Mailvox: the moronic angle

It seems even long-time commenters here never learn to stop clinging to their false assumptions when I call them into question:

Vox, the Chinese are communist butchers. They are no more moral than we are. They are just as much sadistic murderers as the worst of the paper Americans or PP demons. They have slaughtered at least as many or more of their own people as America has killed unborn children. I don’t know what your UHIQ angle is here, but I’d sure love to know. If you don’t have an angle here, you are dead fucking wrong about the Chinese.

Look,  everyone needs to simply get over their childhood upbringings and drop their kneejerk moronics. I know far more about Chinese history and culture than most of the readers here, as those who live there and speak the language can testify, even though my focus as an East Asian Studies major was on Japan. And my exposure to YouTube has not heightened my tolerance for the clueless ignorati that knows absolutely nothing about a subject in question attempting to ‘correct” me.

 The China today is not the China of 221 BC or 1973 AD. The Chinese leadership today has less in common with Mao than Obama did with Eisenhower. It is simply risible how self-appointed foreign policy experts who don’t even have passports go from blathering about how Europe is lost to the way China is doomed, blithely serene in their confidence that the USA will always be the greatest, wealthiest, most free country forever and ever, world without end.

Xi is not Deng is not Mao. It is readily apparent to even the most casual observer that China and the USA are on different moral trajectories. One society is trying to encourage people to get married, take pride in their nation, and stop spitting in public, the other is trying to encourage drag queen reading hour, soldiers in heels, and surgical sexual mutilation. One society is punishing those who have a servile attitude to foreign countries, the other has made it a criminal offense to criticize or refuse to buy from a certain foreign country. One society is proudly nationalist, the other silences, disemploys, and attacks its nationalists.

I further note that George Soros considers Xi Jinping the most dangerous enemy to his satanic globalist ideology. Not the Pope, not Orban, not Trump, not even Putin, but Xi.

One society is observably assembling the building blocks for sustainable success, the other is actively tearing apart its foundations. And it doesn’t require UHQ to determine, on that basis, which society is currently favored by the probabilities. It’s long past time to get over the 1970s and Boomer fears about “the ChiComs and Russkies”.


Welcome to Finance World Hell

The media is finally suffering the inevitable effects of financial predation and is now crying about the very “economic efficiencies” they used to celebrate in the industrial sector:

Their employees call them “soulless” and “vultures” — as does presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Their focus on cost cutting has sparked newsroom rebellions. And they are snapping up more and more of the media landscape.

These days, whenever there is an uprising in the media business, the chances are that a private equity firm is involved. The latest clash happened this week at the sports website Deadspin, where the interim editor in chief said he was fired for refusing to limit the site’s focus to sports coverage. Afterward, at least eight journalists resigned in protest, including more than half of the site’s writers.

Sanders, the independent Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination for president, chimed in late Thursday with a tweet supporting Deadspin workers and lambasting Jim Spanfeller, chief executive officer of Deadspin parent G/O Media.

G/O Media is a collection of websites owned by the private equity firm Great Hill Partners. Two months earlier, Deadspin’s former editor in chief also quit, claiming that Great Hill Partners wanted to cash out quickly rather than invest in the long-term growth of the site.

It’s never quite as fun when it’s your own ox getting gored, is it? Learn to code….


The real British civil war

It’s not Brexit, it’s the Sussex Rebellion against the Crown:

Prince Harry and his renegade wife, Meghan, threw a tantrum and reportedly threatened to quit the Royal Family during a bitter confrontation with the Queen, insiders said. But if the pair were hoping the 93-year-old monarch would beg them to stay, they were flat-out wrong, RadarOnline.com has learned.

“Her Majesty called their bluff. She told them that she was delighted with their decision and couldn’t wait for them to leave,” a high-level palace courtier told Radar.

But that wasn’t the Queen’s only payback for the “divisive” couple, who committed the cardinal sin of dissing royal life in public.

The source claims she “stripped them of their royal titles, their newly renovated home, Frogmore Cottage — and about $15 million in financial support.

Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. But it would be massively hilarious if it turned out to be true. Gentlemen, never, ever, marry a malignant narcissist. Prince Harry could have, and should have, married a nice English Rose and lived a happy, prosperous life of service to the English nation. Instead, he went outside his nation and against his family, and now he is only beginning to pay the price.

This is the family that banished a king, after all. They wouldn’t hesitate to banish a mere duke who has repeatedly embarrassed them.


Ascendancy vs degeneracy

In case you still haven’t accepted that China is going to surpass the United States as the leading global power before the middle of the 21st century yet, consider the difference between the moral trajectory of the two societies.

From budgeting for rural weddings to dressing appropriately and avoiding online porn, China’s Communist Party has issued new guidelines to improve the “moral quality” of its citizens. Officials have released several sets of guidelines this week alongside a secretive conclave of high-ranking officials in Beijing which discusses the country’s future direction.

On Sunday the government published its “Outline for the Implementation of Citizen Moral Construction in the New Era” — which advises readers how to use the internet, raise children, celebrate public holidays and behave while travelling abroad.

The guidelines from the Central Commission for Guiding Cultural and Ethical Progress calls for building “Chinese spirit, Chinese values, and Chinese power”.

The texts urge citizens to avoid pornography and vulgarity online, and follow correct etiquette when raising the flag or singing the national anthem.

Public institutions like libraries and youth centres must carry out “targeted moral education” to improve people’s ideological awareness and moral standards, according to the rules.

The guideline also stresses patriotism and loyalty to the motherland.

“People who have a servile attitude to foreign countries, damage national dignity and sell national interests must be disciplined according to the law,” it says.

Translation: The Chinese leadership is well aware of the long-term program of the Learned Elders of Wye to jump from the United States to China when the former empire collapses and have no intention of allowing them to run that program of subversion and economic ascendancy through invasion and moral inversion to the disadvantage of their nation.

It is more than a little ironic that where Christians failed to heed the warnings of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul, Confucians – and they are Confucians, not Communists, no matter what they officially happen to call themselves – are aware of the danger of permitting a foreign nation to invade and invert their society. Even more impressive, instead of waiting passively for the next attack, they have launched a systematic campaign to seize the strongholds of their long-term rivals and enemies.

As for those who have been predicting China’s collapse due to various economic and demographic indicators, that is a failure to grasp the causal relationship between societal wealth and morality. It is the latter that precedes the former; while there are certainly challenges and structural weaknesses that threaten the stability and well-being of both great societies, the Chinese elite is most likely going to be able to deal successfully with them. The US elite, both foreign and native, is obviously not.


Wait, what?

Captain Europa is NOT amused by Marvel moving in on his turf:

In a move to make Captain America more appealing to a modern audience, Marvel announced Monday the iconic comic and film character will be rebooted as Captain Globalism.

“The very idea of America is offensive and outdated,” said a Marvel rep. “There are billions of people who weren’t able to relate to Captain America because of his triggering name and crude stars-and-stripes-colored uniform and shield. They’ll feel much more at home with Cap now that his goal is to break down all borders and unite everybody under a New World Order.”

What about global income equality? What about the Global Justice Initiative?

On a not-entirely-unrelated note, people seem to be discovering the ATOB audiobook on Audible in a big way.
Amazon Author Rank
  • #30 in Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Science Fiction
  • #67 in Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy


That’s NOT a defense

If your argument that the science is wrong and women are too funny relies upon Sarah Silverman, then you’ve got no chance at all:

We then calculated sex differences on the combined sample and found that men were, overall, rated as funnier than women. How big was the difference? In statistical technical terms, the effect size was 0.32, or roughly one-third of the standard deviation. In plain English, this means that 63 percent of men score above the mean humor ability of women. This is considered a small to medium difference.

We also looked for a long list of possible confounding variables that might explain the difference. The countries where the data come from, the sex of the authors doing the research, age of participants, whether there were more men or women judging the humor—none of it made a difference in our analysis.

What does it all mean? It means that to the best of our knowledge, on average, men appear to have higher humor production ability than women. Note that I emphasized the word average because the study does not mean, as Christopher Hitchens famously proclaimed, that women are not funny. The fact that men, on average, appear to be funnier than women, does not imply that every single man is funnier than every single woman. There are many great female comedians such as Sarah Silverman, Tina Fey, Ali Wong and historically, Lucille Ball, Joan Rivers, and many, many more. All these great comedians are funnier than 99.9 percent of all men.

As a general rule, men perform for women rather than the reverse. So it should hardly be surprising, or controversial, that the average man’s ability to do so is considerably more honed than the average woman’s.

Needless to say, female comedians are taking it well.

“I really think it’s unnecessary to do this study,” Marina Bye, a female comedian, told BBC. “They could have done something progressive.”


The terror of the cucks

They are beginning to realize that cucking will not save them. No one will ever be safe from SJWs. Not even if you’re a card-carrying liberal academic who votes Democrat and whose life purpose is to address inequality:

Earlier this month, Ascend, the high-performing Brooklyn charter-school network, fired its accomplished founder and CEO, Steven Wilson. What had Wilson done to deserve this? Not much.

Wilson, a school leader with decades of experience, a onetime senior fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and the author of two books on school reform, became perhaps the most visible victim to date of charter schooling’s worrisome turn to politically correct groupthink. Woke enough to declare that his life’s purpose is “addressing education inequalities,” he nevertheless dared to talk frankly about third-rail questions of educational rigor and excellence, and paid the price.

This past summer, on June 4, Wilson penned a blog post titled, “The promise of intellectual joy” that appeared on Ascend’s website. Wilson argued that “democratic” education must strive to “grant all students the knowledge and faculties of mind that had once only been afforded the elite.” He lamented that intellectual pursuit is today too often seen not as a democratic birthright, but as an elitist affectation.

Wilson fretted that values such as “objectivity” and “worship of the written word” had been dismissed as “damaging characteristics of white supremacy culture.” He said there was a “growing risk” that efforts to make schools more “diverse, equitable, and inclusive” could “be shamefully exploited to justify reduced intellectual expectations of students.” Schools must find ways to make clear that “intellectual pursuit” and “especially intellectual joy” are good for all students, of every race and background. If we fail to do that, Wilson argued, “The distinctly American project of equal opportunity will continue to be thwarted.”

One might find all this all to be anodyne enough. Yet, in the progressive-driven culture war that has consumed charter schooling, Wilson’s lofty sentiments were grounds for angry attacks. Soon after the post appeared, a group that labeled itself “Friends of Ascend” started a petition on Change.org that sought to “hold the CEO of Ascend Public Charter Schools accountable for white supremacist rhetoric.” The petition insisted that Wilson’s post contained “offensive and oppressive content that . . .  propagates destructive messages about the community that Ascend serves.”

A few months after the petition surfaced, Ascend’s board reviewed Wilson’s “record,” and he was fired.

Wilson isn’t someone who merits defending; this is clearly a case of a man reaping what he has sown. The point is that if even someone with his unquestioned left-liberal credentials is being targeted for discrediting and disemployment, what hope do you have of being left alone?


They fear us

And they fear us more than we fear them:

I’m one of the lawyers who writes Terms of Service for software companies. We try to make these Terms as short and clear as possible, because if we don’t, it means people either won’t use the products or they may sue the company, both of which are terrible results for the company. I’m always amazed by the questions suggesting we’re trying to sneak in some sort of clause saying that if you use the product, you agree to give us your left kidney or whatever. All we’re trying to do is give you access to free or affordable software products and not get sued for the way you choose to use them.

However, it’s not hard to understand why the converged software companies run roughshod over everyone when they keep seeing people react to deplatformings like this.

“I explained to them that I live in a city with 60,000 homeless people and that they are about to make me and my wife join their ranks.”

The extent to which this guy fails to understand the actual situation almost defies understanding. Conservatives staunchly refuse to understand the “war” part of “cultural war”. He simply does not grasp that forcing him and his wife join the ranks of the homeless would be considered a feature, not a bug, of the deplatforming process.

Few of even the most converged corporations would risk these “terrible results” if they had any cause at all to expect them as a possible consequence of their actions.


Another neoclown attack

It’s informative to see that no matter where they nominally come from, and no matter what organization they’ve happened to infiltrate, the neoclowns are irretrievably and unabashedly opposed to President Trump and the interests of the American people.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council staffer set to deliver dramatic testimony confirming that President Donald Trump sought dirt from Ukraine on a political rival, is a Jewish refugee from that country when it was part of the Soviet Union.

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Vindman, an Army officer and the top NSC official handling Ukraine, says in testimony posted Monday evening by The New York Times, which he is set to deliver to congressional investigators on Tuesday.

Precisely what does this Fake American know about what is proper or improper for the U.S. government? He’s observably less loyal to the United States than Benedict Arnold ever was. The God-Emperor should not hesistate to order him to be dishonorably discharged.

Every. Single. Time. This is why you always sink the damn ships.