of the “moderate terrorists” which was barely contained by the Syrian military and the Russian Aerospace forces. Needless to say, following such a brazen provocation the cease-fire was dead. The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”. What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”. That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.

Next came the pathetic and absolutely unprofessional scene of US Ambassador Samantha Powers simply walking out of a UNSC meeting when the Russian representative was speaking. Again, the Russians were simply blown away, not by the infantile attempt at offending, but at the total lack of diplomatic professionalism shown the Powers. From a Russian point of view, for one superpower to simply walk out at the very moment the other superpower is making a crucial statement is simply irresponsible and, again, the sign that their American counterparts have totally “lost it”.

Finally, there came the crowning moment: the attack of the humanitarian convey in Syria which the USA blamed, of course, on Russia. The Russians, again, could barely believe their own eyes. First, this was such a blatant and, frankly, Kindergarten-level attempt to show that “the Russians make mistakes too” and that “the Russians killed the cease-fire”. Second, there was this amazing statement of the Americans who said there are only two air forces which could have done that – either the Russians or the Syrians (how the Americans hoped to get away with this in an airspace thoroughly controlled by Russian radars is beyond me!). Somehow, the Americans “forgot” to mention that their own air force was also present in the region, along with the air forces of many US allies. Most importantly, they forgot to mention that that night armed US Predator drones were flying right over that convoy.

What happened in Syria is painfully obvious: the Pentagon sabotaged the deal made between Kerry and Lavrov and when the Pentagon was accused of being responsible, it mounted a rather crude false flag attack and tried to blame it on the Russians.
You didn't need to see the radar to know that the bombing of the humanitarian convoy was a false flag. The moment the news about it broke, I said to Spacebunny, "there is no way that isn't fake." At this point, it almost appears that the US government appears to spend more time staging false flags than attempting to stop enemy action.

And it's not just the Russians and common sense that suggest the USA used Predators to fire Hellfire missiles at the convoy.
Thermobaric Hellfire air-blasts don't leave craters, and they typically start fires. No craters are visible in footage of the burned convoy.

The Russians have thermobaric bombs, too, according to PavewayIV, but they use different particles and their blast patterns are different: either no "sparkles" or long-duration "sparkles", not the fast-duration flash as seen in the video of the Aleppo blast.

As we reported yesterday, the Russians detected a Predator drone which took off from Incirlik airbase in Syria, flew to the precise location of the convoy, arrived before the strike, stayed for a while, then left after the damage was done.

Labels: ,

Free speech is for BLACK athletes

No doubt all of those championing the right of Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players to disrespect the national anthem will rush out to defend this Major League Baseball player's right to free speech, right?
The other shoe has dropped in the Steve Clevenger saga: The Seattle Mariners have suspended the injured catcher for the rest of the season because of racially-charged tweets about the Charlotte protests, the Black Lives Matter movement and President Obama.

General manager Jerry Dipoto said in a statement:

“As soon as we became aware of the tweets posted by Steve yesterday we began to examine all of our options in regard to his standing on the team. Today we have informed him that he is suspended for the remainder of the season without pay.”

Clevenger was already on the 60-day disabled list and wasn’t going to play this season anyway. This isn’t about playing time, rather they’re punishing him in his wallet. He’ll now forfeit the remainder of his $516,500 salary for this season. That comes out to about $31,900 for the final 10 games.
This is why the NFL's position on the Black Lives Matter protesters is so transparently hypocritical. The professional sports leagues don't respect free speech in the slightest. They regularly crack down on white players while excusing black players anything short of physically beating women and children.

I'd stop watching Major League Baseball in protest, but I don't watch it anyhow.


Shooting in Washington mall


WASHINGTON - Police are responding to an active shooter situation at Cascade mall in Burlington, WA. At least four people have been killed so far. Police are looking for a Hispanic male suspect wearing grey. The suspect was last seen walking toward I5 from the mall.

Immigrants. Doing the jobs Americans won't do.


Friday, September 23, 2016

Better late than never

Ted Cruz endorses Donald Trump:
This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.

In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
One can imagine the tear tracks being carved through the Cheetohs grime covering Glenn Beck's face. I wonder how long it will take the cuckiest of cucks, Erick Erickson, to follow Cruz's lead and reverse course considering that he just planted his flag again earlier today.
The polling has drawn ever closer. More and more people wonder if those of us who are NeverTrump should finally yield knowing that we can beat Hillary Clinton. I am in an odd position. I am mindful that should Trump win, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to Trump. Likewise, I know if Trump loses, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to Trump and Trump supporters will blame people like me for his loss. I suppose I should say not that I’m in an odd position, but that I am in a no-win position.

With Donald Trump’s rise in the polls and the increasingly competitive nature of the race, it is time to reconsider my opposition to Trump. After all, I view Hillary Clinton’s candidacy as anti-American....

I think Hillary Clinton will do lasting damage to the country. I cannot vote for her.

Having reconsidered my opposition to Trump, I think Donald Trump will do lasting damage to the witness of the Church in America and I therefore cannot vote for him.

I am without a candidate. I just cannot vote for either one. Whichever is elected, it is God’s will and as his holy and inerrant scripture commands, I will pray for my President as I pray for the current President. But I will not harm my witness nor risk Trump’s soul to serve my political desires.

The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. I do not believe a vote for either candidate glorifies God and I am certain neither advances his kingdom.
Dude, you voted for Captain Underoos. You voted for a bloody MORMON. You don't get to play the "oh, I'm an evangelical, I'm too holy to care about my country, I'm voting for God" card after that. What the fuck is "the witness of the Church in America" anyhow? Lesbian Unitarians performing gay marriages while the gay Catholic seminarians chase the altar boys and women talk about their mutually submitted husbands in the pulpits of the Protestant churches as the only male pastors left are too busy apologizing for slavery to preach the Gospel?

Erick Erickson is exactly the sort of Christian that gave me an allergy to Christianity growing up. All that passive-aggressive, faux-righteous babble designed to justify himself reminds me of every smarmy high school guy who was going to a Bible college to pursue a career in youth ministry because it was the only way he could hang around high school girls.

Labels: ,

NOW they worry about foreign control?

I find it bizarre that after decades of Jewish control of Hollywood, and the resultant tidal wave of Jewish propaganda in which Americans have been inundated, we're supposed to be concerned about the dangerous prospects of Chinese control of the entertainment industry:
The rise of Chinese investment in Hollywood is raising alarms in Congress, which could complicate studios’ ambitions to strengthen ties to the Middle Kingdom.

The latest salvo came in a letter from 16 members of Congress last week, which called for closer scrutiny of Chinese investment in the U.S. entertainment and media sectors. The letter cited the Dalian Wanda Group’s acquisitions of Legendary Entertainment, AMC and Carmike Cinemas, and warned of “growing concerns” of Chinese efforts to exert “propaganda controls on American media.”

Wanda has been on a buying spree, of late, announcing a merger between AMC and Carmike that would make it the largest exhibitor in the world. Earlier this week, news broke that Wanda plans to form a multi-picture alliance with Sony Pictures.

Rep. Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, warned that growing Chinese investment could raise strategic concerns.

“Would we raise questions if Russia or Iran was buying large parts of U.S. media and entertainment companies? Of course we would,” Smith said in a statement to Variety. “Raising questions about Chinese investment is no different.”
I tend to suspect Chinese propaganda would probably be less anti-Christian, less anti-white and less anti-American than most of what we've seen out of Hollywood for the last 30 years.


Let the pools begin!

There are going to be betting pools all over the country on this one. I call the 40-minute nark for her first extended coughing jag that interrupts the debate. From the Drudge Report:
If presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton slips into a coughing fit or any other medical crisis during Monday's high-stakes debate, she will have to power through, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!

"There are no commercial breaks," a commission source explains. "Period."

Debate moderator Lester Holt does not have the authority to cut away from the stage during the epic 90-minute showdown. And microphone audio for either of the candidates is not to be manipulated.
The interesting thing is how heavily her handlers are going to drug her. On the one hand, they've got to settle her down, keep her anxiety in check, and suppress her coughing, on the other, they don't want her going out there wild-eyed, manic, and more hyped up than a coke-addled New York Met from the 1980s.


Putting it on the line

Thanks to you all, we already hit our goal and I am running the Color Run in a tutu. With only 36 hours to go, Spacebunny has decided to throw down in case the original goal is doubled.
If we get to $10k by Saturday night I'll run in a bikini and tutu..... it's for a great cause.
There is more information about the event on her page, but to summarize, she is raising funds for a prospective cure for Crohn's Disease that is in the testing stage.  And yes, I will post the pictures here.

Labels: , ,

What you're missing

If you're not on Gab.
The fundamental uselessness of genocide is best exemplified by the fact that the Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians and somehow missed BOTH the Kardashians and the Sarkeesians.

Watch out, the DREAD ILK are arriving! Stickwick is here. I thought I could feel the average IQ jump. In other good news, #RunThemDown is trending here. #YouWontSeeThatOnTwitter
Just to be clear, I'm not banned from Twitter. I just don't see any point in providing free content to a site that not only thought-polices that content, but blocks access to my primary content. And perhaps more importantly, the guys behind Gab are smart, friendly people who aren't SJWs.

And then, there is this:
It's 2016 and literally everything is offensive. So what is the most offensive costume you can come up with for this Halloween?

Milo in blackface carrying a drowned migrant child.
We're the George and Gracie of Gab, with just a twist of artistic cruelty.

Labels: ,

Mailvox: the Alt-Right's big tent

A reader produces a graphic meant to illustrate the full spectrum of the broader Alt-Right. Agree with it or not, I think it is a good first start on beginning to meme the other aspects of the Alt-Right.
Your observations on the intrinsic branches, or roots, of the Alt-Right greatly helped clarify my own understanding of how the "big tent" ideology and its connected sub-identities would best interact each other. I agree with you that a forward-looking, symbiotic mutualism between the distinct Alt-White and Alt-West branches is desirable at this time. The Alt-White Scotsmen busy administering purity tests, "that person is no true Alt-Right..." have obviously missed point #12: The Alt-Right doesn't care what you think of it. Any branch on the Alt-Right tree that doesn't shut up and produce desirable fruit will be best ignored until it withers away.

I also concur that the implicit tension between the two current branches of the Alt-Right is actually beneficial. There should be healthy, competitive tendency for each Alt-branch to seek out the most effective tactics for its immediate survival and subsequent growth. Attempts to impose one group's identity & tactics onto the other, or merge the two would be as effective as giving a marathon runner two right shoes and then tying his legs together.

In reading through the vigorous chiseling of the comments in the "ALTRIGHT: 16 POINTS", I attempted to make an initial visual depiction of what I could grasp. At that time, I was primarily focused on symbolically distilling out some of the identity politics/tactics of the Alt-Right:

- Opposes the Left
- Opposes the ideas of Equality, Diversity, Tolerance, Progress, Control
- Fights on the identity/culture level
- Accepts any that are willing to fight who subscribe to some/all of its tenets
- Maintains the higher ground (what makes life better?)
- Recognizes the uphill fight requires more energy

It does have flaws, which I can recognize: seems to imply/advocate defensive or reactive tactics, much too wordy, doesn't delineate between the Alt-branches, etc. Praise kek that it did, indeed, lead to a second, more successful attempt which is in more alignment with the clear, tactical understanding of the Alt-Right:

I. Alt-Right is forward-looking and not defensive.
II. Alt-White and Alt-West are independent and distinct branches.
III. Their success, either individually or together, results in success of the Alt-Right.
IV. Other Alt-branches can be added, as long as they share enough of the same philosophy and direction.
V. Alt-Lite can be considered allies, as long as they are not interfering with the two primary branches.
VI. Fighting between branches or internally within a branch is not constructive.
VII. Each branch can be arranged however they see fit (or add their own sub-branches, e.g. Alt-White:US and Alt-West:German).
VIII. Stronger individual branches and a broad collection of branches is ultimately beneficial to the Alt-Right
IX. No branch is more important than the others nor leads the other branches
X. The head of the Alt-Right is Pepe

This iconography does raise the question of "what other viable Alt-branches are there?" for the Alt-Right. I would not be surprised to see Alt-Masculinity be a potential ally given the success and philosophical direction of Roosh.

I would propose rather than "Alt-Lite groups", the top six phalanxes represent intellectual strains, from Stormfront to NPI and the Dread Ilk. Or perhaps it would be more effective if six "leaders" were named, beginning with Richard Spencer, and for the lulz, Donald Trump. I leave it to the commenters to hash out which six individuals merit being named, but Jared Taylor and RamZPaul are two obvious candidates. Milo, not so much.

I also think, that for the purposes of Twitter meming, it would be best to have Alt-White on top, Alt-West in the middle, and Alt-Lite on the bottom, leaving out the word "Branch", which is implied by the three separate groups. No meme should ever have a "fill-in-the blank" aspect to it.

Labels: ,

Thursday, September 22, 2016

A requested correction

Robert Evans of Cracked gets it all wrong.
One prominent figure in the alt-right is Vox Day. Day doesn't directly threaten people, but he does regularly advocate for his readers to harass folks for him. Here's how he advised his readers to treat women like Jessica Valenti, a writer for The Guardian whom he happens to dislike:

Open up your hate and let it pour over them. Don't think for even one nanosecond that they don't deserve it every bit of the criticism, of the contempt, of the disdainful dismissal that overwhelms them. They are trying to destroy Western civilization. They are trying to destroy marriage and civil society. They are advocates of child murder. They are advocates of a philosophy that makes National Socialism look merciful and Communism practical and Fascism coherent by comparison. Do not hold back. Speak back twice as hard. Speak back until they fall silent.
First, he left out the previous paragraph, which said:

What they call "harassment" and "abuse" is seldom anything more than free speech answering free speech. They have a right to speak their piece, and we have a right to speak right back. We have a right to speak back with all of the contempt, disdain, and loathing that we feel for their insane and societally suicidal ideas.

Second, and more disturbingly, he unwittingly denigrated the special relationship I have with my most loyal readers. I'm sure you will understand why I emailed him and requested a correction, as follows.

Dear Mr. Evans,

I would like to request a correction to your article of September 20, entitled "5 Things You Learn Being Attacked By The Alt-Right". I do not direct my readers to harass anyone. While my Vile Faceless Minions have been known to flay my enemies, devour their bodies, and present me with their skulls to use as wine goblets, I can assure you they do so without direction and solely out of love for their Dark Lord.

With regards,

Vox Day
Supreme Dark Lord
Evil Legion of Evil

Should any of the VFM, or the Dread Ilk wish to correct Mr. Evans with regards to this unfortunate misunderstanding of our relationship, I am reliably informed he can be reached at

Labels: , ,

Surviving the mob

Peter Grant, formerly a soldier in South Africa, knows whereof he speaks. I suggest it would behoove most Americans to heed his advice these days.
There are some important lessons to be learned.  Firstly, a vehicle isn't going to help when the streets are clogged.  You can't drive over dozens of protestors.  If nothing else, their bodies will immobilize your vehicle, just as surely as if it became high-centered over a bump.  What's more, as soon as you're forced to slow down or stop, you're going to get dragged from your vehicle by angry rioters.  That may not be survivable.  Much rather use your vehicle to avoid getting into that mess in the first place . . . but you may not have a choice.  You may turn a corner in a city center to find the mob coming to meet you, with no time or space to avoid them.  If you're on an interstate highway, the on- and off-ramps may be blocked by rioters and/or vehicles with nowhere to go, leaving you stranded with a mob coming towards you, looting every vehicle they pass.  This is what I-85 looked like in Charlotte on Tuesday evening.

Rioters looted stalled trucks of their cargoes, taking what they wanted and torching the rest.  Hundreds of vehicles backed up behind the scene of the crime.  If yours was among them, what would you do?  Many of those present abandoned their vehicles and fled on foot.  That's all well and good, if they had the space and time to do so . . . but what if they didn't?  What if the rioters swarmed their vehicle before they could get out?  What if they, or a member of their party, had limited mobility and couldn't escape and evade fast enough?

In such a situation, resistance may be your only option.  Make sure you have a firearm handy, plus enough ammunition to defend yourself and your loved ones.  That may be difficult.  It's an unpalatable, raw, brutal fact that you may not be able to offer enough resistance to save yourself in such a situation.  If there are a couple of dozen rioters within feet of you, you probably can't shoot fast enough to get them all.  Distance is your friend.  Even if you use a firearm successfully to defend yourself, whilst that may solve Problem One (immediate survival), it's likely to land you neck-deep in Problem Two.  The aftermath of such a riot is likely to see political and social leaders screaming for a scapegoat.  If you shoot a few rioters, guess what?  You're probably it.

You're just about certain to be arrested and charged with all sorts of crimes, even if all you were doing is trying to save your life and the lives of your loved ones.  You may find it very difficult to defeat the charges in court, particularly if witnesses are scarce (or intimidated), and video footage of your activities (from nearby security cameras, hovering helicopters, etc.) is deliberately edited to portray your actions in the worst possible light.  Think that won't happen?  You're naive.

You need to have a plan, at the first sign of such troubles, to get away from the riots before they get out of control.  Make arrangements with family and friends, have bug-out bags and vehicles and plans in place (including sufficient fuel to get out of trouble without having to stop at a gas station, because they'll be magnets for looters).  Don't wait until it's too late.  Far better to get clear of potential trouble, then return if the trouble doesn't materialize, rather than wait until you're sure there's trouble, but not leave yourself enough space and time to get away from it.

That's likely to be difficult once riots become established.  A standard police tactic is to isolate the violence, establishing a perimeter to prevent it spreading.  Police will wait at that perimeter until they can see the unrest ebbing, then move inward once again to re-establish control.  That works for them, and helps to minimize casualties caused by them (and the political fallout from such casualties) . . . but it won't help you if you're trapped inside that perimeter.  The rioters will be all around you, and you won't be able to avoid them.  That's not a good place to be.  Get to the perimeter if at all possible, and seek police protection.  If you can't, you'll have no alternative but to hunker down in place and ride out the storm.

If you suspect you may find yourself in that situation, your location should be prepared in advance to resist that sort of problem.  Make sure rioters can't easily break in and get at you.  Use obstructions (plants, flower boxes, whatever) to make it difficult to approach windows;  put stout burglar bars on windows and security gates on doors, and fortify them if possible with whatever's available;  have weapons handy, and make sure that all adults and older children know how to use them.  Keep rioters outside, if possible at a distance, so they can't get their hands on you or your weapons.  If they do, your resistance is over, right there - and I don't have to tell you what your loved ones are likely to go through under such circumstances.

That's why the best possible solution is to get clear of the trouble and stay away from it until it's died down.
Or to put it more briefly, John Derbyshire was right.

Peter is right about how easy it is to be taken by surprise, though. We were in Rome walking through the streets in a nearly empty quarter one day when we heard a dull roar. It was hard to tell what it was, or exactly from what direction it was coming. I was curious, since it could have been anything from immigrants to ultras, so my friend and I had the women and children stay back while we went to see what was going on. It kept getting louder, but there was nothing to see until we turned a corner to encounter a large mass of several hundred dark-skinned people who looked like Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. They were loudly demonstrating against deportations or the lack of work permits or something,, and while it wasn't even remotely dangerous, I won't forget the shock of suddenly encountering such a loud and overpowering mass of humanity without much in the way of warning besides that dull roar.

And I can attest that having a handgun wouldn't have accomplished a damn thing. Frankly, a belt-fed .50 caliber might not have been enough without a minefield. If I heard that sound these days, I'd do my best to figure out where it was coming from, then move quickly the opposite way. And if I couldn't tell, I'd start backtracking. Fast.

Regardless, the key to successfully surviving everything from a one-on-one fight to a mob scene is lateral movement. You not only don't want to be where they are, you don't want to be where they are going.

Labels: ,

Buyer's remorse

I have to admit, I'm vastly amused at the thought of what must have gone through Patrick Nielsen Hayden's mind when he read this little bloviation from his star author. Or better yet, the mind of the executive at Macmillan who has to defend Tor's underperformance in 2016 to the Germans.
This year I'll publish/have published a novella, stories in three anthologies, a short story collection and a video game. Not a bad year.
No, not bad. But of course, that's really not what Tor Books pays him for. What appears to be missing there is the very small matter of a novel. Or two. That being said, I had better not cast too many stones, lest I find myself again addressed as "Vox RR Day" come January. Hey, I'm working on it!

Regardless, it's a simple fact that the mainstream publishers are now in decline.
Financial reports for the first half of 2016 from five major publishers showed that none of the companies had a sales increase in the first half of the year; HarperCollins had the best top-line performance, with only a minor sales decline compared to the first six months of 2015. Earnings fell at three publishers in the period and rose at two. Though sales of print books have stabilized, all five reporting publishers said sales of e-books fell in the first six months of 2016 compared to the January–June 2015 period.
Sales at Penguin Random House were down nearly 11 percent, at -10.7 percent. HarperCollins did well to remain essentially flat for the first two quarters. And it's only going to get worse, as independent publishers, self-publishers, and Kindle Unlimited continue to take an increasing share of the market.

Remember, publishing is not a zero-sum game, it is a NEGATIVE-SUM game. Because the market is shrinking, every sale Castalia makes represents more than one previous-year sale lost to the gatekeepers. And if you think they're acting crazy now, just wait until Barnes & Noble goes down and takes one or more of the big publishers with them.

Labels: ,

Twitter suspends Instapundit

If you go to the @instapundit account, this is what you see:
Account suspended
This account has been suspended. Learn more about why Twitter suspends accounts, or return to your timeline.
This is getting crazy. Twitter is blocking access to my blog, banning Milo, suspending Instapundit... it appears the thought police at Twitter are openly declaring war on the social media Right.

UPDATE: This was Twitter's excuse:

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds responds:
Sorry, blocking the interstate is dangerous, and trapping people in their cars is a threat. Driving on is self-preservation, especially when we’ve had mobs destroying property and injuring and killing people. But if Twitter doesn’t like me, I’m happy to stop providing them with free content.

Was just on Hugh Hewitt talking about this. Since Twitter won’t let me respond to — or even see — my critics, let me expand here.

I’ve always been a supporter of free speech and peaceful protest. I fully support people protesting police actions, and I’ve been writing in support of greater accountability for police for years.

But riots aren’t peaceful protest. And blocking interstates and trapping people in their cars is not peaceful protest — it’s threatening and dangerous, especially against the background of people rioting, cops being injured, civilian-on-civilian shootings, and so on. I wouldn’t actually aim for people blocking the road, but I wouldn’t stop because I’d fear for my safety, as I think any reasonable person would.

“Run them down” perhaps didn’t capture this fully, but it’s Twitter, where character limits stand in the way of nuance.

Meanwhile, regarding Twitter: I don’t even know that this is why I was suspended, as I’ve heard nothing from Twitter at all. They tell users and investors that they don’t censor, but they seem awfully quick to suspend people on one side of the debate and, as people over at Twitchy note, awfully tolerant of outright threats on the other.

Twitter can do without me, as I can certainly do without Twitter.

UPDATE: Apparently Twitter has reconsidered and unsuspended Glenn. For now.

Meanwhile, GabTechNews warns that YouTube has gone the Reddit route, almost precisely as spelled out by QuQu of GGRevolt.

Grave news: Youtube has gone the Reddit moderation path. Volunteer-staffed mass flagging, comment removal, all that. The internet is becoming a very coddled place. They call it YouTube Heroes.

I think, at this point, we are going to have to assume that it is only a matter of time before Blogger is similarly converged and prepare accordingly. I've always had several backups running, of course, so I doubt much of an interruption will be necessary, but if Blogger goes the way of Goodreads, Wikipedia, Facebook, and now Twitter and YouTube, check in at either Gab or Castalia House to find the new location.

Labels: ,

ALIEN GAME by Rod Walker

I am very pleased to be able to announce that Rod Walker has published his second science fiction novel with Castalia House. If you liked MUTINY IN SPACE, there is very little chance you will not also enjoy ALIEN GAME.

With nothing to do but work or lose himself in the dubious digital pleasures of the Netrix, Sam Hammond finds himself bored beyond belief on the oppressive planet of New Princeton. And when he gets himself in trouble for a stupid act of vandalism, he has the choice of spending a year in prison or working off his time as an indentured servant for anyone who buys his contract. 

He might have chosen prison if he'd known that he'd find himself working security for a safari colony on a jungle world where the herbivores are the size of a stadium, the apex predators are vicious lizards that can turn themselves almost invisible, and the skies are filled with huge, acid-breathing fliers. But when New Princeton's Minister of Ecology arrives for a visit with a spaceship full of wealthy and powerful guests, Sam discovers that it is Man who is the most dangerous animal on the planet. 

Rod Walker is the New New Heinlein, and ALIEN GAME marks another step in the return of science fiction to its classical form and historical heights. Written in the style and tradition of Robert Heinlein's 12 classic juvenile novels published by Scribner, ALIEN GAME is an exciting tale of space, technology, courage, independence, and the indomitable spirit of Man.

ALIEN GAME is Rod Walker's second book in his Old School SF series. It is not a sequel to MUTINY IN SPACE, but is set in the same universe of the Thousand Worlds. While the books are intentionally written to be reminiscent of the twelve so-called juveniles of Robert Heinlein, they are not slavish imitations or color-by-numbers copies; it would probably be more accurate to describe them as being two parts Heinlein, one part Correia.

Let's just say Mr. Walker and I are considerably more comfortable with guns, and rocket launchers, and orbital artillery, than Alice Dalgliesh, Heinlein's editor at Scribner, ever was. Written by Rod Walker and edited by three-time Hugo-nominated editor Vox Day, ALIEN GAME is 160 pages, DRM-free, and $4.99. Available only on Amazon.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

How SJWs neutralize rival institutions

This is a vital description of the way SJWs attack social media institutions outside their control, from a blog to an entire social media organization:
Containment, however, is not a winning strategy on its own. Even if you contain a conversation, even if you contain a user base, it can still grow in theory. As degenerate as people are today, quality is easily detected by others, whether it is great art, entertaining jokes or damning evidence. This is why, once a "space" (I'll drop the quotes now, but please note that I don't intend to justify the existing use of this terminology, I intend to dismantle it) is contained, the next move is to ensure its destruction. There are two ways to do this, we will now discuss the first of them:

Strategy 2: Dilution and poisoning

Just because a space is contained by no means implies that they intend to leave it alone. Containment keeps people inside the space from going out, like a gated city under siege by a numerically and tactically superior enemy. Dilution and pollution are the artillery and siege weapons deployed to make ensure everyone in the city starves or gets poisoned. Their aim is to destroys the target containment space and ensure those inside surrender and assimilate into the outer safe space.

What keeps a space alive? Two key ingredients: new users and new content (also known as OC). A new participants/lurkers, after becoming familiar with a space, create new content. The OC doesn't make itself after all, and every individual has a finite amount of time and finite will to continue. If they feel they are alone, lacking the will to continue, they will give up. New content, attracts new people and if it directs them to the space that created it, they can participate and grow it. Thus the two parameters are tightly coupled. Lose one and you lose the other.

By diluting the content that exists in a space with bad quality content, it will repel new users. Subtle sliding and shitposts are the main weapon of choice. Burying OC, burying quality posts and ensuring only the rubbish rises to the top. This has an additional benefit, the shitposting will force some users to demand a higher level of moderation. This will go back to the phase of containment, where infiltrating parties will be able to contain the containment through various rules as we saw on gghq and as we are seeing on KiA. The reaction is expected as is part of the strategy.

The other, much more dangerous weapon is poisoning, inserting bad ideas, rotten OC into the target. Making their OC less special/less distinct than that which can be obtained outside in the "safe space". Forcing those inside to play by the rules of the outside, changing their language. Calling them "edgelords" for being different, to shame them from creating certain content. We saw this on KiA where moderators will ban anyone who will call Brian Flynt a man. We also saw this on GGHQ where "dangerous ideas" were censored and the users banned for posting it. The justification is always perception by the outside.

Furthermore, promotion of mixing the enemy narrative and compromising also disinterests new users. An extreme position attracts a lot more people than a dilute position. At this point in time, you can see on twitter how closely the so-called #GamerGate activists resemble the SJWs themselves, from their language, smarm, mannerism and even their beliefs. This is because they are acting as the poison, while simultaneously diluting the discussion with their own low quality content.
Keep this in mind as you begin to use Gab, Big Fork, and other Alt-SocialMedia. The SJWs will be throwing everything they have at these alternatives in an attempt to neutralize them.

We're already seeing that today with Twitter's attempt to block access from Twitter to this blog. Remember, if you post links here, use one of the many country suffixes, so instead of .com, use .it, .fr, or .de. They'll likely get around to blocking all those too, but remember the rule: make the rubble bounce. We can't stop them from doing it, but we can make it an ongoing pain in their posterior.

And keep in mind one reason this blog still has lively and informative discourse in the comments is because the moderators and I ruthlessly weed out every SJW, troll, and hasbari who attempts to derail it.

Labels: ,

White Democrats move to Trump

Identity always trumps ideology, if you'll excuse an obvious pun:
On Como Street in Struthers, where CBS News spent a recent weekend knocking on every door on the block, Skook was in the minority. All around her, the community was ditching their Democratic roots and flocking to Trump.

Paul Sracic, who has lived in the area for years and is chair of the department of politics and international relations at Youngstown University, described Trump’s “blue-collar billionaire” identity as the perfect cocktail to attract onetime Democrats here.

“They know he’s not really a Republican, and that Mitt Romney hates him, so that helps,” Psaric said of the voters in his community. “So instead it’s like, ‘I’m not becoming a country club Republican, I’m a part of Trump’s party.’”

The story of these defections goes back to March when over 6,171 registered Democrats voted in the GOP primary that was a showdown between Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Even the Democratic mayor of Struthers was caught with a Trump For President sign in his front yard.

But the Democrats here have not come back home. Instead, many of them are still looking to Trump.
I note that Donald Trump has gained 11 points in the battleground state of North Carolina, going from -9 to +2 and taking the lead in the RCP state average. It's too soon to confirm it, but all the indicators of the coming Trumpslide are sliding into place.

I doubt the Charlotte "riots" are hurting Trump any either.


Mailvox: Charlotte unrest is not "riots"

From one of the Ilk in North Carolina:
I, like some of the Ilk, live in North Carolina and riots have recently occurred in Charlotte.

For more information - the area they rioted at is by the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and has such dangerous neighborhood dwellings as Ikea and World Market. Home Depot is the shabbiest part of the area where they rioted. They lit bonfires on the highway so trucks would have to stop, and they were subsequently looted.

Insight into CMPD is that they are kind of like the Detroit PD, as they take care of business when necessary, but are often pretty diligent in avoiding "Ferguson" type scenarios.

Looking at all this, this was not a "burst of spontaneous vibrant anger," but something planned. Often there is discussion of this kind of thing on your site in the comments, but I this is a pretty clear example of what we talk about and are wary of with regards to civil unrest in the US.
It's reasonably apparent that the Soros money is now being utilized to stir up racial conflict, although it's hard to imagine precisely what the man's desired end game is. Sufficient unrest to justify military intervention? What would that change?

Labels: ,

Of Alt-West and Alt-White

The question is not whether there are at least two distinct branches of the Alt-Right already or not, but whether the Alt-White branch can get its swastika panties sufficiently unbunched to cooperate with the Alt-West and the Alt-Lite in the pursuit of its stated objectives, or if it is more interested in competitive navel-gazing and purity-spiraling.

After a few run-ins with true-believing Stormfronters who have been Alt-Right since the distant dawn of primordial identity politics in 2010, both here and on Twitter, it has become abundantly clear that the combination of a legitimate fear of entryism and an understandable case of spotlight envy, the Alt-White is having some serious trouble dealing with the inevitable problems of success and popularity.

It's rather like a company that has sales that are rapidly growing. The increase in demand for your products is great, but it is still a real problem. How are you going to get the additional products made? How are you going to pay for them? Are these new customers going to stick around or will they disappear before you can even expand your manufacturing capacity? These are good problems to have, but they are definitely problems that will need to be addressed.

First, is a distinction really necessary? Yes, without question. This should be obvious, since Alt-White, Alt-West, and Alt-Light are all different strains of identity-based thought that are all also observably distinct from mainstream conservatism or libertarianism. In this sense, all three are ALTernatives to the traditional RIGHT. Hence the Spencer-coined term.

Second, should all three be considered Alt-Right? Here I would argue no, that while it is reasonable to describe both Alt-White and Alt-West as Alt-Right, the Alt-Lite should not be. The reason is that while both Alt-White and Alt-West sign on to the greater part of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right I've laid out, and which most Alt-Rightists have generally endorsed, the various people who make up the Alt-Lite are all over the place with regards to most of them.

The Alt-Lite, in other words, is the larval form of the Alt-Right, which means that they are not, practically speaking, Alt-Right in any meaningful or functional sense. They are merely those still undergoing the intellectual transition that most Alt-Rightists have made, at one point or another. Alt-Lite is a transitional stage, not an end point.

By contrast, the Alt-White and Alt-West are both destinations. Once one gravitates towards one branch or the other, or as may be the case, is directed there by virtue of one's identity, one is simply not going to eventually move towards the other one. This leads us to the third question, what are the key differences between the Alt-White and the Alt-West. The following are my observations; I am quite willing to be corrected by someone who can speak more credibly for the Alt-White.

  1. Alt-White is for whites only. Alt-West is pan-racial and pan-national, which should not be confused with being multicultural or equalitarian or pro-diversity in the egalitarian sense.
  2. Alt-White is primarily concerned with white nationalism, and secondarily concerned with European nationalisms. Within the Alt-White, there is already a discussion concerning what the difference between a generic white nationalism and the specific European nationalisms are; I suspect there will eventually be a further distinction between American and European branches of the Alt-White. While the Alt-West supports white nationalism, that is not its sole concern, as it supports all nationalism, European or otherwise.
  3. Alt-White is neutral to hostile on Christianity. Alt-West is strongly pro-Christian, as it believes Christianity to be one of the three pillars of Western Civilization aka the historical Christendom. Pro-Christian includes, but does not require, actually being a Christian.
  4. Alt-White is neutral to hostile on Israel. Alt-West is pro-Israel, as it supports all nationalist homelands.
  5. Alt-White is hostile to very hostile to all Jews everywhere. Alt-West is friendly to Israeli Jews while hostile to globalist Jews and anti-nationalist Jews.
  6. Alt-White has a romantic view of National Socialism. Alt-West regards it as a suicidally stupid but semiotically useful form of German nationalism.
  7. Alt-White is neutral to pro-white imperialism. Alt-West is anti-imperialism, as it regards imperalism as being societally enervating and self-destructive.
As you can see, within the context of both the 16 Points and the grand political spectrum, Alt-White and Alt-West are largely in accord. They generally share a philosophy and a direction, but their priorities and perspectives are different. More importantly, with the possible exception of Christianity in the long term, there is very little reason for conflict between Alt-White and Alt-West, indeed, the distinction between the two eliminates the Alt-White's primary objection to the Alt-West, which is the possibility of  being sidelined by the media and by the larger potential appeal of the Alt-West.

Some have accused me, and Milo, and several others, of wanting to assume the mantle of leading the Alt-Right. That is the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, one personal benefit of articulating the distinction between the two primary branches of the Alt-Right is that it makes it clear that a) there can be no unitary leader, and b) even if there could be, that unitary leader could not possibly be me due to my identity as an American Indian and member of La Raza.

The more significant benefit is to quell the fears of the Alt-White that they will be sidelined by their more numerous allies. But the Alt-West needs nothing from the Alt-White, and by establishing a separate identity, a much broader spectrum of members are made possible while respecting the rigid borders of the Alt-White. Regardless, the simple fact of the matter is that the Alt-White is not the only alternative to mainstream conservatism.

There are much bigger battles ahead than settling the question of whether Christianity is a necessary component of Western Civilization or not. Because we know the white race is absolutely a necessary component of it, and that is why, whether one is inclined towards the Alt-White or the Alt-West, every member of the Alt-Right who values both whites and the West has immediate and mid-range objectives remain exactly the same.

As before, this is not intended to be a definitive delineation of the differences between the two branches of the Alt-Right, but the starting point for an intelligent discussion. Keep it civil and substantive as those more interested in posturing will be spammed. As for those who will claim that Alt-West, Alt-White, and Alt-Lite are not genuine "things", keep in mind that as a political taxonomist, I am creating nothing. I am merely describing what observably already exists.

Labels: , ,

Whatever, Twitter

I've never been a big fan of the medium, I don't need to use it, and while I probably will get around to accessing my account eventually, their inept technical support simply doesn't inspire me to make it a priority.
Unfortunately, we’re unable to verify you as the account holder and cannot assist you in accessing the account.

If you know which email address is associated with the account and you no longer have access to that email, please contact your email provider for assistance. More information can be found here:

For privacy reasons, we are not able to provide any additional information about this account’s email address. Even if you mistyped your email address on signup, we require that you write to us from the exact address tied to the account. There are no security questions you can answer nor additional information you can provide as proof of ownership.

While we understand it can be disappointing when you lose access to an account, these account verification requirements are in place to protect accounts and private user data.
So, they lock the account for "security" reasons at the same time they block links to this blog, but can't unlock it because I'm not verified. Right. I'm not disappointed at all. It's not a big deal, all I need to do is restore access to my old email address, but right now, I'm just too busy to bother.

The point is, don't be concerned if you don't see me on Twitter for a while. I don't care about Twitter any more than they do about their users.

But I will observe that this sort of casual indifference to customer relations, especially concerning problems they themselves caused, is the hallmark of a company that is doomed, sooner or later.

Especially when I've been on Twitter for years and have only 23,000 followers. I've been on Gab for all of about 4 hours and already have 500. Stefan Molyneux has nearly 2,000. If we can reach nearly as many people and without having to put up with all the SJW harassment, that's a complete no-brainer.

UPDATE: Or maybe I won't go bother going back at all. Now Twitter is locking the accounts of users who simply retweet a link to this blog. Which means that the "suspicious activity" that got my account locked in the first place was almost certainly posting a link here.

UPDATE: I've already changed the @voxday link here from Twitter to Gab. Apparently the waiting list has increased 18k, to 62k, in just the last few hours, so get in line now.


The true Christian teaching on immigration

Contra the current churchian and papal perspectives, the traditional Christian teaching on immigration is that the common good of the nation must be considered first, not whatever happens to most benefit the potential immigrant. This analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas's work makes clear what was repeatedly demonstrated in Cuckservative, which is that what churchians are doing with regards to immigration is not Christian at all, but are the works of a false faith that is intrinsically anti-Christian.
Immigration is a modern problem and so some might think that the medieval Saint Thomas would have no opinion about the problem. And yet, he does. One has only to look in his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica, in the second part of the first part, question 105, article 3 (I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). There one finds his analysis based on biblical insights that can add to the national debate. They are entirely applicable to the present.

Saint Thomas: “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.”

Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.

The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and “hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its law.

Saint Thomas: “For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus 22:9): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”

Commentary: Here Saint Thomas acknowledges the fact that others will want to come to visit or even stay in the land for some time. Such foreigners deserved to be treated with charity, respect and courtesy, which is due to any human of good will. In these cases, the law can and should protect foreigners from being badly treated or molested.

Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”

Commentary: Saint Thomas recognizes that there will be those who will want to stay and become citizens of the lands they visit. However, he sets as the first condition for acceptance a desire to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and life of the nation.

A second condition is that the granting of citizenship would not be immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt themselves to the nation. He quotes the philosopher Aristotle as saying this process was once deemed to take two or three generations. Saint Thomas himself does not give a timeframe for this integration, but he does admit that it can take a long time.

Saint Thomas: “The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

Commentary: The common sense of Saint Thomas is certainly not politically correct but it is logical. The theologian notes that living in a nation is a complex thing. It takes time to know the issues affecting the nation. Those familiar with the long history of their nation are in the best position to make the long-term decisions about its future. It is harmful and unjust to put the future of a place in the hands of those recently arrived, who, although through no fault of their own, have little idea of what is happening or has happened in the nation. Such a policy could lead to the destruction of the nation.

As an illustration of this point, Saint Thomas later notes that the Jewish people did not treat all nations equally since those nations closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close. Some hostile peoples were not to be admitted at all into full fellowship due to their enmity toward the Jewish people.

These are some of the thoughts of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter of immigration based on biblical principles. It is clear that immigration must have two things in mind: the first is the nation’s unity; and the second is the common good.

Immigration should have as its goal integration, not disintegration or segregation. The immigrant should not only desire to assume the benefits but the responsibilities of joining into the full fellowship of the nation. By becoming a citizen, a person becomes part of a broad family over the long term and not a shareholder in a joint stock company seeking only short-term self-interest.

Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot destroy or overwhelm a nation.

This explains why so many Americans experience uneasiness caused by massive and disproportional immigration. Such policy artificially introduces a situation that destroys common points of unity and overwhelms the ability of a society to absorb new elements organically into a unified culture. The common good is no longer considered.

Labels: ,

On Gab now

As I can no longer access my Twitter account - for, as far as I can tell, non-nefarious reasons, I hasten to add - you may wish to consider following me at Gab.

Big Fork is on schedule for an October 3rd launch. We have managed to significantly increase the speed, so things are now running at acceptable speeds. We'll continue to improve that with an infrastructure rebuild if we meet with sufficient post-launch support.


Tuesday, September 20, 2016

SJWs never stop harassing

Guess which of the four items is the cause of the warning.

UPDATE: And now I'm temporarily locked out of my Twitter account. I doubt it is Twitter; I suspect someone has been trying to hack it.

What happened?

We have detected unusual activity on your account. For your security, your account has been locked until you change your password.

What can you do:
To secure your account, please change your password before logging back in.

Labels: ,

Mailvox: when your church converges

A reader in the Bay Area wonders what his options are:
I went to church today and I've been worried for a long time. There have been signs. The original church was extremely intellectual, led by a couple men I respect who learned Greek and Aramaic personally, research like none other and present the Bible in a way I'd never seen in regular church services. Two years ago one of those men was forced out, though I didn't see it at the time because he "left for a new position in another church". He was replaced by young, hipster types leading everything. The lead pastor, whom I also respect, has started backing off, only preaching once a month or so, doing other things while those younger "hipper" people take over.

A few months ago they started having a woman lead services. They brought in and merged with a chuch from a black area, brought in a lot more minority populations.

I noticed my wife, who's heavily involved in those small groups, started getting really passionate about Good Samaritan type projects and we had a few fights about how I was saying they were scams, as it was a lot of raising money type of deals.

Today it culminated where they actually brought in one of the 49ers who is protesting with Kaepernick and did a sermon on how the "disciples were diverse", and he gave a shpiel about how him and Kaepernick are going to "change the community, because cops can do better, we can do better." Full SJW lie with zero biblical basis. They opened with a video about multi-racial couples and talking about race and probably mentioned diversity 50 times over the course of the sermon.

I walked out during the 49er bit.  Now my wife is very very heavily involved in the smaller groups of the church. I grew up with a number of people so the prospect of leaving is like cutting off an arm. What do I do? Is leaving the only thing I can do?
Yes. It's time to leave. Do not discuss it with your wife. It's not something to negotiate; either you are the spiritual leader of the family or she is. Leave and find a new church. She may follow your lead, or she may not, but that's her responsibility, not yours.

Your responsibility is to lead the way. And the church you describe no longer serves the Lord, it serves the spirit of the world.

You were worried because your spirit was picking up on the false spirit that entered the church. Now your mind knows what your spirit already knew. The fact that the good pastor was forced out is a strong indicator that you are dealing with some knowingly evil people here, it's not a series of unfortunate coincidences.

Labels: ,

The growth of the Alt-Lite

The power of the Alt-Right message can be seen in those who are rejecting conservatism, classical liberalism, and other pure ideologies in favor of watered-down versions of the Alt-Right that Richard Spencer and others have collectively labeled the Alt-Lite. This is one thoughtful Alt-Lite piece by a self-declared Liberal Christian Nationalist who has, in his own words, embraced identity politics.
I think I am a “Liberal Christian Nationalist,” and, now that Christians arguably have no real influence in this country – just as they, particularly nationalists, have little influence in Europe (first see here ; then here and here) – this shouldn’t scare anyone.[i] I don’t expect to get too many of my fellow Americans to identify with me in this, nor does it mean I expect to see a LCN party arise. I suspect that the list that I have put together below though – explaining what I mean by “Liberal Christian Nationalism”, might be of more use to countries who are young when it comes to their Christian commitment.

Please note that these points deal with issues of “race” in some detail, since that is, I think, always the elephant in the room and demands thoughtful engagement. Further, in full disclosure, I put together this 32 point list in part in response to a list that the “Alt Right” leader, Vox Day (author of The Irrational Atheist), put together.

Before jumping into my list, a key point: in my view, the Leftism of today includes many who would consider themselves on the political right. Their philosophy is ultimately deferential to the language used in the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision of the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” (of course, logic tells us that “private beliefs” will ultimately only be permitted to be translated into action for some persons – others’ actions will inevitably be determined to be “out of bounds” – see below). A person who is conservative, on the other hand – including those who find room to account for the importance of identity in politics – would continue to agree with the words of the late Russel Kirk – or, perhaps, at least want to agree with him: “[conservatives are] all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.” “Conservatives” who say that what Kirk says is “no longer true” or irrelevant are being anything but conservative. After all, if what Kirk says it is no longer true, how was it ever more than an illusion to begin with (given that he speaks of the words “constant” and “enduring” as if these terms mean something)?

My list:
  1. The history of the world teaches us that the separation of religion and politics is ultimately untenable. Ironically, the possibility of conceiving of a “separation of church and state” could have only taken place in a nation that is largely made up of an influenced by Christians (“give to God what is God’s, to Caesar what is Caesar’s”), who justifiably, at their best, have a reputation for both being simple, humble, content, and not apt to glorify strength.
  2. The Bible is the Word of God. Whoever you are, Jesus Christ is your Creator, your God, your King. This is what Christians have always believed and taught. It is only for the sake of conversation and common ground with the world – all of whom we are to love with Christ’s love – that we might start by talking about how the Bible “contains God’s Word”, “contains the Gospel”, how Jesus is “our God,” or how we consider the Bible to be authoritative.
  3. If “true patriotism” means “freedom and equality not only for Americans but for all people on earth,” as Eleanor Roosevelt said, one should consider supporting Christian missionaries who share the Gospel of Jesus Christ – His defeat of sin, death and the devil for us through the (unlikely) victory at the cross vindicated by the resurrection – out of sincere conviction and not with any colonial-esque designs.
  4. Those countries who have attained a high level of political liberty, including freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion – as well as greater effectiveness, mobility, and choice when it comes to economic issues (made possible by increased trust) – are nations that have been greatly influenced by Christianity.
  5. Greco-Roman culture, as well as the Renaissance and Enlightenment which drew from it, forced Western forms of Christianity to become much more reflective and nuanced in their understanding of biblical truths. Christianity also seeks to appreciate what is good, true, and beautiful from all cultures (see Philippians 4:8).
  6. Christians are first and foremost citizens of heaven, not earth. In, but not of the world, their “dual ethnicity” means that they belong first to the kingdom of heaven, and are members of “God’s chosen ethnos” (I Peter 2:9). Though all are one “in Adam,” God has, post-fall, also ordained a diversity of nations (see Acts 17:26), from whom He will obtain worship (Rev. 7:9).
  7. Biblically, earthly nations are inseparable from the concept of “ethnos,” from which we get “ethnicity”. In like fashion “genos”, from where we get “genes,” can be translated as offspring, family, race, nation, kind, or even sex. We see that these terms involve notions of blood and parentage, even if “ethnos” is more closely connected than “genos” with our notions of culture.
  8. Ultimately, the Church is a new Nation that re-unites, by faith in Christ, persons not just from this or that race, tribe, or nation, but from the entire human family – making one Nation, or, more accurately, Kingdom, to whom all the earthly nations will stream in the life to come, “Kingdom come”.
  9. The idea to rather sharply distinguish “church and state” comes from Jesus Christ Himself. He said to “give to God what is God’s and Caesar what is Caesar’s”. It is desirable that the Church and earthly nations support one another even as it is also desirable that each stay out of the other’s core business – the Church forgiving sin and giving eternal life, nations protecting their people while seeking truth and justice.
  10. It may indeed be better to be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian (mis-attributed to the 16th Church Reformer Martin Luther, though it might seem to sum up his thinking well) though even with this consideration (which seems not to be mindful about continuity), the ideal or preferred persons to lead a nation are, in general, Christians with political gifts – not the leaders of the Church, but Christians nonetheless.
  11. In contrast to some, there is nothing in the Christian religion that demands we, in our earthly sojourn, must have Christian rulers or even a certain kind of government. If a beloved Christian chieftain or king were to step down to establish a democracy, even with the caveat that the elected ruler must be Christian (e.g. “firm Nicean”) – or at least persons sympathetic to Christianity – it is reasonable to debate whether or not this would, generally speaking, be a responsible move.
  12. Nevertheless, there is no theological reason, in theory, that a Democratic or Republican (understood classically, not in terms of the American political parties) Liberal Christian Nation should not be desirable – along with the desire to keep it thusly (Ben Franklin: “A Republic – if you can keep it” – see here).
  13. But if this is the case, here, a “balance of powers” is only one part of the puzzle. Collective theological – and hence cultural – formation must be seen as being absolutely critical: in order to have equality under the law, real respect for the dignity and rights of each individual, a wise degree of cultural tolerance, etc., one must, simply, have Christian teaching. “Liberal Christianity” and their progressive allies are, in fact, parasitical here (see here).
  14. As “childless men who had forgotten their childhoods” (Bertand de Jovenel), Hobbes and Locke (largely followed by Leo Strauss, the father of “neo-conservatism”) believed the false philosophy that we are by nature “free and independent,” naturally “ungoverned and even non-relational.” (see here) Hypothesizing “states” (personal and corporate!) that are devoid of nationality, ethnicity, and religion is simply unreasonable, and can’t not result in expressions of social Darwinism, glorifying the powerful and attractive, and impatient with, and dismissive towards (or worse) “losers”.
  15. When it comes to the sexes, the Left has, in essence, rejected fatherhood as a category. Might not the rejection of the notion of “fatherland” by related? (this article is worth pondering) America cannot be “an idea,” however much that statement might force us to consider its seemingly unique qualities.
The list actually consists of 32 points, but you can read the whole thing there. Unlike the intellectually autistic spergs of the Alt-White, I welcome the rapid expansion of the Alt-Lite, as it drives even more nails in the coffin of ineffective ideology politics in general and American conservatism in particular.

Labels: ,

Milo crushes it in Houston

"This room is a vision of what America should look like in 20 years."

What concerned members of the Alt-White branch of the Alt-Right really need to keep in mind is that attempting to criticize or control Milo is like trying to criticize or control a Category V Hurricane. It is not even wrong, or misguided, it is simply a category error. One cannot leash a force of nature.

Richard Spencer is correct to say that Milo is Alt-Lite, not Alt-Right. But that's just fine. And keep in mind that the whole force of the mainstream media's hatred only made him stronger, so what do you think adding your weight to the collective disapproval of him is going to accomplish. Milo listens to no one but his friends and allies. If you wish to have any influence on him at all, you had better learn to appreciate him and bring something to the table besides criticism and disapproval.

Entryism is always a legitimate concern. But the only way the Alt-Right will become irrelevant is if it succumbs to the tendency of its Alt-White spergs to purity-spiral into their own navels, in which case it will be entirely replaced by the Alt-Lite. However, I think this is unlikely because the Alt-West branch is considerably less prone to purity spirals and welcomes the training grounds offered by the Alt-Lite.

However, I am done trying to talk sense into Alt-Whites who are paranoid about those they deem "e-celebs" and determined to make neither friends nor allies of anyone who is not 100 percent white and does not buy 100 percent into whatever it is that they believe. They are irrelevant and we need not concern ourselves with them. To the extent they trouble to shoot at the Left instead of demonstrating their purity by aiming at us, they are useful, and that is sufficient reason to ignore their occasional attacks directed our way.

Labels: ,

Converged beyond belief

A few weeks ago, it became apparent that AirBnB was fully SJW-converged, as they announced plans to try to keep homeowners from being able to discriminate with regards to who was permitted to stay in their homes. But they're even worse than one might imagine:

Airbnb ‏@Airbnb
We believe in a world where you can #BelongAnywhere. Today there are millions of displaced refugees in need of belonging somewhere.

Airbnb ‏@Airbnb 13 hours ago
We stand #WithRefugees -- the millions who have had to leave everything behind, including their homes.

What a creepy pro-invasion image. HERE COME THE DEVIL ZOMBIE PEOPLE! And they're going to STAY IN YOUR HOUSE! I've never used their service before, but taking this stance guarantees that I never will. If you Belong Anywhere, you belong nowhere, to no one.

Labels: ,

Monday, September 19, 2016

Increasingly desperate

Now the media is "quoting" Donald Trump saying things he did not say. CNN actually inserted the word "racial". Because, you see, if they just insinuate that he is RACIST one more time, that will salvage Hillary Clinton's flagging campaign.

As Scott Adams observed earlier today, "Everyone knows it's over. But not everyone can say it yet."

But it's over. Trump will be the next President of the USA and it's not even going to be close.

Labels: ,

The cowardly commissioner

Roger Goodell has put his foot in it again because he's an indecisive coward who always seeks to work around the issue rather than address it directly. A USMC colonel writes a scathing letter to Goodell:
You are complicit in this! You’ll fine players for large and small infractions but you lack the moral courage and respect for our nation and the fallen to put an immediate stop to this. Yes, I know, it’s their 1st Amendment right to behave in such a despicable manner.

What would happen if they came out and disrespected you or the refs publicly?

I observed a player getting a personal foul for twerking in the end zone after scoring. I guess that’s much worse than disrespecting the flag and our National Anthem. Hmmmmm, isn’t it his 1st Amendment right to express himself like an idiot in the end zone?

Why is taunting not allowed yet taunting America is OK? You fine players for wearing 9-11 commemorative shoes yet you allow scum on the sidelines to sit, kneel or pump their pathetic fist in the air. They are so deprived with their multi-million dollar contracts for playing a freaking game!

You condone it all by your refusal to act.
The Marine officer hits the key point. Since the NFL aggressively fines its players for other protected expressions, its failure to do so when the players are openly disrespecting the flag and the national anthem makes them complicit in that disrespect.

Personally, I thought Bud Grant did it right. Line up straight, stand at attention, and provide a good example of discipline and respect for the kids. I was always proud of how the Grant-era Vikings looked in comparison with the slovenly, undisciplined other teams.

There is nothing wrong with what the players are doing, anymore than there was anything wrong with John Randle painting his face or Jim McMahon wearing his headbands. But the NFL's hypocrisy with regards to the matter is both wrong and contemptible.


Why the Left hates HP Lovecraft

They hate Lovecraft because he saw the future, and the evil that the immigrants would commit, and the harm they would do to America, much more clearly than any of the vaunted science fiction writers ever did.

The Street
H.P. Lovecraft

There be those who say that things and places have souls, and there be those who say they have not; I dare not say, myself, but I will tell of The Street.

     Men of strength and honour fashioned that Street; good, valiant men of our blood who had come from the Blessed Isles across the sea. At first it was but a path trodden by bearers of water from the woodland spring to the cluster of houses by the beach. Then, as more men came to the growing cluster of houses and looked about for places to dwell, they built cabins along the north side; cabins of stout oaken logs with masonry on the side toward the forest, for many Indians lurked there with fire-arrows. And in a few years more, men built cabins on the south side of The Street.

     Up and down The Street walked grave men in conical hats, who most of the time carried muskets or fowling pieces. And there were also their bonneted wives and sober children. In the evening these men with their wives and children would sit about gigantic hearths and read and speak. Very simple were the things of which they read and spoke, yet things which gave them courage and goodness and helped them by day to subdue the forest and till the fields. And the children would listen, and learn of the laws and deeds of old, and of that dear England which they had never seen, or could not remember.

     There was war, and thereafter no more Indians troubled The Street. The men, busy with labour, waxed prosperous and as happy as they knew how to be. And the children grew up comfortably, and more families came from the Mother Land to dwell on The Street. And the children’s children, and the newcomers’ children, grew up. The town was now a city, and one by one the cabins gave place to houses; simple, beautiful houses of brick and wood, with stone steps and iron railings and fanlights over the doors. No flimsy creations were these houses, for they were made to serve many a generation. Within there were carven mantels and graceful stairs, and sensible, pleasing furniture, china, and silver, brought from the Mother Land.

     So The Street drank in the dreams of a young people, and rejoiced as its dwellers became more graceful and happy. Where once had been only strength and honour, taste and learning now abode as well. Books and paintings and music came to the houses, and the young men went to the university which rose above the plain to the north. In the place of conical hats and muskets there were three-cornered hats and small-swords, and lace and snowy periwigs. And there were cobblestones over which clattered many a blooded horse and rumbled many a gilded coach; and brick sidewalks with horse blocks and hitching-posts.

     There were in that Street many trees; elms and oaks and maples of dignity; so that in the summer the scene was all soft verdure and twittering bird-song. And behind the houses were walled rose-gardens with hedged paths and sundials, where at evening the moon and stars would shine bewitchingly while fragrant blossoms glistened with dew.

     So The Street dreamed on, past wars, calamities, and changes. Once most of the young men went away, and some never came back. That was when they furled the Old Flag and put up a new Banner of Stripes and Stars. But though men talked of great changes, The Street felt them not; for its folk were still the same, speaking of the old familiar things in the old familiar accents. And the trees still sheltered singing birds, and at evening the moon and stars looked down upon dewy blossoms in the walled rose-gardens.

     In time there were no more swords, three-cornered hats, or periwigs in The Street. How strange seemed the denizens with their walking-sticks, tall beavers, and cropped heads! New sounds came from the distance—first strange puffings and shrieks from the river a mile away, and then, many years later, strange puffings and shrieks and rumblings from other directions. The air was not quite so pure as before, but the spirit of the place had not changed. The blood and soul of the people were as the blood and soul of their ancestors who had fashioned The Street. Nor did the spirit change when they tore open the earth to lay down strange pipes, or when they set up tall posts bearing weird wires. There was so much ancient lore in that Street, that the past could not easily be forgotten.

     Then came days of evil, when many who had known The Street of old knew it no more; and many knew it, who had not known it before. And those who came were never as those who went away; for their accents were coarse and strident, and their mien and faces unpleasing. Their thoughts, too, fought with the wise, just spirit of The Street, so that The street pined silently as its houses fell into decay, and its trees died one by one, and its rose-gardens grew rank with weeds and waste. But it felt a stir of pride one day when again marched forth young men, some of whom never came back. These young men were clad in blue.

     With the years worse fortune came to The Street. Its trees were all gone now, and its rose-gardens were displaced by the backs of cheap, ugly new buildings on parallel streets. Yet the houses remained, despite the ravages of the years and the storms and worms, for they had been made to serve many a generation. New kinds of faces appeared in The Street; swarthy, sinister faces with furtive eyes and odd features, whose owners spoke unfamiliar words and placed signs in known and unknown characters upon most of the musty houses. Push-carts crowded the gutters. A sordid, undefinable stench settled over the place, and the ancient spirit slept.

     Great excitement once came to The Street. War and revolution were raging across the seas; a dynasty had collapsed, and its degenerate subjects were flocking with dubious intent to the Western Land. Many of these took lodgings in the battered houses that had once known the songs of birds and the scent of roses. Then the Western Land itself awoke, and joined the Mother Land in her titanic struggle for civilisation. Over the cities once more floated the Old Flag, companioned by the New Flag and by a plainer yet glorious Tri-colour. But not many flags floated over The Street, for therein brooded only fear and hatred and ignorance. Again young men went forth, but not quite as did the young men of those other days. Something was lacking. And the sons of those young men of other days, who did indeed go forth in olive-drab with the true spirit of their ancestors, went from distant places and knew not The Street and its ancient spirit.

     Over the seas there was a great victory, and in triumph most of the young men returned. Those who had lacked something lacked it no longer, yet did fear and hatred and ignorance still brood over The Street; for many had stayed behind, and many strangers had come from distant places to the ancient houses. And the young men who had returned dwelt there no longer. Swarthy and sinister were most of the strangers, yet among them one might find a few faces like those who fashioned The Street and moulded its spirit. Like and yet unlike, for there was in the eyes of all a weird, unhealthy glitter as of greed, ambition, vindictiveness, or misguided zeal. Unrest and treason were abroad amongst an evil few who plotted to strike the Western Land its death-blow, that they might mount to power over its ruins; even as assassins had mounted in that unhappy, frozen land from whence most of them had come. And the heart of that plotting was in The Street, whose crumbling houses teemed with alien makers of discord and echoed with the plans and speeches of those who yearned for the appointed day of blood, flame, and crime.

     Of the various odd assemblages in The Street, the law said much but could prove little. With great diligence did men of hidden badges linger and listen about such places as Petrovitch’s Bakery, the squalid Rifkin School of Modern Economics, the Circle Social Club, and the Liberty Café. There congregated sinister men in great numbers, yet always was their speech guarded or in a foreign tongue. And still the old houses stood, with their forgotten lore of nobler, departed centuries; of sturdy colonial tenants and dewy rose-gardens in the moonlight. Sometimes a lone poet or traveller would come to view them, and would try to picture them in their vanished glory; yet of such travellers and poets there were not many.

     The rumour now spread widely that these houses contained the leaders of a vast band of terrorists, who on a designated day were to launch an orgy of slaughter for the extermination of America and of all the fine old traditions which The Street had loved. Handbills and papers fluttered about filthy gutters; handbills and papers printed in many tongues and in many characters, yet all bearing messages of crime and rebellion. In these writings the people were urged to tear down the laws and virtues that our fathers had exalted; to stamp out the soul of the old America—the soul that was bequeathed through a thousand and a half years of Anglo-Saxon freedom, justice, and moderation. It was said that the swart men who dwelt in The Street and congregated in its rotting edifices were the brains of a hideous revolution; that at their word of command many millions of brainless, besotted beasts would stretch forth their noisome talons from the slums of a thousand cities, burning, slaying, and destroying till the land of our fathers should be no more. All this was said and repeated, and many looked forward in dread to the fourth day of July, about which the strange writings hinted much; yet could nothing be found to place the guilt. None could tell just whose arrest might cut off the damnable plotting at its source. Many times came bands of blue-coated police to search the shaky houses, though at last they ceased to come; for they too had grown tired of law and order, and had abandoned all the city to its fate. Then men in olive-drab came, bearing muskets; till it seemed as if in its sad sleep The Street must have some haunting dreams of those other days, when musket-bearing men in conical hats walked along it from the woodland spring to the cluster of houses by the beach. Yet could no act be performed to check the impending cataclysm; for the swart, sinister men were old in cunning.

     So The Street slept uneasily on, till one night there gathered in Petrovitch’s Bakery and the Rifkin School of Modern Economics, and the Circle Social Club, and Liberty Café, and in other places as well, vast hordes of men whose eyes were big with horrible triumph and expectation. Over hidden wires strange messages travelled, and much was said of still stranger messages yet to travel; but most of this was not guessed till afterward,when the Western Land was safe from the peril. The men in olive-drab could not tell what was happening, or what they ought to do; for the swart, sinister men were skilled in subtlety and concealment.

     And yet the men in olive-drab will always remember that night, and will speak of The Street as they tell of it to their grandchildren; for many of them were sent there toward morning on a mission unlike that which they had expected. It was known that this nest of anarchy was old, and that the houses were tottering from the ravages of the years and the storms and the worms; yet was the happening of that summer night a surprise because of its very queer uniformity. It was, indeed, an exceedingly singular happening; though after all a simple one. For without warning, in one of the small hours beyond midnight, all the ravages of the years and the storms and the worms came to a tremendous climax; and after the crash there was nothing left standing in The Street save two ancient chimneys and part of a stout brick wall. Nor did anything that had been alive come alive from the ruins.

     A poet and a traveller, who came with the mighty crowd that sought the scene, tell odd stories. The poet says that all through the hours before dawn he beheld sordid ruins but indistinctly in the glare of the arc-lights; that there loomed above the wreckage another picture wherein he could descry moonlight and fair houses and elms and oaks and maples of dignity. And the traveller declares that instead of the place’s wonted stench there lingered a delicate fragrance as of roses in full bloom. But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?

     There be those who say that things and places have souls, and there be those who say they have not; I dare not say, myself, but I have told you of The Street.


Older Posts