The emotional incontinence of the SJW

This is why you should NEVER expect sweet reason to succeed with an SJW:

Ivanka was on a JetBlue flight leaving JFK Thursday morning with her family when a passenger started screaming, “Your father is ruining the country.” The guy went on, “Why is she on our flight. She should be flying private.” The guy had his kid in his arms as he went on the tirade.

A passenger on the flight tells TMZ Ivanka ignored the guy and tried distracting her kids with crayons.

JetBlue personnel escorted the unruly passenger off the flight. As he was removed he screamed, “You’re kicking me off for expressing my opinion?!!”

BTW … Ivanka, her family and bunch of cousins were all in coach.

Don’t even try to reason with them. They’re not capable of it. Do you really think the guy thought through whether publicly accosting a woman with children and informing her of his opinion about the presidential election was worth the risk, however small, of being ejected from his flight?

And given his inability to understand why he was being kicked off the plane, do you really believe the man would have reached the correct conclusion if he had?

Don’t speak Chinese to an English-speaker. Don’t speak dialectic to a rhetorical. And SJWs are, by observation, uniformly limited to rhetoric.


Prospects for success

At Alpha Game, I answer a man’s question concerning the likelihood a Gamma-infested project will succeed:

It is not possible for an project, a business, or a nation to survive Gamma leadership, because Gammas are not leaders and are not successful people. They will cheerfully burn the entire thing down at a moment’s notice merely because they feel insufficiently appreciated or insufficiently respected, regardless of how bad their performance has been or how poorly the project is doing.

Because most people seldom find themselves in positions of leadership, they have absolutely no idea what it entails. As those who have worked with me know, I do not believe leadership has anything to do with bossing people around, telling them how to do their jobs, or chest-pounding. It primarily involves pointing them in the right direction, making sure they have everything they need to accomplish their objective, and ensuring they understand what that objective is.

The better the leader, the less he actually has to do. The greatest leaders are those who make leadership look entirely effortless, because they are so good at selecting lieutenants and sergeants, delegating decisions to them, and successfully communicating the organization’s vision, that they literally have nothing left to do.

The reason Trump may turn out to be a much better president than expected is because he shows the signs of a top-notch leader. He clearly likes to surround himself with high-quality subordinates and give them as much responsibility as they can handle.


The false faith of diversity

It is not merely ironic, it is literally diabolical, that white Americans celebrate their own population replacement by diversity while decrying that of the Tibetans by the Chinese:

The US government opposes the existence of a White majoritarian society, and it makes little effort to hide this. System sycophants can of course protest that this is not the case at all—that the government is just promoting equality and diversity, and that opponents of equality and diversity (and immigration, legal or illegal) are racists and bigots—but the result is still less White people. That’s what actually matters, the result. And if you care about that, you are treated like a two-headed person at best, or a terrorist at worst. If you want to save Tibet from population replacement by the Chinese though, then that’s very upright and good of you.

Framed in terms of genocide, replacement sounds conspiratorial because there is slim official acknowledgement of the desired impact for these policies to have on the European American population. Very, very few people in power go on the record explicitly calling for there to be less White people, and when they do it gets little coverage for obvious reasons. That Whites are becoming a minority is acknowledged as a fact and lauded as progress, but it is not overtly called for. President Barack Obama hasn’t said he wants to see less White people around; it is only noted that there will be less of them and that such an outcome would be good. But if we talk of demographic change in terms of holy diversity and sacrosanct equality, our greatest qualities as a nation of immigrants that is open to anyone who wants to come here and make a better life (especially those from the global south who outnumber Europeans by billions), suddenly things sound very different.

And familiar. Did any bells go off? If you’ve ever been through higher education, watched basic cable, joined the armed forces, had a white collar job, worked for a large corporation in any capacity, read an op-ed in major newspaper, or really interacted with any mainline institution in the United States, you’ve almost certainly been trained to celebrate diversity. Trained by those in power that to embrace and adhere to this belief system is the path to moral enlightenment and social mobility. This does not sound like a call for genocide at all but rather a religious vocation, a cause to be taken up.

Pursuing diversity is a righteous goal that only nasty and brutish people of rude inclinations oppose, such as rednecks, blue-collar Whites, or other lower-middle class people of European descent. The eloquent and charismatic Obama is a champion of diversity, is he not? Who in their right mind is opposed to there being less White people? And diversity is good for the economy too! You can actually sell Homo oeconomicus his own slaughter, for the last man has no ambitions beyond compliance.

Language has both the power to enlighten and obfuscate, but no matter what we call this, it means Whites becoming a minority. Academically this radical racial shift is referred to as the third demographic transition—the demographic cliff nearly all White countries have plunged off as their fertility rates sink below replacement levels (2.1 children per woman). At the same time, the share of foreign-born and non-European peoples in White countries is hitting record levels. What can be the end result of this if not a world where Europe and the Anglo countries become non-white, while Africa remains African and Asia remains Asian? This is an issue no government wants to formally address and something they won’t have a conversation about with their constituents. But it matters to these governments, as they’ve enacted policies that promote the third demographic transition. Therefore they must be held accountable for the consequences.

Maybe this still sounds crazy to you. What kind of government would go out of its way to replace its own native-born people with outsiders, and for what purpose? I would say any government that is motivated to and not prevented from doing so. In our case the motivation is the ideology of third worldism—the belief that people of color and their interests are morally superior to those of Whites. And there is no prevention, because outside of the government, all of its personnel feeders in the business, media, and academia spaces are on board with third worldism as well. Diversity is their credo, and celebrating diversity is their equivalent of going to church.

Then again, the Tibetans are unlikely to be the last to be replaced; there is a reason why Congress passed the Chinese exclusion laws in the early 20th century. One of the more interesting science fiction possibilities I haven’t seen yet is the genetic recreation of the white race from diversity in a Han-dominated world. That particular homogenuity is the most likely end result of diversity; Europe has demonstrated that the (((anti-whites))) don’t think ahead much better than the short time-preferenced third worlders they celebrate, or anticipate the logical consequences of their actions. They are tacticians, not strategists.

Meanwhile, both liberals and conservatives fail to grasp that Asians in general and the Han in particular, are considerably more than generic not-whites. They have the most successful, proudest, and most ethnocentric culture on the planet, and perhaps more importantly, they do not let ideologies sabotage their national self-interest for long.

Ethnicity is central to China’s national identity. It is the Han, 1.2bn of them in mainland China alone, that most people refer to as “Chinese”, rather than the country’s minorities, numbering 110m people. Ethnicity and nationality have become almost interchangeable for China’s Han, says James Leibold of La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. That conflation is of fundamental importance. It defines the relations between the Han and other ethnic groups. By narrowing its legal labour market almost entirely to people of Han descent, ethnicity is shaping the country’s economy and development. And it strains foreign relations, too. Even ethnic Han whose families left for other countries generations ago are often regarded as part of a coherent national group, both by China’s government and people….

Race became a central organising principle in Republican China. Sun Yat-sen, who founded the Kuomintang, China’s nationalist party, and is widely seen as a “father” of the Chinese nation, promoted the idea of “common blood”. A century on President Xi Jinping continues to do so. One reason for his claim that Taiwan is part of China is that “blood is thicker than water”. In a speech in 2014 he set his sights even wider: “Generations of overseas Chinese never forget their home country, their origins or the blood of the Chinese nation flowing in their veins.”

Many Chinese today share the idea that a Chinese person is instantly recognisable—and that an ethnic Han must, in essence, be one of them. A young child in Beijing will openly point at someone with white or black skin and declare them a foreigner (or “person from outside country”, to translate literally). Foreign-born Han living in China are routinely told that their Mandarin should be better (in contrast to non-Han, who are praised even if they only mangle an occasional pleasantry). China today is extraordinarily homogenous. It sustains that by remaining almost entirely closed to new entrants except by birth.

Moreover, having witnessed and become dominant through the diversity-assisted suicide of the European West, the Chinese of the future are unlikely to fall for the same conceptual bait as the foolish liberals and conservatives of the West. There is no equality, there never will be, and those who make it an article of faith will inevitably be conquered by those who wisely reject it in favor of reality.


Understanding the Alt-Right

This is a pretty good exploration of the conceptual thinking underlying the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:

Otto von Bismark described politics as the art of the possible.  Instead of listening to his advice, 20th century political theorists became idealistic, utopian, and mechanistic.  It would treat a given variable as independent from the rest of the equation, when in fact it was webbed to the rest of society through a network of feedback mechanisms. “If we could only tweak this one thing, while everything else remains constant, we would be able to create a more perfect world.” The law of unforeseen consequences followed from this, leading to a great deal of misery and destruction.

An organic, holistic approach is needed – one which doesn’t shy away from hard truths – while avoiding the fallacy of world building.  Castles in the sky have no place in adult discourse or political debates, and should be shunned by anyone who wishes to be taken seriously.  I have no idea if the Alt Right will remain a viable movement, or if it will be taken over by aggressive, subversive interests, but whatever happens to the label itself, Vox Days’ points remain a good starting point for creating a new political understanding of the world which is eminently practical, and capable of leading us away from the brink of societal collapse.


1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

Neocons are best understood as Neo-Trotskyists, the dialectical response to Neo-Liberal Democrats, whose inevitable synthesis is Globalist Stalinism under the influence of figures such as George Soros.


2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

Libertarianism is an effect, not a cause, of a well ordered society.

Obviously, I’ll be providing a considerably more in-depth treatment in time, but in the meantime, this is a productive continuation of the discourse.

You’ll notice that the media, which is nominally eager to push forward all things Alt-Right, has avoided even mentioning the 16 Points like the plague, although they have been more broadly accepted by many across the Right than most of the figures and concepts they have attempted to elevate. That is because the 16 Points are eminently reasonable, obviously rational, and intrinsically sound, and therefore are not at all amenable to the media’s false narrative.


News and your top sites

We’re going to be introducing a Daily News feature at Infogalactic before the end of the year, as a number of people have requested it. It’s going to be a Drudge Report-style affair, updated twice daily, with nothing but text and a link to a relevant Infogalactic page for each story. We’re going to limit it to 11 reports about international current events, so you’ll still need to go to Drudge for “Body found behind WALMART missing head, genitals…” and “The Gender-Fluid Performer Who Changed Academy’s Mind…

This is another step towards breaking people’s dependence upon the Fake News. We’re also going to kick it off with 36 site links to the sites Infogalactic readers most often read. Obviously, VP will be one of them. AG will not. Instapundit and the Unz Review are obvious choices. I look on the list of Drudge columnists and I see precisely four names I’d even be willing to consider. What are your top ten personal candidates for the other 35 links?

If you’ve got an opinion, please provide your list of most-wanted sites in the comments. Keep in mind that they should be sites with daily, or near-daily, content. We will not include sites that post less frequently than 3-4 times per week. And if you’re a supporter or an OG, it should please you to note that Infogalactic has already passed up this blog in terms of daily pageviews.


What War on Christmas?

The Carlos Slim blog can’t find it:

It’s that time of year again, folks. It’s time for the War on Christmas.

What is that, you may ask? The short answer: a sometimes histrionic yuletide debate over whether the United States is a country that respects Christianity.

For the longer answer, keep reading.

The idea of a “War on Christmas” has turned things like holiday greetings and decorations into potentially divisive political statements. People who believe Christmas is under attack point to inclusive phrases like “Happy Holidays” as (liberal) insults to Christianity.

For over a decade, these debates have taken place mainly on conservative talk radio and cable programs. But this year they also burst onto a much grander stage: the presidential election.

At a rally in Wisconsin last week, Donald J. Trump stood in front of a line of Christmas trees and repeated a campaign-trail staple.

“When I started 18 months ago, I told my first crowd in Wisconsin that we are going to come back here some day and we are going to say ‘Merry Christmas’ again,” he said. “Merry Christmas. So, Merry Christmas everyone. Happy New Year, but Merry Christmas.”

Christmas is a federal holiday celebrated widely by the country’s Christian majority. So where did the idea that it is threatened come from?

Where indeed?


Berlin Christmas market attack killer still on the loose, say police

Also, if you say “Merry Christmas” to anyone, you are insensitive, a racist, a bigot, and an anti-Semite.

Happy Kwanzanukkadan, and may the metaphorical spirit of evolution naturally select you, your kin,and those who immigrate to replace them.


The First Act of WWIII

The great invasion of the 21st century is the first act of World War III, aided and abetted by the so-called leaders of the West. A powerful condemnation by the Dark Triad Man.

The skyrocketing instances of violent rape of Western women is a systematic, inherent method of Islamic war. This is brutally and unmistakably clear to all three parties involved in this fatally serious assault upon Western civilization.

It is clear to the invaders who deliver this infliction of sexual atrocity with deliberate and designed methodology. From the rape cages of Raqqa in the heart of the Islamic State to the formal pronouncements of Islamic leaders, it is clear that this is a design of intent.

It is foolish and stupid to pretend otherwise.

Insistence on illusion is obtuse in daily life. During time of existential war and in the face of declared mortal enemies it is both suicidal and castratingly idiotic.

It is clear to the leaders of the West who deny and spin and refuse to acknowledge the rising tide of civilization’s clash. They demand that social media outlets engage in active censorship of news and discussion of this horrific and cruel strategy. They ridiculously deny the reality that is both declared and evident.

It is unforgivable and strips them of all moral and practical authority to lead.

Their public proclamations of tolerance are bitterly degrading and empty.

It is unmistakably clear to the people of the West.

The people of the West have seen the horrific and murderous insanity of cruel invaders armed with battle rifles and explosives, butchering their way through theaters and schools and leaving behind a grotesque tapestry of blood and screaming cries to Allah.

The people of the West have seen their buildings driven into the ground in a rain of bodies and fire, the heart of our cities torn out and destroyed with foul and hideously indiscriminate murder by their mortal and terrible enemies.

The people of the West have seen the forbidding and malevolent evil of the soldiers of Islam beheading multitudes of martyrs on the beach, and aiming bloody knives at the heart of Rome while declaring that blood will run in the streets of the holy city.

The people of the West have seen children detonated with bombs and excruciatingly rutted to death by the befouled, savage followers of Mohammed. And today those legions of rapacious ideological sadists rampage unopposed through the streets of the ancient cities of the Rhine.

If you do not believe war is here today, you are blind.

If you refuse to accept that this war is existential for the West, you will die.

What are you doing to turn the tide? What are you doing to win this war? And if you’re not willing to fight for the survival of the West, for the survival of your nation, who will?

Do you think you will be safe because you don’t live in New York City, in San Bernadino, in St. Cloud, in Nice, or in Berlin?

You won’t be.


Merkel muss weg

BLOOD ON HER HANDS!
BERLIN MARKET MASSACRE
EX-NAZI AIRPORT BECOMES REFUGEE CAMP
‘THIS IS WAR’

Front and center on Drudge. The Monster Merkel has to go, and before the end of the year.

UPDATE: Asylum seeker arrested in Austria for planning Christmas terror attack


UPDATE: German Chancellor Angela Merkel has cancelled a public appearance today and addressed the people of Germany but it can be revealed she was at a service honouring migrants when her own people lay dead in Berlin’s streets.


UPDATE: A Nativity play was turned into chaos after an asylum seeker stormed the stage and started preaching from the Koran.


Feature, not bug

Dr. Helen observes that female Democrats are the most insular when it comes to politics:

What I find interesting here is that Republican women are the least likely to unfriend someone at 8% meaning that they are more tolerant of other points of view. But then, a Republican woman is generally someone more clearly likely to buck the trend and herd mentality as the majority of women are Democrats. Maybe right-leaning women are more autonomous and don’t need a crowd of people supporting and propping them up constantly.

I have noticed that in general, female Democrats have a harder time when someone disagrees with them and some can get very angry and hurl personal insults or dismiss the dissenter from their group. They seem very much like the group in Mean Girls who treat others with disdain in order to prop themselves up.

I find it easier to simply refuse to be friends with female Democrats in the first place. I don’t tolerate vapid stupidity very well. And if I want lectures, I’ll return to college.


Epic success

The early reviews are in, and I’m pleased to see that the general verdict is that A SEA OF SKULLS is an improvement on A THRONE OF BONES. Success, for a writer of epic fantasy, is when one aims at George RR Martin, only to discover that with Book Two, reviewers are beginning to compare the work to that of Tolkien rather than Martin.

Even better than the first. The perspectives were well written and differed entirely on the concepts of civilization and what it means for each to make war. Whether it is from an orc captain or an elven wing of flying calvary, a stranded Legion, a feudal kingdom of knights and let us not forget the Vikings. All unique with a current of practical realism in how strategy and tactics play out in total war including the inner turmoil of personal ideology of each main character. What is the right choice? What pieces make up the foundation of how to even begin to inform one of which choice is wisdom and which folly.

Epic on the level of Tolkien, but written in a totally different way, for a different generation of audience. Tolkien addressed good and evil of his generations struggle, while Day is focused on the heart of his own generation. Good and evil are timeless, but the battlefield shifts with the times and Day nails it.

When I began writing Arts of Dark and Light, I believed that I could do better than Martin did in A Dance With Dragons, which I found extremely disappointing given the earlier books in the series. I was naively optimistic that the decline in quality I perceived in the fifth book of ASOIAF was more the result of a foolish decision on Martin’s part to fill in the blanks rather than skipping ahead to when the dragons were grown, as I understand was his original plan.

After all, even though A Storm of Swords was not quite as good as its two predecessors, the introduction of the Ironborn and their religion was a spectacular scene, and it was entirely possible that its deficiencies were more related to middle-book syndrome than any incapacity or lack of imagination on Martin’s part. And the problem with A Feast for Crows was obviously mere fat fantasy bloat, a problem easily resolved by stripping things down. But A Dance With Dragons was simply bad, with false characterizations and even the dread river journey; the surefire sign of an author who lacks for better ideas. Even given the signs that the decline was structural in nature, it never once occurred to me that I could write anything equal to the rest of the series.

However, as I struggled with the challenges of deciding how to proceed with all the various options presented by the perspective characters, and prospective new perspective characters in the second book, I began to realize how thoroughly Martin had ruined A Song of Ice and Fire when he expanded it from the original concept of a trilogy. What I realized was that as the story expanded, and as the characters separated, even more discipline and focus was required, not less. In other words, fewer perspective characters, but deeper engagement with their personal story, and therefore letting significant elements of the larger story go without more than tangential attention or description.

This is why it has taken me so much longer to write the second book. It was less about simply cranking out the story, and more about making good decisions about what not to write and what avenues to leave unexplored. Even a well-written and interesting scene is a problem if it requires going down a path that will ultimately prove an unnecessary distraction.

Martin’s error, as I see it, is that he tried to describe too much of the larger story while failing to understand which of his characters are necessary to the larger story. His books increasingly read as if Tolkien had decided to devote as much of The Return of the King to Elrond in Rivendell, and to introducing the travails of a new female character from Bree, as he does to Aragorn and Frodo. Martin’s error is compounded by his apparent compulsion to keep trying to shock the reader; the impact of the Red Wedding was considerably less than that of Ned’s execution despite the greater quantity of blood shed, because the sophisticated reader can’t help but see it coming. Moreover, Martin increasingly relies upon cheating the reader, engaging in increasingly transparent sleight-of-hand, and sabotaging his characters in order to try to achieve the effect he is foolishly seeking.

The idea that the Young Wolf, who has proven to be a brilliant strategist and tactician, is going to throw everything away for love in the middle of a war to avenge his father is so profoundly stupid, and so false to his character as established, that it actually made me angry at the time. And all so that Martin could have an excuse to “shock” the reader. That was the moment that I realized Martin was not necessarily the first-rate writer one might have believed on the basis of the first book, although I wrongly assumed at the time that it was a singular mistake.

I won’t give away any details, nor will I claim to be a better or more accomplished writer than Martin across the board, but I will note that in ATOB, I was capable of pulling off something that Martin proved unable to do without cheating, despite multiple attempts on his part to do so. What is intriguing about the recent reviews of A SEA OF SKULLS is that, unlike when I started writing Arts of Light and Dark, I now believe that the end result of what will be a five-book series has the potential to be considered by impartial readers of the future to be a better epic fantasy in the end than A Song of Ice and Fire.

I’m not saying that it will be, only that I now think it may be possible. There is still a long and arduous road ahead. It is possible that my writing has peaked, it is possible that Martin will somehow manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat and reverse his apparent decline. Only time will tell. But what I can say is that it is no longer my object to write an epic that will be seen as being worthy of comparison to Martin’s, but rather, one to which his series compares unfavorably. That may sound arrogant or it may sound insane. Nevertheless, that is my objective.

The good news, for those who are just reading the first book now, is that the second one is now available. And, of course, for those who have read both, there is Summa Elvetica and the collection of short stories set in Selenoth, which will be available in hardcover and paperback editions next month.

A fabulous read, very entertaining. I was very sad to reach the end. Dammit, I want to know what happens next! The sequel cannot come quickly enough. Mr Day is a great new voice in fantasy. The story moves at a brisk pace, and is just a whole lot of fun. The world of Selenoth is imaginatively realised, and both more logical and intriguing than Westeros from Game of thrones. I was particularly impressed by the scenes featuring the Legions, which featured some incredible battles. Very well realised. Highly recommended for anybody who likes fantasy. Great characters. Shocking twists. And a story that continues to suprise right up to the end. Try it, and see for yourself just how quickly you go through its hundreds of pages.