#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
This could be significant. Apparently Hillary had TWO mail servers, and the FBI never reported the second one or took it away from her. The more we learn, the more corrupt and illegal the actions of the Clinton campaign appear to be.
And, of course, the more obvious the corruption of the FBI becomes.
It’s not his fault. He was provoked.
NEW YORK, NY—Despite withering criticism of The New York Times’ recent decision to hire famed Communist leader and murderer of millions Joseph Stalin to the newspaper’s editorial board, The Times has defended Stalin and the move to allow him a platform to voice his far-left policies.
Upon the announcement of Stalin’s hire, thousands of readers pointed out that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of up to 25 million people. But on Thursday, The Times released a statement saying that editors were aware of Stalin’s sordid past before hiring him, and that it would not be bowing to “right-wing outrage” over “just a few million deaths.”
“His nationality as a Russian and his identity as a Communist have made him the target of much online harassment,” The Times wrote. “For a period of time, he responded to criticism by lashing out, fighting fire with fire by executing dissenters and implementing policies that sent countless people to their deaths. He now sees this only fueled the rage against him and was not entirely appropriate.”
The Times also wrote that Stalin has promised not to continue to kill people while he is employed by the paper. “He is an important part of the voice of our organization,” they wrote.
Fake Conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and David French both defended the new hire, pointing out that “as a private corporation, it is entirely within the rights of The New York Times to employ mass murderers” if the news organization “feels that will enhance their bottom line.”
Greg Richards explains why Trump knows the trade war must be fought, and better yet, can easily be won.
Why is this chart important?
It is a death sentence for America.
Although it is a single series of data, the chart is essentially in two parts, split in the year 2000. There is no manipulation to achieve this effect. This is how the data lay out, which is why this chart is so significant.
From 1968 into 2000, you see beautiful, real-world steady growth (i.e., “steady” interspersed with recessions). The red trendline is a trendline of constant percentage growth year to year (i.e., exponential). When you calculate it, it turns out to be 6{2f950ec02e67afe15e56ddb5018469898c7f7df1891e5cecbf34a80033d044ba} per year. This is roughly twice GDP annual growth over the same period. There is no specific significance to that 2X factor except that we would expect capital spending to grow faster than the economy as a whole, as, in fact, it did.
Why is this growth in capital spending important? Even in our increasingly service-oriented economy, it is capital spending – the stock of capital equipment – that sustains our standard of living. Healthy capital spending is critical to – really identical with – a thriving economy. This is why the flat capital spending that America has experienced since 2000 is so grave a condition.
American Thinker readers will be surprised to learn that they are now the only people in the country, aside from this author, who have seen this chart. I could not be more serious when I say that.
Economists do not think of capital spending in terms of real-world numbers. They think of it as a concept in their models that self-equilibrates. There isn’t an economist from Harvard to Stanford or anywhere in between who knows this chart. Believe me: I have worked with these people. If you as a reader are in business or in academe, try me out.
The only person in public life who understands this chart is Donald Trump. I cannot say he has literally looked at it, but he understands it.
Note that we are not talking about the “creative destruction of capitalism” here. We are not talking about no longer making buggy whips. We are talking about the staples of a modern economy, many of which we no longer have the capital equipment to manufacture.
We were the only country to emerge from World War II stronger than when we went into it, and our relative strength at the end of World War II was immeasurable. It became our policy, and then our unconscious attitude, to “help other countries get back on their feet.” This attitude became a permanent part of our trade policy-making, wherein we essentially opened our markets to other countries while accepting that their markets were closed to us.
The chart shows that our ability to sustain the Lord Bountiful approach to trade ended forever in 2000, although nobody in power saw it until Donald Trump came along in 2016.
If one looks at debt growth, one will actually achieve a deeper understanding, but this will do for non-economists. The most important part of the article is this section, which I have been trying to explain to people in multiple venues with varying degrees of success:
Economists think mercantilism can never work, thus Trump attacking it as practiced by China is a fool’s errand or worse. This is based on the early 19th-century Theory of Comparative Advantage developed by David Ricardo. It states that among trading parties, even if one party’s production costs are greater in all goods than the other party’s, the first party should focus on those goods where it has a comparative advantage – i.e., where its own cost of production is lower. If the two countries then trade, both will improve their welfare. If, under these conditions, a country practices mercantilism, it impoverishes itself. This is a substantial insight.
But it depends on a key assumption: that capital is fixed. Ricardo’s example was that the British should raise sheep and the French should make wine, and they should trade these goods with each other. The example was based on climate, the ultimate in fixed capital.
With capital mobile, as it is now, mercantilism works. By forcing a trading partner to move its assets, technology, know-how, intellectual property, and R&D to the mercantilist country in order to participate in its market, a country can build itself up at the expense of its trading partner. Following its accession to the WTO, China has been strip-mining the U.S. economy of high value-added industries and high-wage jobs by doing this.
The USA can only benefit from a trade war. That, of course, is why everyone around the world is freaking out. The genie is out of the bottle and it is becoming more and more apparent to everyone that the economic foundation for the globalist world order has not only failed, but was built on intellectual sand from the very start.
Fred Reed is among the growing number of evolution skeptics and he answers responses to his recent column on the subject:
Recently I wrote a column about the theory of Intelligent Design, which holds that that life, both in its origins and its changes over time, are the result of design instead of chance. Several hundred comments and emails arrived, more than I could read. This was not surprising as there seems to be considerable public interest in the question, while a virulent political correctness prevents discussion in most forums. In particular the major media prevent mention of Intelligent Design except in derogatory terms.
Interesting to me at any rate was that the tone of response was much more civil and thoughtful than it was say, a decade ago.
A fair few respondents quoted the Bible. I wondered why the Bible and not the Koran or Bhagavad Gita. The Bible seems to me the chaotic literature of a barbaric tribe and characterized by morally unpleasant stories. Why it is thought to have any relevance to abiogenesis is not clear to me.
Some readers, quoting Carl Sagan, said approximately, “Fred, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence to support it.” I don’t disagree. The claim that ocean water will in time produce Manhattan seems to me sufficiently extraordinary to require extraordinary evidence. So far, there is none. Evolutionists have not shown that sea water can produce any life at all, much less the New York Philharmonic.
Other readers insist that Intelligent Design is not scientific. If not, so what? The question should be not whether it is scientific but whether it is true. What an ideological group calling themselves scientists believe is not a valid test of truth. When I was in the eighth grade, I watched Crusader Rabbit on television. This is not science, yet it is true.
If science deals with the reproducible, then paleontology is not science, as neither is the chance creation of life, which has not proved reproducible. If science must make predictions, then physiology is not science, being entirely descriptive. If science is the study of the quantifiable, then evolution isn’t. What is the unit of selective pressure?
Fred has landed on precisely the aspect of evolutionary theory that made me into a strong TE(p)NSBMGDaGF skeptic. What many people who have not thought seriously about the issue don’t realize is that biologists are literally so stupid, and so innumerate, and so illogical, that they don’t understand the problems that quantification creates for their many unfounded assumptions.
You may recall that I confused a number of evolution advocates by asking them a very simple question: what is the average rate of evolutionary mutation. The problem was not that they could not provide a precise answer, although the fact that they couldn’t even work out a possible range as well as I could was troubling. The problem was that they did not understand that the question was a) entirely legitimate, b) the answer to it can theoretically be worked out, and worst of all, c) there ABSOLUTELY MUST be a precise answer to it.
What their confusion indicated to me, and what I later confirmed by analyzing undergraduate, graduate, and PhD programs, is that biologists are still essentially butterfly collectors. They are the least intelligent of the STEM field graduates and most of them have no ability whatsoever to even begin to grasp the relevant issues involved, let alone successfully address them.
For example, it is particularly amusing to note that I have encountered people who sneer at the idea of intelligent design while simultaneously admitting to being philosophically open to the idea that the world is some sort of digital simulation. I can’t even bring myself to point out to them that if the world is a digital simulation, this strongly implies that the intelligent design crowd was correct all along.
I told you the media was going to stick to the GG-Pizzagate narrative and try to stage a “violent” attack by “dangerous Q cultists” in order to disqualify and discredit the Qanon movement. But apparently, it’s happening already. NeonRevolt has the details about what happened behind the scenes at the Wilkes-Barre Trump rally:
Intel from 2anon friends at rally tonight.
- CNN 4 AM talking points stated videos ready of POTUS recognizing Q
- chatter suggested a disturbance would be recorded victimizing CNN by Q
- Secret Service noticed Q sign saying just the plan instead of trust the plan
- Two individuals with large Q signs very visible reference to the plan wrong refused to give up signs when asked
Moved off camera by SS then removed from premises
Anyway, now you know the media’s setup: they’re attempting to frame the #QArmy as violent and dangerous, and then air that footage nonstop across the nation to try to get the normies all riled up.
This won’t be their last attempt. The false narrative is all set to push “journalists are victims of the evil Q”. It’s Fake News in operation.
The ride never ends.
At long last, I am doing as more than a few people have requested and appearing on The Public Space with Jean-François Gariépy. You can watch it here.
I was asked to give a statement about the attack on Alt-Hero by Dynamite Comics’s Atari’s Centipede #4 by Bounding Into Comics:
Vox Day and Arkhaven Comics, who were insulted in Dynamite Comics and Atari’s Centipede #4 by writer Max Bemis, artist Eion Marron, and letterer Taylor Esposito has issued an exclusive response.
The comic insulted Day and Arkhaven Comics’ ongoing series Alt Hero by calling it “a joke” in an alien language.
Vox Day issued a statement regarding the insult in Centipede #4:
“We’re not even remotely surprised to see that our lesser competitors are frightened of what Arkhaven, Dark Legion, and Alt-Hero represent. Radical change is coming to the comics industry, and it is coming faster than they believe possible.”
He also wanted to share the cover for Alt-Hero #3, which is expected to be released this upcoming Monday, August 6th.
Have a look at it there. Warning, some may find it… triggering. But the attack on Alt-Hero was pretty mild compared to the very nasty, and personal, attack on Arkhaven and Castalia House author Jon Del Arroz.
Civic nationalists and cuckservatives are reeling at the discovery that Dems R the Real Racists doesn’t work:
The New York Times announced Monday it hired left-wing writer Sarah Jeong, who has a long history of racist tweets, to be the lead technology writer for the newspaper’s editorial board. Jeong repeatedly posted racist statements via her Twitter account.
The announcement of Jeong’s hiring comes after The New York Times fired its previous brand new hire for the same technology writer position last February because she “retweeted a racial slur.”
Far from merely retweeting a single offensive post, Jeong likened an entire race of people to “goblins,” compared their conversations to animals urinating, and declared that skin color entirely determined whether an individual was awful or not.
In one tweet from 2014, Jeong wrote that white people are “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”
“Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” she wrote in another. “The science is indisputable,” she wrote. “Theoretically you can’t be racist against white people,” she wrote in a separate post before claiming that white people smell like dogs.
You go, Asian girl! But Miss Leong will have to admit that even if white people smell like dogs, at least their breath doesn’t smell like Baked Labrador.
Or could it be secret support?
Max Bemis, Eoin Marron, and letterer Taylor Esposito referenced your Alt-Hero Comic in Centipede #4 from Dynamite Comics. Using an alien language, they wrote “Alt-Hero is a joke.” You can see it in the third panel. It’s easier to read if it’s inverted.
It’s ironic that all of the comics pros are afraid to criticize it for fear of making it more popular, and to support it for fear of coming under SJW attack.
You guessed it, it’s the New York Times-endorsed controlled opposition figure, (((Ben Shapiro))).
Alexa Names Her Favorite Conservative Pundit: Ben Shapiro.
The responses by Instapundit readers demonstrate that conservatives are finally seeing through the little fraud. These are all just from the initial page of comments.
Basil Makedon
This endorsement is enough for me to banish Shapiro to the outer-darkness. I don’t actually see the fascination with him, honestly. He’s not nearly as clever as he (and his fans) believes. I went to Law School with at least a half-dozen short, Jewish guys who were twice as smart, more conservative and talked at least as fast. Most of his “debates” are with half-witted children who have had indoctrination rather than education. The whole “Intellectual Dark Web” thing is such a farce. All of those people — save Shapiro — are Leftists, shivved by Blessed Hussein’s children. Shapiro is the lone exception, which of course makes me suspicious.
jubadoobai
Alexa likes the chipmunk on helium? Fix her taste buds, Bezos. Sigh. I used to like him, too. Once upon a time.
Carey J
It’s only because Shapiro writes for NeverTrump Review.
Kyle Smith
The highly politicized Alexa answers mean that someone works full time politicizing Alexa and is paid to to do that. They hate average Americans and cannot help themsevles. Every “power” they get they turn to politics and hate.
Botched_Lobotomy
You could make an argument that Shapiro is a classical liberal based on his defense of free speech as long as he likes the person who’s speech is being restricted. You’d be wrong but you could at least make a good faith argument. In no way is he a conservative.
WanderingWonderer
Ben Shapiro has publicly stated that “racists” should be hunted down and hounded from their places of employment. Naturally he’s all about Israel staying jewish by any means necessary but ‘doesn’t care’ about America’s demographics. Ben Shapiro has also defended James Gunn’s “jokes” about pedophilia. It just goes to show who he likes and whose side he is on.
BillyS
Ben is the controlled opposition. They have to have some opposition, but they reign him in very well. He was just defending a pedophile recently after all!
Richard Warren
No surprise that the Approved Opposision (TM) is the approved opposition, except perhaps to that Driscoll guy.
JimboFlex
A member of the “Intellectual Dark Web” is Jeff Bezos favorite conservative? How can this be? We couldn’t possibly have been sold a false bill of goods!
jckluge
Ben is a complete putz who would run conservatism as a completely ineffective opposition if he could. I think Alexa is just following orders here.
willbest
Why would Alexa need to go to reeducation camp for picking one of the NYT approved voices of the conservative movement?
Vizzini
No, Bezos smiles. The Littlest Chickenhawk is the controlled opposition. All is proceeding in accordance with Bezos’ plan.
dougf43
Well of course Benny is her favourite. Why would he not be. Seemingly a combative worthy adversary, but in reality, under the surface, nobody to worry about at all. Because what Ben really approves of is Ben Shapiro, and his exquisite better than you morality. All sound and absolutely no fury, signifying —nothing.