Category: Uncategorized

Video update

There have been a few recent developments in the Voxiversity department:

  • The new camera has been released and I have ordered it. Voxiversity Episode Six should show a distinct improvement in video quality.
  • The March video of the month will be released on Tuesday. Episode Five is part 1 of 2 on Christianity and Western Civilization. It will hit on at least one point that should prove at least somewhat surprising.
  • YouTube has now removed Episode One: Immigration and War from the Voxiversity channel. They initially restricted it, but as thousands of people were continuing to watch it despite the restrictions, they finally resorted to removing it from the channel listing.
  • Even without the deleted video and not counting Facebook, Voxiversity has recorded 46,985 views, for an average of 11,746 views per video. This is but a small fraction of the average views that Jordan Peterson’s (230k) and Stefan Molyneux’s videos (112k) currently receive, but it is a respectable start considering that I have only 1,372 subscribers compared to their 1,018,963 and 766,557, respectively. These things take time and persistence.
  • The annual Foundation event will be in Spain this year.
  • Now that I am on track with Voxiversity, I will resume doing Periscopes on a regular basis. Since I’m not on Twitter, it’s a good idea to subscribe on Periscope if you want to receive alerts.

I am reliably informed that the backers are pleased with the start of Voxiversity even though we haven’t fully hit our stride yet. My goal is for the videos to be averaging 25,000 views by the end of 2018 and 85,000 by the end of 2019. If you’d like to be a part of that, please subscribe to the Bitchute channel or consider becoming a backer.

Speaking of video, I’m very pleased to announce that Castalia House has released Chuck Dixon’s zombie novel, Gomers, in audio. Narrated by Jon Mollison, it is 6 hours and 33 minutes long. You can listen to the first hour of it via YouTube.

Sun Tzu and the fifth conquest of America

Asians in the United States are quite consciously following the example of their Jewish predecessors in remaking the culture to their preference.

Yet another parallel for the campaign to police microaggressions may be the ACLU’s long campaign to oust Christian observance from the public square, which used the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to restrict the expression of the vast majority of the country in deference to the sensitivities of a tiny minority. The minority told the majority that they weren’t allowed to do things that they had long been habituated to doing, and which they regarded as a core part of their own identity and faith. The impetus for this legal campaign, whose reasoning was judged to be sound by the Supreme Court, was of course not purely formalistic or doctrinal. It emerged from out of the status politics of everyday life—an exercise of power by a rising minority, namely Jews, to remove practices that made (some of them) feel like aliens in their own land.

The curbing of open religious displays in American public spaces was a symbolic concession to the equal dignity of the Jews sought by a faction of a group no longer content to occupy a marginal place in the life of the country. In turn, the success of the campaign helped incite the emergence in the 1970s of the Christian right, which helped bring Ronald Reagan to power, beginning a series of conservative political victories won on the basis of culture war issues that in the end proved powerless to prevent the eventual triumph of secular, liberal values, no matter how many statehouses or branches of the federal government Republicans control.

Both the movement against religious displays and the current campaign against microaggressions were attempts by minorities to restrict the freedom of expression of majorities. Both assailed unspoken but strongly held premises: In the case of the ACLU campaign, that America was a Christian nation, and in the microaggression campaign, that America is a white nation. Both were bold incursions on the liberty of the majority of the country….

America has ceased to be a white nation. It has to make concessions to the hunger for recognition of various nonwhite groups, including Asians. It has to figure out a way to do so in a manner that will preserve the integrity of its institutions, which have managed to accommodate diversity chiefly by hewing to the core insight that only the individual deserves protection. We have some latitude to take measures that push against the margins of this guideline in deference to past injustices and continuing disparities. But the one approach that definitely will not work is declaring all white people to be irremediably tainted by racism at the level of the unconscious and all nonwhite people to be fragile to the point of inanition at the touch of slights that appear banal and trivial. The primary debility of this model of human personality is that it is false. From this debility flows a cascade of interventions that have the potential to shatter our social compact.

What social compact? What integrity of which institutions? Translation: America is no longer Christian, nor white, nor a nation, so shut up and accept it, white people. Consider yourself fortunate that it appears the Asians plan to handle their ascendance to power in the multinational empire of North America in a more polite and judicious manner than the Jews have.

At least the Indians fought their conquerors. Your descendants won’t even have the satisfaction of knowing that. In 100 years, it is quite likely that the white Christian America the Baby Boomers took for granted will be as little remembered as Indian country and Spanish Florida. The invasion and conquest of America will one day be seen as the ultimate example of victory through asymmetric warfare.

After all, did not Sun Tzu say that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting?

Don’t bother teaching evolution

You’ve got much bigger problems, science fans:

A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round. The national poll reveals that 18 to 24-year-olds are the largest group in the country who refuse to accept the scientific facts of the world’s shape.

YouGov, a British market research firm, polled 8,215 adults in the United States to find out if they ever believed in the “flat Earth” movement. Only 66 percent of young millennials answered that they “always believe the world is round.” Science teachers across the U.S. will be shaking their heads after learning that nine percent of young adults answered that they have “always believed” the planet was flat.

Another nine percent said of young adults said they thought the planet was spherical but had doubts about it. In a disturbing display of indecision, 16 percent of millennials said they weren’t sure what the shape of the planet was.

And good luck with that “global warming” narrative.

Calling Mary Beard

Mary Beard, to the front desk. Your services are required.

Historians believe the Queen is a descendant to the founder of Islam – after tracing her family tree back 43 generations.

The claim makes the British monarch a distant ancestor of the Prophet Muhammad.

The findings were first published in 1986 by Burke’s Peerage, a British authority on royal pedigrees.

But the claim has recently resurfaced after a Moroccan newspaper said it had traced the queen’s lineage back to the Prophet.

Forget Londonistan. Ukistan is go!

The end of the Jewish century

I suspect that this lawsuit, if successful, will spell the beginning of the end of the Jewish century in America:

A group that is suing Harvard University is demanding that it publicly release admissions data on hundreds of thousands of applicants, saying the records show a pattern of discrimination against Asian-Americans going back decades.

The group was able to view the documents through its lawsuit, which was filed in 2014 and challenges Harvard’s admissions policies. The plaintiffs said in a letter to the court last week that the documents were so compelling that there was no need for a trial, and that they would ask the judge to rule summarily in their favor based on the documents alone.

The plaintiffs also say that the public — which provides more than half a billion dollars a year in federal funding to Harvard — has a right to see the evidence that the judge will consider in her decision.

Harvard counters that the documents are tantamount to trade secrets, and that even in the unlikely event that the judge agrees to decide the case without a trial, she is likely to use only a fraction of the evidence in her decision. Only that portion, the university says, should be released.

“This is an important and closely watched civil rights case,” William S. Consovoy, the lawyer for the group, Students for Fair Admissions, said in his letter to the court. “The public has a right to know exactly what is going on at Harvard. Even if this were a commercial issue — as Harvard would like to portray it — the public would have a right to know if the product is defective or if a fraud is being perpetrated.”

At stake in the dispute is the secrecy of the university admissions process, especially at elite institutions like Harvard that are competing for a small pool of highly qualified students, and whether and how race and ethnicity play a role.

Students for Fair Admissions includes more than a dozen Asian-American students who applied to Harvard and were rejected. They contend in their lawsuit that Harvard systematically and unconstitutionally discriminates against Asian-American applicants by penalizing their high achievement as a group, while giving preferences to other racial and ethnic minorities. They say that Harvard’s admission process amounts to an illegal quota system.

U.S. Jews have perpetrated four self-serving myths that have contributed to their control of the intellectual high ground in the United States. One, Judeo-Christianity. Two, the historically nonsensical “nation of immigrants” narrative. Three, that they are unusually intelligent. And four, that their statistically improbable success in Hollywood, the media, and the financial sector is primarily a consequence of that superior intelligence.

Those myths have been severely eroded, but not exploded entirely yet. The primary reason that Harvard is so desperate to conceal the extent to which it has engaged in racial, ethnic, and religious favoritism is that it will a) reveal how far superior the Asian intellectual elite is to the Jewish intellectual elite, and, b) expose the extent to which Jewish admissions officers have compromised Ivy League admissions on behalf of their co-ethnics for the last five or six decades.

At a certain point, even those who are not particularly bright will eventually grasp the significance of the fact that the supposedly brilliant guys whose whip-smart intelligence is supposed to be the basis of their success reliably turn out to be the Sam Harrises and Ben Shapiros of the world, intellectual charlatans with elite degrees who are observably third-rate intellects at best.

A not-entirely-unrelated thought struck me when I was reading E.O. Wilson’s The Meaning of Human Existence the other day. Although Wilson cites the way in which kinship selection has been disproven, it did strike me as a potentially useful basis for a model that mathematically quantifies the extent to which nepotism influences group outperformance, one which, in this particular application, would demonstrate the essential silliness of the myth that has snared even the likes of the eminent Jordan Peterson.

How China can win

Although the US cannot lose a trade war with China due to the fact that it is already $600 billion in the annual red thanks to the trade deficit, that does not mean that China does not have an ace or two up its sleeve:

Chinese President Xi Jinping is now exchanging threats of tit-for-tat tariffs with President Trump, who announced Thursday he’s considering raising the stakes another $100 billion. China vowed to defend itself “at any cost.”

Compared to the scale of the U.S. economy, the numbers are still relatively trivial and mostly theoretical. But if things do spiral into all-out trade war, it’s worth noting China has a nuclear option.

I’m referring to rare earth metals.

These are elements like dysprosium, neodymium, gadolinium, and ytterbium. They aren’t actually rare, but they do play crucial roles in everything from smart phones to electric car motors, hard drives, wind turbines, military radar, smart bombs, laser guidance, and more. They’re also quite difficult to mine and process.

It turns out the United States is almost entirely dependent on foreign suppliers for rare earth metals. More importantly, it’s almost entirely dependent on China specifically for rare earth metals that have been processed into a final and usable form.

Basically, if China really wanted to mess with America, it could just clamp down on these exports. That would throw a massive wrench into America’s supply chain for high-tech consumer products, not to mention much of our military’s advanced weapons systems.

In fact, China isn’t just America’s major supplier of rare earth metals; it’s the rest of the globe’s major supplier as well. And in 2009, China began significantly clamping down on its rare metal exports. Once, China briefly cut Japan off entirely after an international incident involving a collision between two ships. This all eventually led to a 2014 World Trade Organization spat, with America, Japan, and other countries on one side, and China on the other.

That forced China to abandon its quotas. But it also shows China is willing to use its advantage in rare earth metals to play hardball if it’s pushed far enough.

However, this is not an argument for free trade. In fact, it is precisely the opposite, it is a devastating disproof of Ricardian Comparative Advantage theory, which posits that manufacturing can move seamlessly between industries. In fact, if one were to argue that the USA must engage in trade due to its fear of its inability to process rare earth metals, one would have have to reject the theory of comparative advantage, and therefore, free trade.

This is the danger of engaging in the Ricardian Vice. It becomes all too easy to accidentally refute your own position when attempting to respond to protectionist arguments.

Compare the narratives

Austin Bay considers the Seven Chinas grand narrative.

Nations have always used narratives to support their diplomatic operations. Not all of them are “weaponized,” but a powerful, moving story gives a diplomatic initiative additional energy. Often these narratives incorporate nation or ethnic historical and cultural themes. Since they support a diplomatic initiative, they are always political.

In February, the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies published a short paper entitled “Seven Chinas: A Policy Framework.” The paper briefly examined “seven identities” that the Chinese government uses to “shape and justify policy.”

Each identity is a narrative.

China 1: Self-sufficient civilization (We generate our own values)

China 2: Most humiliated nation (Our senior civilization, conquered and despised)

China 3: Leader of the developing world (Late developing China leads developing nations)

China 4: Champion of plurality (We are ending Western/American hegemony)

China 5: Sovereign survivor (We survived the collapse of Communism because we are unique)

China 6: Last man standing (The West is declining while our wealth is increasing)

China 7: Herald of the high frontier (China and shares the global trade and communications commons)

In the South China Sea China’s narrative weapons have augmented its military and economic clout. It’s proved to be a powerful combination.

Compare these to the ever-shifting globalist and SJW narratives that have replaced the traditional Western narrative. It is eminently clear that in any matchup of these particular weaponized narratives, China is not merely winning, China is going to win.

An economic education

Sometimes these jokers openly admit what is readily obvious to even the casual observer: the basis for their professed knowledge is remarkably shallow. In this particular circumstance, one might even say callow.

Jeffrey Gundlach warns we may be repeating the mistakes that led to the Great Depression. The bond investor was asked for his view on the rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China.

“It’s not a positive. I mean it is really interesting when I was in elementary school and high school we talked about the Great Depression … [What] my teachers told me was that the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates prematurely in a not so strong economy and also the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act,” he said Wednesday on CNBC’s “Halftime Report.”

Well, if the opinions of public school elementary teachers from four decades ago aren’t a sound basis for modern economic policy, I don’t know what could be. Sure, my elementary school teacher didn’t know the difference between a triceratops and an allosaur, but I’m confident her knowledge of economic history was considerably more sound.

What he said

An astute comment at Steve Sailer’s about the Kevin Williamson firing:

The NR staff currently wailing on twitter about the injustice of dumping a talented writer for being provocative on an independent website can show it’s not just crocodile tears by apologizing to Derbyshire.

Apologizing? They should offer to rehire him with a raise as well. Consider David French’s wailing about “the cowardly firing” with just a few changes to it.

The AtlanticNational Review has caved to the intolerant mob and fired Kevin WilliamsonJohn Derbyshire, and in so doing has contributed to a slanderous fiction — that KevinJohn is so beyond the pale that he has no place at one of the nation’s premiere mainstreamconservative publications. His millions of words, his countless interviews, and his personal character were reduced to nothing — inconsequential in the face of deleted tweets and a five-minute podcast dialoguea single column. Look, I know it’s easy for some to dismiss KevinJohn’s termination as mere inside-baseball media drama. But it’s more than that. It’s a declaration by one of America’s most powerful mediaconservative entities that it can’t even coexist with a man like KevinJohn. If he wants to write, he should run along to his conservativeAlt-Right home. His newlong-time colleagues simply couldn’t abide his presence.

These cuckservative Never Trumpians simply do not realize that their time is past. They have been exposed for hypocrites and fools. They do not lead opinions, they are led by the Left instead, following it slavishly from one societally destructive policy to the next. Give them a little more time and they’ll be dutifully laying out the conservative cases for cannibalism, child sacrifice, and Satan worship.

Hence the real reason for their wailing. They know they are losing the right-wing audience that is increasingly rejecting their soft leftism, and now they are beginning to realize that the hard Left has no use for them either.

The Littlest Chickenhawk has been crying about that on Twitter, in addition to issuing the conventional dire warnings of consequences never being the same. He thinks he is one of the “virtuous people” to decide who is acceptable and who is not, to decide who is chased down and disemployed and who is not, intstead of the overt Left.

This is, we are told, the “stone cold truth” and “the Left won’t like it”.

The Left continues to radically narrow the Overton Window – the spectrum of acceptable discourse. They separate discourse into two categories: the acceptable and the unacceptable. Then they shrink the acceptable down to the opinions located between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. This necessarily places Kevin Williamson and @bariweiss and @SamHarrisOrg and me and everyone else the Left finds unpalatable into the “excluded” category. But the unacceptable category is already populated by those who are actually unacceptable: alt-right trolls, for example. This means that the population of opinion in the unacceptable category – let’s call them Deplorables, since the Left does – come to be a majority by way of exclusion. Unless, that is, virtuous people who have been excluded by the Left draw distinctions among themselves. Which they should, of course – Kevin and @bariweiss and I and @SamHarrisOrg all get lumped in as Nazis by the Left, but we all fight the actual alt-right Nazis.

But counting on the virtue of people you’ve just deemed unacceptable not to band together against you is both stupid and unrealistic over time. Which means the Left is doing something unethical here, and deeply dishonest – and something that is likely to foster polarization that results in the mainstreaming of truly gross opinions. This is how you get a reactionary movement willing to countenance alt-right evil: you tell people they’re part of the alt-right when they’re not, and treat them as such no matter how much of a lie that is. What just happened to Kevin Williamson leads conservatives to side with anyone the Left casts out, good or bad, merely as a form of protection. That shouldn’t happen. But it does. And the Left causes it with this bulls***.

Demonstrating, once more, that Ben Shapiro is not of the Right at all, but of the soft Left. That’s why they are always trying to a) disassociate from the Right and b) fix the Left.

Glenn Reynolds and Kurt Schlichter have similar takes. From Instapundit:

What really happened is that women at The Atlantic complained that Kevin’s abortion views upset them. And since making women feel bad about their life choices is a mortal sin, he had to go.

The difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives assert that making women or blacks or gays or Jews feel bad is sufficient reason to lose your job. Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that only making blacks or Jews feel bad is enough to justify disemployment.