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.

Unbelievable

California prosecutors drop all charges against violent Antifa professor:

BREAKING: California Prosecutors drop major charges against violent Antifa gang member Eric Clanton who assaulted Trump supporter with deadly weapon – OAN

It looks like they really want war. There is not even a pretense of maintaining a civilized, law-abiding society anymore. This, by the way, is what post-Christianity looks like.

There will be no “Blue Wave”

There is no upset in Ohio:

Troy Balderson (R) has 50.2 percent of the vote with 100{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9} of precincts in, compared to 49.3 percent for Danny O’Connor (D). 

The Trump Derangement Syndrome we saw after the election is only going to get worse when the Republicans hold the House in November.

The Republicans have now won 8 out of 9 House Seats, yet if you listen to the Fake News Media you would think we are being clobbered. Why can’t they play it straight, so unfair to the Republican Party and in particular, your favorite President!
– President Donald Trump

A very poor job

That’s the only way I can describe my ongoing attempts to avoid the media, at least this week. I’ll be going on with Alex Jones today at 1PM Central, and with Jesse Lee Peterson tomorrow. You can probably imagine what Alex and I will be discussing. Please note that these appearances do not mean that I have changed my mind about interviews or that I want to be inundated with podcast requests and so forth.

Anyhow, I discussed the recent banning of Infowars from Youtube and the other social media platforms on, ironically enough, Youtube the other day.

The problem is that a lot of people took the bite from the apple, you know, it was tempting to use the platforms that they offer you. It was tempting to use Twitter because Twitter allowed people like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec and many others to quickly build up audiences much more rapidly than they could do in an organic fashion on their own platforms. So the problem is nobody bothered to do it, everybody wanted to use these platforms that were constructed because they made it easy for you.

Well, guess what, it’s not easy anymore, so what? There’s a lot of us who have been dealing with this stuff for over ten years. If you’re a right-winger who happened to write fiction, you’ve been banned from most publishing houses for about the last 15 years, all right, so none of this is new. I mean, people sometimes ask how come you’re so calm about this, that, and the other thing, and it’s because I’m not surprised by any of this. All of this was inevitable. The moment that they felt that they were sufficiently in control, they were going to act like this, and so you know that the time for taking advantage of playing around and using their platforms is over.

25 and counting

The Sweden Democrats are defeating all the pro-immigrant, pro-globalist mainstream parties:

An anti-immigration and anti-globalist party is set to win Sweden’s general election next month by a landslide, according to the latest polls.

The right-wing Sweden’s Democrats (SD) will win 25.5 per cent of voters, according to a Sentio poll, making them Sweden’s largest political party.

Voiceofeurope.com reports: Secondly, the Social Democrats are 21.1 per cent, also a marginal decrease from 21.2 per cent. In the latest survey, the Moderates increased to 19.1 per cent.

Liberals, however, decreased from 5.8 per cent to 4.6 per cent. Even the Centre Party decreased to 6.9 per cent.

The Christian Democrats are dropping from 4 per cent to 2.4 per cent.

Environmental parties have lost favour by 3.9 per cent.

I wrote this in January:

Nationalism intensifies. The Sweden Democrats growing vote share:

1998: 0.4{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9}
2002: 1.4{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9}
2006: 2.9{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9}
2010: 5.7{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9}
2014: 12.9{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9}
2018: I expect 30{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9}+ 

The challenge, as the True Finns learned after getting their little first taste of power, is to not permit any power to be given to the cucks and moderates who gravitate to the winners. Going back on your promises under the guise of being responsible and respectable is the fastest way for an insurgent party to lose all of that sweet, heady public support and disappear.