Year: 2023

The Cancellation of Russell Brand

The Clown signal has gone out and Russell Brand is being mass-swarmed in the media by women accusing him of rape, sexual assault, emotional abuse, and sinister behavior toward women:

TV bosses have been accused of offering to take female staff members off shows fronted by Russell Brand after concerns about his alleged behaviour were raised.

It comes amid reports that accusations about his ‘sinister’ behaviour towards women were an ‘open secret’ among TV and radio executives.

Some former staff members who worked with him during his time on Big Brother’s EFourum claimed they were ‘acting like pimps to Russell Brand’s needs’ as he demanded they get the numbers of girls from the audience for him.

Bosses at the BBC and Channel 4 are accused of turning a blind eye towards the entertainer’s behaviour while he worked for them as a presenter between 2006 and 2013.

The broadcasters have insisted they took all necessary steps deal with him, but executives could still be called before a Government select committee where MPs will grill them over what they knew.

The 48-year-old’s behaviour is alleged to have been common knowledge among female performers on the comedy circuit, who are said to have warned each other about him.

Brand has been accused of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse by multiple women, including one who says she was 16 at the time.

I’m not defending Russell Brand. He’s an awful guy, a drug addict who was embraced by the Hellmouth and married to an Illuminati princess. He has eminently earned his cancellation, and the public discourse will not be harmed one iota by his public and permanent erasure from it. He does not have, and has never had, anything of substance to offer the stream of public consciousness.

That being said, it is interesting to ask why he is being cancelled at this late date and at this juncture. Is it because he is genuinely reformed and repentant, and therefore must be destroyed like any other ticket-taker who reneges on his contract pour encourager les autres? Is it part of a masquerade to set him up as a new gatekeeper in the mode of other fake-cancellations like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate? Did he simply cross the wrong dark master at the wrong time? Or does he know something that Clown World is desperate to prevent him revealing to the rest of the planet?

Regardless of what the real reason is, never forget that neither cancellation nor opprobrium from Clown World makes an individual a hero, a good guy, a leader, or someone worthy of taking seriously.

UPDATE: It’s fascinating to see how celebrities are protected from every form of criticism and investigation, until they’re not.

Channel 4, BBC and the police have all launched probes into Russell Brand’s behaviour in light of rape and sexual assault allegations

DISCUSS ON SG

Some Doubts About Natural Rights

Paul Gottfried expresses his doubts about the Enlightenment concept of natural right defended by Michael Anton:

Michael Anton has reiterated his deep, passionate belief in “natural right” but (alas!) has still not convinced me that I must embrace this idea for the greater social good. I’m also not sure why American youth would find his belief more compelling than other commitments inherited from the past, for example, belief in the Bible as a divinely revealed document or in America’s constitutional foundations.

Supposedly something called “modernity” requires us to opt for Mr. Anton’s answer to social dissolution. The American conservative establishment and Republican talking heads seem to agree with him. They have placed so much rhetorical effort in pushing the idea of inborn individual rights that every time I flip on Fox News someone is solemnly proclaiming a “God-given right.” Whether this has been a wise investment of effort is doubtful, since our ascribed or claimed natural rights continue to multiply, but not always in a way that would please Mr. Anton. Some establishment conservative commentators have been lately characterizing gay marriage as an inborn individual right, and I’ve no doubt that this exercise of choice is already joining the laundry list of the conservative movement’s inalienable rights.

I fully understand the distinction Mr. Anton is drawing between natural right as something that is attached to us by an authority outside of ourselves and which we discover through investigation, and mere “rights” that we presumably invent for ourselves. But like traditional religion, his concept rests on a leap of faith, and its content, as I have already explained, is far from self-evident. Why should his tradition seem more convincing than other traditions that have fallen out of favor? I doubt that his metaphysic of natural right is more compelling to the American public than my invocation of history and tradition. The moral foundations of the American nation were in reality shaped by religion and custom, not by an Enlightenment contrivance.

Mr. Anton is correct that it’s highly unlikely that an early American political figure who invoked natural right would have included gay marriage among his list of inborn human rights. But a progressive today can legitimately argue from a natural right perspective that this may be attributable to our ancestors’ lack of imagination or to a failure to grasp the full implications of natural right thinking. In the present age, the notion of inborn individual rights has led more often in a progressive direction than a conservative one. Furthermore, the revulsion of the 18th-century American for the idea of gay marriage likely came from his biblical morality, not from declarations of natural rights in the political documents of the time. His morality had a deeper and, in the 18th century, more prevalent source independent of talk about natural rights.

I’m deeply skeptical about natural rights myself, due to the poison fruit that has observably grown from their Enlightenment seeds. But I’ll have to read all three pieces before I express my own opinion on the subject. Natural rights tend to strike me more as effective political rhetoric than a strong dialectic foundation for a political philosophy.

And where what Chesterton described as “the democracy of the dead” contradicts the various emanations and penumbras wafting off the stinking pile of natural rights, it’s now obvious that tradition, be it familial, ethnic, or religious, reliably trumps the philosophers’ meanderings.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Governs Its Own People

A civnat and imperial subject expresses his horror of a nation daring to govern its own nationals:

Beijing is obsessed with suppressing dissent among ethnic Chinese living in democracies and has no hesitation intimidating human-rights activists and dissidents in the West.

Beijing calls it, euphemistically, ‘persuade to return’ and thinks it legitimate because democracies will, by and large, not extradite people to dictatorships like China. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has effectively banned its member states (which include Britain) from extraditing to China anyone under their jurisdiction. Hence the ‘persuasion’.

China thinks it has a right to enforce this because, under Chinese law, its citizens are subject to Communist Party law wherever they live. And China’s National Intelligence Law requires its people and companies to assist Beijing’s spies whenever requested — and to keep that assistance secret.

The irony of paper citizens arguing that borders don’t exist and the economy is global, but that the Chinese people don’t have the right to govern Chinese people around the world, requires a degree of intellectual incoherence that is both impressive and historically ignorant.

Meanwhile, they have no problem with private corporations attempting to control the behavior of people of every nation, everywhere around the world.

Again, the incoherence is astounding. Especially when it wasn’t until November 1991 that the USA defined economic growth in terms of state-based Gross Domestic Product rather than the historical nation-based Gross National Product.

Finally, it’s more than a bit ironic that the article warns about China infiltrating and making use of the Five Eyes surveillance system used by Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States to spy on each other’s citizens.

DISCUSS ON SG

Friday Arktoons

三更战 Episode 2: 兄弟，滚！

ALICE IN WONDERLAND Episode 2: DRINK ME

CHATEAU GRIEF Episode 290: Oh the Human-itee

STONETOSS Episode 224: DragonballSea

TATTERS Episode 15: the day

CHUCK DIXON PRESENTS: ADVENTURE Episode 92: The Brigand

BEN GARRISON Episode 115: The Squatter in Your House

50 YEARS LATER Episode 7: Dark Escape

WOLFRAN THE KNIGHT AVENGER Episode 8: Purging the Winged Demons

THE SIEGE OF THE BLACK CITADEL Episode 12: The Great Ram

Faux Christian Nationalism

Douglas Wilson can’t give up his Boomer addiction to Enlightenment ideals:

A summary of Doug Wilson’s argument in “Mere Christendom” insisting that the Magistrate should not enforce blasphemy laws.;

As a theonomist Wilson believes in “the need to restore the Bible as the quarry from which to obtain the needed stone for our foundations of social order” (149), he strongly argues against state imposed punishment for blasphemy. He reminds us that “those who want the government to have the right to kill blasphemers are also asking for the government to have the right to kill those who rebuke their (the government’s) blasphemies” (157), and “When you give the state power to punish a blasphemer, you are giving the state the power to blaspheme with impunity” (171). Wilson argues that inherent protection of free speech by limiting the state’s power “is the theo-political genius of Christianity” (171). He argues that “The founding of our nation really was exceptional, because the men who drafted our Constitution knew that American politicians, taking one thing with another, would be every bit as sleazy as the same class of men from any other clime” (201).

There are political wolves in sheep’s clothing just as there are religious wolves in sheep’s clothing. Evil men are going to do what evil men do, regardless of what good Christian men do. We already know, we have a massive surfeit of knowledge, of what happens when Christian men do not enforce Christian societal norms.

What this reveals is that Wilson is more dedicated to his Enlightenment ideals than his Christian ideals. I have no doubt that he is also an ersatz nationalist, which is to say, a common Churchian civnat who makes positive noises about tribes and nations, but as with blasphemy, refuses to acknowledge the right of the state to enforce the nation’s will.

The protection of free speech has literally nothing to do with Christianity, much less represents its “theo-political genius”. That is pure bafflegarble worthy of Jordan Peterson his own babbling self. Free speech is just another false virtue no more worth of state protection than equality, diversity, anti-racism, or the free movement of peoples.

Iron Ink is correct in his dismissal of Wilson’s Churchian drivel. “Rev. Wilson’s operating principle at work here is: give no one the power for good if they can use it for evil. Which of course reaches beyond absurd into the zip code of Nutville.”

DISCUSS ON SG

Forecast: Light Posting

Posting will be light today and tomorrow. It’s a good time to get caught up on Arktoons and UATV. The most recent episode of THE SIEGE OF THE BLACK CITADEL now features illustrations from the 1.1 edition of the novel, and the most recent Darkstream offers some perspicacious advice on Deltas being Deltas.

It’s all good, no worries.

DISCUSS ON SG

Reclaiming Their Name

“When someone conquers you, the first thing they will do is change your name. This is the technology of dominance, the technology of enslavement.”

India is the colonial-era name for the subcontinental state. Hindoo – Hindustan – Industan – India.

Hence the choice to adopt Bharat as the name for their country is an expression of anti-Clown World nationalism, as the clowns recognize.

There are some detractors, though, who believe the new posture change is a dangerous shift in the Hindu nationalist movement, and may spark repressions against ethnic minorities.

So touching, these endless concerns for ethnic minorities.

DISCUSS ON SG

Birth of the Neoclown World Order

The neoclowns are officially declaring the end of the “Old World Order” that began in 1989:

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has claimed the world is transitioning to a new diplomatic order in which Washington must lead the way in overcoming increasing threats from Russia and China.

“One era is ending, a new one is beginning, and the decisions that we make now will shape the future for decades to come,” Blinken said on Wednesday in a speech at John Hopkins University in Washington. He said the “post-Cold War order” ended as “decades of relative geopolitical stability have given way to an intensifying competition with authoritarian powers.”

Those powers are led by Russia and China, Blinken said, adding that “Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine is the most immediate, the most acute threat to the international order.” China poses the biggest long-term challenge, he claimed, because it aspires to reshape the international order and is developing the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to do so.

“Beijing and Moscow are working together to make the world safe for autocracy through their ‘no limits’ partnership,” Blinken argued. He claimed that Russia and China have framed the existing order as a “Western imposition,” but that system is, he claimed, anchored in universal values and enshrined in international law. Ironically, he also accused the two rivals of believing that big countries can “dictate their choices to others,” a charge that is increasingly made against Washington.

“When the Beijings and Moscows of the world try to rewrite – or rip down – the pillars of the multilateral system, when they falsely claim that the order exists merely to advance the interests of the West at the expense of the rest, a growing global chorus of nations and people will stand up to say, ‘No, the system you are trying to change is our system. It serves our interests,’” Blinken claimed.

One wonders who Blinken thinks he is fooling, besides a paltry number of Americans and Europeans who have no ability to distinguish between the Old World Order and the Neoclown World Order. The reality is that the “post-Cold War order” is what we know as Clown World, which financially pillaged both the USA and Russia, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Four Asian Tigers.

Now that China and Russia are standing firmly against Clown World, and have been joined by the growing number of BRICS nations, the neoclowns are attempting to put an appealing new spin on their corrupt, satanic system.

But the old lies won’t work anymore. The inversions are all-too-easily recognized. Democracy is a lie. Freedom is a lie. Human rights are a lie. Free speech is a lie. Equality is a lie. Ideology of every flavor is a collection of lies. They are all observable lies that lead inexorably to Hell on Earth. Babelism is Babelism, by any name the same.

But the nations persist. And the nations will survive, although many states will not.

DISCUSS ON SG

Only Cowards Don’t See Color

A lot of white people, particularly Boomers, proudly proclaim that they “don’t see color”. They seriously believe that’s not a character defect, but a virtue of some kind. The problem is that an unwillingness to recognize racial and ethnic identities is not a virtue, it’s a hideous and cowardly vice.

I wonder if the self-righteous colorblind can manage to see any color here?

A group of blacks attack a white couple in Maryland. These sickening attacks have become more and more common and the media remain tight lipped.

This sort of vibrant attack on a white couple is far from an isolated incident.

White woman tries to save her boyfriend from a black man, and he knocks her out cold. The hostility towards Whites is accelerating.

And they’re not going to end until whites decide that they can, after all, see what everyone else clearly can. Because, ladies and gentlemen, you’re the Indians now.

DISCUSS ON SG

Playing the Divorce Hand

From a discussion of an incipient divorce on SocialGalactic:

Son’s wife is definitely going to divorce him. Said they could do 50/50 custody. Son taking Vox’s advice, says he’s not going to play the custody game and argue over every little life decision with her. If she wants her “freedom,” he wants full custody, if she won’t give it to him, then she can have full custody and responsibility for the two kids 24/7/365. Says she was shocked to hear it, thinking she was going to have a nice set up. Says she’ll take full custody then. I think she thinks he’s bluffing.

My wife is aghast that he’s taken this position, but I agree it’s the right course. His wife can’t manage without him pitching in considerably. No way she’s going to do it without him in the picture helping out, working full time, and trapped at home every night as the kids sleep. She has no local support network. Even if she goes through with taking full custody, I can’t see her keeping it.

It’s a brutal and difficult decision, but it is the right one in the situation of a wife-driven divorce. Given the way the legal deck is stacked against men in the USA, she will have de facto full custody regardless of what the court-ordered custody structure is, only she will also have effective practical control of him as well.

This all-or-nothing approach leaves him a mostly free agent who has room to operate when she slips up somehow or tires of bearing the sole burden of single parenthood, as she probably will. A positive outcome is absolutely not guaranteed, but the probability of one is in his favor given what is known of her character.

The fact that she was shocked is good. It means she never even contemplated what is now the most likely outcome. And the possibility of turning all the responsibility for the children over to her ex-husband is going to grow more and more tempting to her over time, especially when she wants to pursue men who will be actively dissuaded by her having children.

Son’s wife definitely is not getting it. She made a list of what she wants in the mediation agreement. After listing several household items, she included “100% legal and physical custody” of the children. She then went on to list that visitation will be decided at the beginning of each month, with her getting at least one weekend with the girls. My son is resetting her expectations that she will have them every weekend, all weekend, and every evening as well.

Notice the wife’s incoherent desires and her inability to understand what 100-percent custody means. It’s simply not wise to base one’s strategy on such a creature’s ability to recognize, let alone be reasonable about, the best interests of the children.

As Sun Tzu says, to win, one must know the enemy as well as knowing oneself. This is why Deltas so often lose in situations they could easily win, as they make no effort to understand or anticipate their opposition, but are more concerned about being seen to be doing the right thing. Howeve, the last thing a woman who is ending her marriage in search of fun and freedom wants is to be tied down full-time by her children, with even less time for fun and games than she had when she was married.

It may sound callous and counterintuitive, but the observable fact is that in certain situations, the best way a man can protect his children is by demonstrating that he is willing to walk away from them.

DISCUSS ON SG