Category: Uncategorized

All hail the God-Emperor

Still not tired of winning:

Donald Trump will be ‘LAST PRESIDENT’ of the United States – shock new claims!

DONALD Trump will be the “last President” of the United States but has “no intention of leaving the White House” and likes the thought of being President for life, one American filmmaker has warned.

After the 2020 Trumpslide, it will also be the right time to formally elevate Donald Trump Jr. to his rightful position as Vice-Emperor, Crown Prince, Primarch, and Heir in order to Purge the Heresy and Keep America Great.

Why the Right fails

This little anecdote at Steve Sailer’s describes, in a nutshell, why the proudly individualistic Right has been consistently failing for decades.

reminds me of something that happened at jury duty. I was sitting there, trying to figure out how to get out of jury duty, and telling the judge that I had urgent responsibilities, blah, blah..

This was a trial where some young guy had used a gun for to warn off some rivals for his girl, or something. But it revolved around the (non-lethal, in this case) use of a gun. (horrors, I know)

Anyways, the judge was getting clearly annoyed that a few other jurors also didn’t want to participate in the farce. (I’m not a big fan of courtroom “justice” ; )

And he lectured us and then made the mistake of asking a leading question..

(clearly expecting to hear a ‘trial by jury’) he asked the assembled prospective jurors, ‘What is the main right that protects all your other rights from abuses of the government?’

Whereupon I blurted out very clearly and loudly, “The Second Amendment!”

There was a hush in the chamber. A pall had come over the room.

The judge sat for a moment speechless, and then asked the attorneys to approach the bench. There was some serious looking glances and whispers, and then eventually we were all told we could go.

Just like that.

From what I’ve glimmered, I had ‘tainted’ the jury when I said ‘the Second Amendment’. The prosecutor was likely intending to use the gun itself as the crime. And by proclaiming that our right to own guns was the very cornerstone of American freedom, I guess the prosecutor felt the trial was lost before it even began.

[heh]

What a smugly stupid moron! He portrays his self-serving, narcissistic behavior as a triumph of some sort, when in truth it is a disastrous, self-inflicted defeat for both justice and a free society. If this jackass is ever arrested, karma will be well-served if he finds himself facing a jury of avid gun controllers and is convicted on every count. Instead of doing his civic duty and upholding the Second Amendment he cited with such self-satisfaction, he ensured that the prosecution would get a second crack at packing a jury with anti-gun jurors.

The Right’s idolatry of individualism is shortsighted and strategically disastrous. It is the philosophy of the crack addict, the rent boy, the cam whore, and the flytipper. It is the mindset of the parasite and the grasshopper. And it is not compatible with civilization, let alone advanced Western civilization.

Not all collectivisms are equal. Identity politics are not communism. Defending your family and your nation, and working to advance their interests, is not wrong, it is the very sort of normal human behavior that created Western civilization. I could not have created Infogalactic alone. I could not have built Castalia House alone. Arkhaven is a collective effort.

We cannot save civilization by running around like a bunch of headless chickens doing our best to avoid any and every responsibility to others.

The cyclical curse

A paper from 2007 (PDF) explains some of the negative civilizational developments that we have been observing over the last decade. And events quite clearly appear to have proven his thesis largely correct.

The Population Cycle Drives Human History – from a Eugenic Phase into a Dysgenic Phase and Eventual Collapse

by Volkmar Weiss

In the period before the onset of demographic transition from large to small families, when fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, Malthusian pressure gave an evolutionary advantage to individuals whose characteristics were positively correlated with child quality and hence higher IQ, increasing in such a way the frequency of underlying genes in the population. As the fraction of individuals of higher quality increased, technological progress intensified. Positive feedback between technological progress and the level of education reinforced the growth process, setting the stage for an industrial revolution that facilitated an endogenous take-off from the Malthusian trap. The population density rose and with it social and political friction, especially important at the top of the social pyramid. Thus, from a certain turning point of history, the well-to-do have fewer children than the poor.

Once the economic environment improves sufficiently, the evolutionary pressure weakens, and on the basis of spreading egalitarian ideology and general suffrage the quantity of people gains dominance over quality. At present, we have already reached the phase of global human capital deterioration as the necessary prerequisite for a global collapse by which the overpopulated earth will probably decimate those of mediocre IQ.

On the one hand, this will present opportunities for the cognitive elite. On the other, the downward trajectory of society and civilization is almost certainly going to increase as time goes on, IQ continues to decline, and the r/selected increasingly outnumber the K/selected. The welfare system was bad enough, but combining it with low-quality mass immigration is fatal. The longer the negative cycle persists, the more likely it is that the people of the West will eventually have to choose between utterly ruthless eugenics and total civilizational collapse.

When we look at the history of past high civilisations, it is noticeable that it was a long time before internal decay lead to final collapse (Knaul, 1985). From a certain point on there were nearly only failures. The economy stagnated and the finances of the state and of the cities fell more and more into disorder. The number of people depending on welfare rose from year to year, although each new ruler declared it an aim to lower this number. The security of the citizens was no longer guaranteed; the relationship between man and woman had likewise changed as had the relationship between young and old. The whole society seemed to be stricken by an illness and incapable of making and implementing rational and necessary decisions. Although nobody wanted the decline, the states and their inhabitants accepted policies that steered themselves into an abyss in such a way, as though they had no other goal than falling into the abyss. Today, our situation is similar.

Indeed.

A first look

Arkhaven Comics has sent us an exclusive first look at the cover for Quantum Mortis: A Man Disrupted #3.
– Bounding Into Comics

And so we have….

While we’re on the subject of Arkhaven, a new video review of Alt-Hero #1: Crackdown.

QUANTUM MORTIS A Man Disrupted #3: A Secret Love is now available on Kindle and KU.

Chief Warrant Officer Graven Tower is a ruggedly handsome military policeman who hates aliens. Fortunately, as a member of His Grace’s Military Crimes Investigation Division – Xenocriminology and Alien Relations, he gets to arrest a lot of them. Sometimes he even gets to shoot them.


Chief Tower and Detector Derin Hildreth of the Trans Paradis Police Department are investigating the murder of the Crown Prince of Morchard, but they have not been able to determine a motive for the crime or identify any suspects. So when a royal assistant comes forward with information about the prince’s secret life, they don’t hesitate to pursue the lead into the heart of the wealthy interplanetary establishment.

Twitter to FAYS: hold my beer

Twitter isn’t content with losing money and hemorrhaging users, so they’re going to drive even more people away just to prove that no one, not Facebook, not Apple, not YouTube, not Spotify, can speech-police more enthusiastically than Twitter does:

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday signaled a coming change to his company’s speech policies, following pressure from his own employees

  • Some Twitter employees are unhappy that Twitter has yet to join Facebook, Spotify, Apple and YouTube in banning right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones
  • Twitter is planning to accelerate a crackdown on “hate speech” and is looking to evaluate whether to punish users for “off-platform behavior,” according to a company-wide email sent on Wednesday
  • Twitter is planning to accelerate changes to the company’s speech policies after a backlash from its own employees who want the company to ban right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, responding to a critical tweet from a Twitter engineer, said Wednesday he is “not happy” with Twitter’s current policies, which he said need to “evolve.”

Twitter vice president Del Harvey also sent a company-wide email Wednesday pledging to accelerate Twitter’s efforts to crack down on “dehumanizing hate speech,” in the wake of internal “conversations” about Jones.

Harvey noted that Twitter also plans to evaluate whether the company needs to better police “off-platform behavior.”

It’s clearly time to revive the blasphemy laws, many of which are still on the books. Now, here’s the interesting thing about Twitter’s rules and policies. According to their own policies, they should start banning their own employees for abusive behavior in their attempt to silence Alex Jones.

Mailvox: escaping the gatekeepers

Now that William F. Buckley is dead and no one reads National Review anymore, new gatekeepers are needed to keep conservatives on the farm:

The more I examine Conservative positions (that I used to hold) the angrier I get.

I’ve been paying a bit of attention to an Ultra Cuckservative on Twitter for a few weeks.

His name is Charlie Kirk and he runs a Conservative group called Turning Point.

He posted this on Twitter just last night:

“Fringe ethno-nationalist racial identitarians have NO PLACE in the conservative movement – we reject them!”

Every post from this clown is the same old Basic B Conservative Boilerplate we’ve seen for decades. He’s constantly tweeting about Blacks. Never mentions white people.

I suspect he’s propped up, too. He’s only 24 years old, I never even heard of this guy two years ago, but he has nearly 700K twitter followers and has managed to establish a fairly major think-tanky style operation.

Propped-up? Just because he hasn’t been kicked off Twitter, he’s barely out of college, and he has a well-funded think tank is no reason to be suspicious. He’s probably just whip-smart and DEMOLISHES liberals with his tweets.

Anyhow, neither identitarians nor nationalists have any place in the conservative movement, since the conservative movement never conserved anything, least of all America.

The birth of the White American Party

Even the true conservative’s conservative, John Hawkins, is beginning to embrace the inevitable logic of the Alt-Right:

Liberalism is now full of people like Sarah Jeong who are excused for nursing racial grievances despite the fact that they are influential, privileged, and by any reasonable standard much more powerful than the average person. These are people who aim hatred toward white people because of the color of their skin, and then we’re told that they can’t be racist because minorities have no power in a country where a black man just spent eight years as president of the United States. Jesse Jackson has no power? Al Sharpton? Ta-Nehisi Coates? Julian Bond? Leonard Pitts? Marc Lamont Hill? Charles Blow? Cornel West? Shaun King? Aiming hatred at white people is an industry in the United States and it pays well in money and attention.  That’s why it’s such a growing field on the Left.

So, if you’re someone who is hated by a political party because of your skin color, what do you do about that?

Liberals certainly express a point of view about what minorities should do in that situation. They habitually falsely accuse Republicans of hating minorities and then say that means those voters are crazy if they don’t vote for them. Of course, their claim is not true. Conservatives overwhelmingly believe in judging people as individuals, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Still, this is how Democrats approach this issue.

So, should white people abandon the Democrats who hate their guts? Yes, they should. Why vote for someone who defends people who hate you because of the color of your skin? Why should any individual have to be a groveling apologist because he was born a certain color? Why support a party that is prejudiced against your white child because of the color of his skin?  These guys are aiming the same kind of hate at white people as their ancestors used to do at black Americans — and if you’re a white American who just shrugs your shoulders at that, you’re foolish.

You often hear this debate in America about whether people are “voting in their own interest.” If you are white, how is it in your interest to vote for a party full of people who denigrate you not because of your actions, but because of your race? How is it in your interest to support people who openly blame you for the problems in their lives because of your race and discount all of your hard-earned achievements because of imaginary “white privilege”? How is it in your interest to support people who gleefully say it will be a better country when more people like you are gone?

Apparently it’s no longer a moral imperative to cuckishly posture about how color-blind and totally not racist you are, and how much you would LOVE to vote for a black candidate when doing so doesn’t even slow down the “liberal” attack dogs in their determined attempts to eradicate you. The next, and final, step for the likes of Mr. Hawkins is to realize that it isn’t “liberals” who are firmly prejudiced against whites, but non-whites pursuing their own competing interests.

Identity politics are now in effect. Get used to it and behave accordingly. The political system in the USA is now just like every other multinational political system in history. Defend your own, advance your own, or lose.

They don’t care about your adopted Negro son. They don’t care about your Chinese best friend. They don’t care that you voted for Alan Keyes or Hermain Cain or even Barack Obama. They don’t care about your virtue-signaling or your virtue. They don’t care what you think, what you do, or who you are. You are wearing the uniform of the enemy and you are in their way, so you are the enemy.

Consider this. Did any American soldier, throughout the entire course of World War II, ever stop to inquire of a German soldier his personal position on the invasion of Poland or how he voted concerning the Austrian Anschluss referendum of 1938 before shooting at him? That’s about how much the average Chinese-American, African-American, Somali-American, Persian-American, or Jewish-American thinks about what a genuine white Christian American happens to believe.

The various tribes inhabiting the USA pursue their own interests, as humans have done since the dawn of time. You would be well-advised to do the same.

Science skepticism is well-justified

It makes sense that so much science appears to follow politics rather than, as people like to pretend, the other way around:

Research confirms that every decade since 1974, conservatives’ trust in scientists has decreased. But little has been done to explore why. Some suggest that conservatives are less likely to accept data that “threatens their worldview,” note Confas and his team.

But Confas told Campus Reform that this is a misguided approach. If anything, he said, published research indicates that liberals and conservatives are equally likely to discredit science if it conflicts with their world-view. Confas and his research team propose a different explanation. They suggest that increasing levels of skepticism towards scientific institutions is partly a reaction to the politicization—namely, the liberalization—of these institutions.

The distrust is not driven by all scientists, but rather by what Confas and his team refer to as “impact scientists.” These are researchers, typically working in the social sciences and environmental science, who often conduct research with the stated goal of raising awareness of left-liberal issues, or acceptance of left-liberal policy solutions.

“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction,” explains Confas. He points to the field of sociology as an example. A recent study surveying 479 sociology professors discovered that only 4 percent identify as conservative or libertarian, while 86 percent identify as liberal or left-radical.

The unstated goal of sociology, Confas suggests, “involves reorganizing society to fight inequality, oppression, poverty, hierarchy, and the like. Its ideological orientation arose out of…civil rights, feminism, Marxism, and other progressive movements.”

Most sociologists would claim, in good faith, to be objective. But emerging research suggests that the political slant in the field is corrupting objectivity, due to a variety of issues including confirmation bias and scholar-activism in the field.

“Taking the easy route isn’t something that I or my coauthors are tempted to do. We want to do our part to help correct the science,” Confas told Campus Reform. “Conservatives are right to be skeptical,” he added. “Take any politicized issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple decades where a major scientific organization took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic Party.”

“What an odd coincidence that ‘science’ always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview,” Confas observed.

So politics drives science, especially when the scientists are dependent upon government funding to pay their bills. The observable fact is that science is absolutely and utterly untrustworthy; as a “truth mechanism”, it’s not as reliable as flipping a coin. As I have pointed out on several occasions, we have a word for science that is reliable, and that word is “engineering”.

And let’s face it, this would hardly be the first time that the “I love science” Left had the causality reversed.