Category: Uncategorized

Saving lives, making money

And invading Europe. It’s all in a day’s work for the dyscivilizational NGOs:

An Italian prosecutor says he has evidence some of the charities saving migrants in the Mediterranean Sea are colluding with people-smugglers. Carmelo Zuccaro told La Stampa phone calls were being made from Libya to rescue vessels. Organisations involved in rescue operations have rejected accusations of collusion, saying their only concern is to save lives. Italy is the main route for migrants trying to reach Europe.

Almost 1,000 people are thought to have drowned in waters between Libya and Italy this year, according to the UN refugee agency. Nearly 37,000 people have been rescued over the same period, a surge of more than 40% from last year, the figures say.

“We have evidence that there are direct contacts between certain NGOs [non-governmental organisations] and people traffickers in Libya,” Mr Zuccaro is quoted as saying in La Stampa.

Imagine how many of those 1,000 drowning victims would have lived if only the first 10 or 20 ships had been sunk in 2015. Anyhow, it’s time for the West to follow the lead of Russia and Hungary in banning NGOs and their pernicious, Soros-funded attempts to tikkun the olam by destroying it.

The so-called Open Society is a Satanic slave society. They call themselves “do-gooders”, but are we not advised to beware of those who call evil good?

I notice the media is now calling them “migrants” rather than “refugees”. I wonder how long it will take before they become “invaders”.

The end of “religious freedom”

It appears that Russia is leading the way towards a much-needed rejection of “religious freedom” in the West:

Russia’s crackdown on religious activity took a major step forward this week as the Justice Ministry banned Jehovah’s Witnesses. Russia has steadily curtailed rights to evangelize in recent years, but this move signals their commitment to aggressively policing private religious activity. The Russian supreme court ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses amount to an “extremist group,” and therefore the government is shutting down their headquarters and local chapters, seizing their property, and banning them from meeting.

Vladimir Putin’s campaign to strengthen ties between the government and the Russian Orthodox denomination has included the passing of absurdly broad laws that prohibit “religious discord” and can easily be deployed against any religion or sect. This ruling will directly harm the 175,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the country, but it also poses a clear threat to other minority religious groups, such as Protestant Christians. Without genuine protections for the free exercise of religion, the government has remarkably free rein to determine the social benefits of a given religion — and that means trampling the consciences of those who fall victim to government caprice.

I don’t suppose there are any other religious groups that pose a similar threat to the Russian people, their security, and public order, are there?

Religious freedom is a bogus and ill-considered pseudoright. In practice, it has been turned into a weapon that is almost solely used against Christianity across the West, and therefore it has to be abandoned. It has always been a charade anyhow; any religious belief or practice that challenges the state is always going to be banned no matter how sincerely held it may be. No one is about to let Aztecs start mass sacrificing to the sun or permit Druids to burn people in wicker baskets, no matter how historically legitimate their religious traditions are.

In like manner, any religion that harms the commonwealth merits similar outlaw status. Let people live among others of like religion if they wish to practice their religious traditions. How serious and sincere can their beliefs be anyway, and how much do those beliefs merit respect, if non-Christians would rather live in Christendom among Christians than where Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, or Judaism are the state religion?

Don’t be fooled by the appeal to imaginary fears for Protestants. The concept of religious freedom in the USA died the moment prayer was banned in the public schools, and the coffin was nailed shut when Muslim immigration was encouraged. There is no legitimate moral, legal, or philosophical reason that every nation in Christendom should not proceed to ban all non-Christian religions as readily as atheist regimes banned Christianity in the 20th century.

The Enlightenment, such as it was, ended a long time ago. It failed. It is long past time to reject its failed liberal precepts.

All your youth are belong to us

The Left is freaking out over the inevitable rise of the Alt-Right:

Can’t believe that the Alt-Right is even a FUCKING THING.

Seriously what the fuck happened? This, the internet, was supposed to be OUR platform. We were the ones who were going to change the world and, now? Now you have a bunch of younger people interested in right-wing politics? Just what the FUCK happened?

Another question, what year is it? Oh that’s right, IT’S 2017, and there are STILL people whose worldviews shift right.

RIGHT-WINGERS MOVE THE FUCK ASIDE.

He can’t run.
He can’t hide.
He gets helicopter ride.

Eventually, people notice. Eventually, people see through the mass of lies they have been told. And it’s often the young men who see through them first. The Left’s worldview is false. The Conservative worldview is false. The Libertarian worlview is false.

And that is why the Alt-Right will win out in the end, so long as it continues to maintain a political philosophy in line with history, science, reason, and truth.

We are the philosophy of Truth and Beauty. That is a winning combination.

First steps towards Frexit?

France goes to the polls for the first round of the Presidential vote. Results are expected around 2 PM Eastern.

PARIS (AP) — Amid heightened security, French voters began casting ballots for their next president Sunday in a first-round poll that’s being seen as a litmus test for the future of Europe and the spread of populism around the world.

More than 50,000 police and gendarmes were deployed to protect 66,000 polling stations for Sunday’s election, which comes just three days after a deadly attack on Paris’s famed Champs-Elysees Avenue in which a police officer and a gunman were slain. Another 7,000 soldiers are on patrol.

The presidential poll is the first ever to be held while France is under a state of emergency, put in place since the November 2015 attacks in Paris left 130 people dead.

Voters are choosing between 11 presidential candidates in the most unpredictable contest in generations. The current president, Socialist Francois Hollande, is not among them, having decided that his historic unpopularity would hurt his party’s cause.

“We really need a change in this country, with all the difficulties we are facing and terrorism,” Paris resident Alain Richaud said as he waited to cast his vote.

“There have been surprises (this year), there have always been scandals,” said Le Touquet resident Pierre-Antoine Guilluy.

Opinion polls point to a tight race among the four leading contenders vying to advance to the May 7 presidential runoff, when the top two candidates will go head to head.

Polls suggest far-right nationalist Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, an independent centrist and former economy minister, were in the lead. But conservative Francois Fillon, a former prime minister embroiled in a scandal over alleged fake jobs given to his wife and children, appeared to be closing the gap, as was far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon.

The best chance for Le Pen is if Melenchon finishes second behind her. The problem with the two-round runoff system is that it essentially gives the mainstream two chances to keep out the populist riff-raff. But if it’s between the Front National and the far left, Le Pen should win relatively easily.

That doesn’t mean Le Pen can’t beat Macron or Fillon; Fillon was supposedly a sure thing only three months ago. But it would be more difficult and would probably require another incident of Muslim misbehavior or two to put her over the top.

UPDATE: It will be Macron vs Le Pen in the second round.

Sean Hannity is next

Debbie Schussel is accusing Sean Hannity of sexual misconduct:

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly was recently fired from Fox News after mounting accusations of sexual harassment and backlash from network sponsors. This follows the resignation of former CEO of Fox News Roger Ailes in July 2016 after allegations from Gretchen Carlson, Andrea Tantros, and Megyn Kelly of sexual harassment. Tantros also filed suit against Bill O’Reilly and politician Scott Brown. The latest conservative commentator to be accused of sexual misconduct is host Sean Hannity who was accused on the Pat Cambell Show by lawyer, political commentator, and frequent Fox News guest Debbie Schlussel. Debbie claimed on the show that Sean Hannity asked Schlussel to come back to his hotel twice after a book-signing event. Does this constitute sexual misconduct?

Why do these guys even talk to women in a professional capacity? This is further proof that the talking heads simply aren’t all that smart. If a woman shows even the slightest sign of being a fame whore, you’d have to be mad to think that she has any interest in you for yourself.

Anyhow, now that the new standard is “allegations have been made”, Hannity will obviously be expected to resign, since Mrs. Junior Murdoch doesn’t approve of those goings-on at her father-in-law’s company.

It’s rather amusing to see conservatives being ejected by the very “conservative” women they championed. At this rate, the Alt-Right is going to win by default.

Audaciously correcting fake history

The Audacious Epigone provides more details on the lies of the civic nationalists:

The phrase “nation of immigrants” first appeared in The New York Times in 1923 and for the first time in book form in 1935. Truman, in 1952, was the first president to make use of it while in office.

Peak immigration occurred in 1890 when those born outside the US made up 14.7% of the country’s population. At its historical height, then, 1-in-7 people living in the US were immigrants in a nation now putatively said to be comprised of them.

At the time of the nation-wrecking Hart-Celler act in 1965, only 1-in-20 residents were immigrants.

Anyone who claims America is a nation of immigrants is appallingly ignorant, lying through his teeth, or both–and there’s a good chance he has to go back.

Providing more evidence in support of my statement that revisionist philo-immigrant history is a 20th century lie in support of the false claim of 19th century immigrants to be legitimate Americans. The USA is not, and never was, “a Judeo-Christian nation of immigrants”.

I can’t stress this enough. I’ve noticed that we’re already seeing less and less philo-immigrant falsehoods. And if a civic nationalist or third-generation immigrant tries to pass it off as genuine history, don’t hesitate to expose their lies and hammer them hard for it in public.

If you’re a Republican of conservative or libertarian inclination, remember that you can’t expect to win over the fleeing white Democrats if you’re just going to replace liberal lies with conservative or libertarian lies. If the historical evidence belies your dogma, you simply must give it up and replace it with the truth.

Run, Chelsea, run!

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Last White Hope of the Democratic Party turned out to be Chelsea Clinton in 2020?

Chelsea, people were quietly starting to observe, had a tendency to talk a lot, and at length, not least about Chelsea. But you couldn’t interrupt, not even if you’re on TV at NBC, where she was earning $600,000 a year at the time. “When you are with Chelsea, you really need to allow her to finish,” Jay Kernis, one of Clinton’s segment producers at NBC, told Vogue. “She’s not used to being interrupted that way.”

Sounds perfect for a dating profile: I speak at length, and you really need to let me finish. I’m not used to interruptions.

What comes across with Chelsea, for lack of a gentler word, is self-regard of an unusual intensity. And the effect is stronger on paper. Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea Clinton—tweets, interviews, books—is best compared to taking in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a toenail clipping.

Vanity Fair isn’t waiting to fire a few shots across the bow in an attempt to dissuade her before she even announces her decision to run for president: PLEASE, GOD, STOP CHELSEA CLINTON FROM WHATEVER SHE IS DOING. The last thing the left needs is the third iteration of a failed political dynasty. 


Regardless, 2020 will likely be the last time Democrats even consider running a white candidate. I would tend to assume it will be a black candidate, assuming a credible and reasonably crime-free one can be found, offered up as a sacrificial lamb to the God-Emperor, after which the Asians and Hispanics will take over the party.

This is why you ID the enemy

The violent antifa ID’d by /pol/ is scared and on the run. Ivan Throne observes a desperate reddit post by his “really good friend”:

“False proof”. That’s a good one, by which he means “photo and video evidence of my really good friend, aka me, repeatedly striking people with a bike lock”.
Never hesitate to identify antifa and SJWs, and to publicize their activities. They greatly fear it because they rely upon being able to operate without their friends, families, and employers knowing what they are doing. And remember that even Facebook and Twitter posts often go unnoticed until attention is drawn to them.

It’s not just the French coming apart

A French intellectual observes the demise of the Left-Right political spectrum in France:

The laid-off, the less educated, the mistrained—all must rebuild their lives in what Guilluy calls (in the title of his second book) La France périphérique. This is the key term in Guilluy’s sociological vocabulary, and much misunderstood in France, so it is worth clarifying: it is neither a synonym for the boondocks nor a measure of distance from the city center. (Most of France’s small cities, in fact, are in la France périphérique.) Rather, the term measures distance from the functioning parts of the global economy. France’s best-performing urban nodes have arguably never been richer or better-stocked with cultural and retail amenities. But too few such places exist to carry a national economy. When France’s was a national economy, its median workers were well compensated and well protected from illness, age, and other vicissitudes. In a knowledge economy, these workers have largely been exiled from the places where the economy still functions. They have been replaced by immigrants.

While rich Parisians may not miss the presence of the middle class, they do need people to bus tables, trim shrubbery, watch babies, and change bedpans. Immigrants—not native French workers—do most of these jobs. Why this should be so is an economic controversy. Perhaps migrants will do certain tasks that French people will not—at least not at the prevailing wage. Perhaps employers don’t relish paying €10 an hour to a native Frenchman who, ten years earlier, was making €20 in his old position and has resentments to match. Perhaps the current situation is an example of the economic law named after the eighteenth-century French economist Jean-Baptiste Say: a huge supply of menial labor from the developing world has created its own demand.
“The young men living in the northern Paris suburbs feel a burning solidarity with their Muslim brethren in the Middle East.”

This is not Guilluy’s subject, though. He aims only to show that, even if French people were willing to do the work that gets offered in these prosperous urban centers, there’d be no way for them to do it, because there is no longer any place for them to live. As a new bourgeoisie has taken over the private housing stock, poor foreigners have taken over the public—which thus serves the metropolitan rich as a kind of taxpayer-subsidized servants’ quarters. Public-housing inhabitants are almost never ethnically French; the prevailing culture there nowadays is often heavily, intimidatingly Muslim.

One thing that is readily apparent about multiculturalism is how frighteningly fragile it is. It is completely dependent upon government funding being provided to the invading minorities. Which means, of course, it can be rapidly weakened by combining aggressive repatriation measures combined with a radical modification of the welfare system to provide only for those ethnically eligible.

Imagine how few foreigners would enter the United States if they were provided with no public services and no public dollars. There may not be sufficient support for that yet, but if the Alt-Right were to promise to take all of that money and provide two-thirds of it to pre-1965 Americans, I expect the measure would find majority support among those who would benefit greatly from it. And for the fiscally sane, it would represent about a forty percent cut in transfer payments.

Yes, it would certainly be better to altogether destroy the welfare system, but that’s not presently politically viable because female voters will never permit that. So, the winning strategy is to play the identity game, and play it to win.

Scott Adams on scientific consensus

And the limited value of facts and logic in changing people’s minds:

The author, Tim Requarth, correctly points out that facts and logic have limited value in changing anyone’s mind about climate science, or anything else. He speaks from experience because he teaches workshops on how to better communicate science. I like this guy. He’s on the right path.

But the thing that got my attention was this bit from the article:


“Kahan found that increased scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect: The conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science thought climate change posed the least risk. Scientific literacy, it seemed, increased polarization. In a later study, Kahan added a twist: He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to identify the scientific consensus—in other words, the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they may not accept it.”

Notice how the author slips in his unsupported interpretation of the data: Greater knowledge about science causes more polarization.

Well, maybe. That’s a reasonable hypothesis, but it seems incomplete. Here’s another hypothesis that fits the same observed data: The people who know the most about science don’t think complex climate prediction models are credible science, and they are right.

Scientists, just like everyone else, are more easily persuaded by rhetoric than by dialectic. And the scientific consensus is not science, which is why those of us with a better grasp on the distinctions between scientody, scientistry, and scientage are much more likely to reject the scientific consensus than the average individual even though because we understand it better.

Scott nails it here: In my opinion, the conservatives who know the most about science are looking at it from an historical perspective, and they see a pattern here: Complicated prediction models rarely work.


Bingo. And the progressives, who have the collective memory of an amnesiac on LSD, can’t understand that historical perspective because they make a practice of ignoring absolutely everything that happened before yesterday.