True diversity is national

As is the case with so many things, the Diversity being pushed on the nations of the West is a lie, a false and evil version of the true diversity that can only be preserved through the various peoples of the world remainingly firmly and determinedly distinct:

By marrying and moving into another culture, the women of It’ll Never Last tried their best to join another nation, and their failure to do so illustrates, rather gloriously, that mankind is still diverse. Our differences don’t just reflect our ideals but define our autonomy.

Far from promising peace, those who sing of no countries are really threatening us all with unspeakable violence, psychic and physical.

An empire, by nature, must trample on nationhood, even its own, for it presents the empire’s ambitions as the nation’s necessities, for how else can you get Americans, for example, to go die and fight in Afghanistan or Iraq? Though citing love of nation constantly, our Washington rulers are essentially anti-American, and that’s why a genuine nationalist like Edward Snowden must flee to Russia.

Nationalism is simply the love of one’s language, culture, history and heritage, one’s very identity in short, but as wielded by an empire, nationalism becomes a murderous tool to violate one nation after another. The American empire is destroying the American nation.

You really have to watch at least a few moments of the film mentioned, and linked, in the article quoted above. There really is something observably wrong with women who go that far outside their own culture; you can observe the crazy eyes even before they open their mouths and confirm the observation.

With a few evil exceptions, there is nothing good or beautiful about the destruction of a people and their erasure from history through assimilation. The Israelis understand this, for as Martin van Creveld’s wife Dvora once told me, the two greatest dangers to the Jews are a) that they will be hated, and b) that they will be too well loved.


Larry boosts LawDog

Larry Correia has announced a Book Bomb on LawDog’s behalf:

Book Bomb time once again, and this is a really special one. I’ve known the Lawdog for about twenty years now. He was one of the original alpha readers for my first book because we were both moderators on the same gun forum. Ian is a great guy.

As a small town Texas cop he used to post these funny true life stories, and they were hilarious. Seriously, the guy has a gift. Some of these stories have become internet legend, like the amorous armadillo, the pink gorilla suit, and the shootout with Santa.

After nearly two decades of us bugging him, Lawdog has finally written a book!

It was another mutual friend, Peter Grant’s idea that I write a forward. I was happy to do so, because Lawdog is funny, talented, and has a way with words that can be making you laugh one minute, and punching you in the feels the next. I’m so glad he finally put together a book.

It’s already risen from 742 to 424 on Amazon as a result. THE LAWDOG FILES is an excellent book that will appeal to pretty much anyone with a sense of humor, so with the help from Larry’s fans, I won’t be surprised to see it punch through to double digits.


380 now. 189. 137. 108. 104. 101. 92. 87.

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #82 Paid in Kindle Store
#1 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > True Crime
#1 in Books > Humor & Entertainment > Humor > Business & Professional
#1 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > True Crime

Thank you all! Larry adds a note:

To put this accomplishment into perspective, True Crime is a very competitive genre. The previous #1 is from a big deal author, who has been #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, the book has been reviewed in places like the NYT, USA Today, Time, and the Wall Street Journal, and it’s currently #19 on the very big deal Amazon Most Read List.


SJWs improve science

I’m sure this new SJW policy bodes well for science and academia. You know, say what you will about the National Socialists, but at least they had functional science. At this point, the options are rapidly coming down to a) the Alt-Right and indoor plumbing or b) mud huts and 30-year life expectancies.

Academics and scholars must be mindful about using research done by only straight, white men, according to two scientists who argued that it oppresses diverse voices and bolsters the status of already privileged and established white male scholars.

Geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argued in a recent paper that doing so also perpetuates what they call “white heteromasculinism,” which they defined as a “system of oppression” that benefits only those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” (Cisgendered describes people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.)

Mott, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Cockayne, who teaches at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, argued that scholars or researchers disproportionately cite the work of white men, thereby unfairly adding credence to the body of knowledge they offer while ignoring the voices of other groups, like women and black male academics. Although citation seems like a mundane practice, the feminist professors argue that citing someone’s work has implications on his or her ability to be hired, get promoted and obtain tenured status, among others….

“Today, the field is more diverse, but this diversity is largely represented by earlier career scholars. Citing only tenured, established scholars means that these voices are ignored, especially when it is well-known that today’s brutally competitive academic job market continues to privilege the white heteromasculinist body,” they wrote.

Actually, forget the Nazis. At this point, I’m beginning to conclude that the Khmer Rouge had the right approach to academia.


Five questions about Russia

Charlie Martin has a few questions about the Trump-Russia “scandal”:

Question One. Does agreeing to meet with any Russian constitute collusion? Does lobbying by a Russian constitute collusion?

Question Two. What criminal statute covers meeting with Russian private citizens? For that matter, what criminal statute covers accepting opposition research about a candidate?

Question Three What is the massive ethical breach involved here? Was it more unethical than these?

Question Four. Does this photograph indicate collusion with the Russians? Is it only collusion when your name is “Trump”?

Question Five. What the hell is is wrong with these people?

I can only conclude that the media never heard the tale about the boy who cried wolf. Then again, it is Russian….


THE LAWDOG FILES

LawDog had the honor of representing law and order in the Texas town of Bugscuffle as a Sheriff’s Deputy, where he became notorious for, among other things, the famous Case of the Pink Gorilla Suit. In THE LAWDOG FILES, he chronicles his official encounters with everything from naked bikers, combative eco-warriors, suicidal drunks, respectful methheads, prison tattoo artists, and creepy children to six-foot chickens and lethal chihuahuas.

THE LAWDOG FILES range from the bittersweet to the explosively hilarious, as LawDog relates his unforgettable experiences in a laconic, self-deprecating manner that is funny in its own right. The book is more than mere entertainment, it is an education in two English dialects, Police and Texas Country. And underlying the humor is an unmistakable sympathy for society’s less fortunate – and in most cases, significantly less intelligent – whose encounters with the law are an all-too-frequent affair.

Already a bestseller, THE LAWDOG FILES are available exclusively at Amazon and are free on Kindle Unlimited. I vastly enjoyed these true stories; if you can imagine Garrison Keillor, with a gun, in a small Texas town where all the children are below average, only funnier, more succinct, and without a superiority complex, you just might be able to imagine how LawDog writes. But you will never, ever, be able to anticipate where some of his stories are going.

From the reviews:

  • I have been reading these shorts since the early 2000s on TFL, and it’s great to see them finally collected in a single place. By turns hilarious, poignant, and thought provoking they show the life of a deputy sheriff in small town West Texas, and the miscreants one encounters in the course of duty. It’s a de facto tribute to all those who wear the badge, day in and day out, and the things and people they have to put up with. Highly recommended!
  • Terrific American humor. LawDog leads the reader on a fantastic and hilarious journey through human psychology, the realities of rural Texas, and the ups and downs of LEO life. Going into the book I was uncertain what to expect. He’s much more than a Sheriff’s Deputy – a humorist of great eloquence and adroitness.
  • Joseph Wambaugh’s books are superb because he was an LA cop. LawDog’s book is right there in authenticity, tone and hilarity. And just as Wambaugh spins his books in a manner that any non-badge toting, gun-holstering civilian can understand, LawDog doesn’t take his readers into the world of quirky and twilight zoned law enforcement–he brings that rarely seen side of law enforcement to the reader and does so with the ease of conversation as though you were sitting around the card table for the weekly poker & cigar night.
  • LawDog is one of the best writers I have ever encountered. I feel like I am sitting around a fire, hearing stories from a favorite uncle. His descriptions are hilarious and his “translations” of colloquialisms are incredibly creative and spot on.
  • About the time I was reading about the “Serving Platter of Doom +3”, I was laughing hard enough that I couldn’t see the page. If your eyes are dry after reading about Mr. Johnson, you have no soul. I recognized the “two beers” from my own time in law enforcement. All in all, I enjoyed this book far more than I should have, and I suspect you will too. It gives you a mostly unvarnished look at a few moments in the life of a law enforcement officer.

Dr. Who converged

In a rare and totally not-at-all expected twist, the Thirteenth Doctor is a gay black woman!

Broadchurch star Jodie Whittaker is to be the first ever woman to play Doctor Who, it has been announced. The identity of the new Doctor was revealed on BBC One and on social media around the world after the Men’s Wimbledon Final today.

She will be the Thirteenth Time Lord and take over from Peter Capaldi who leaves the global hit show at Christmas.

New head writer and executive producer Chris Chibnall who takes over from Steven Moffat on the next series made the decision to cast the first ever woman in the iconic role.

Jodie Whittaker says: ‘I’m beyond excited to begin this epic journey – with Chris and with every Whovian on this planet. It’s more than an honour to play the Doctor.  ‘It means remembering everyone I used to be, while stepping forward to embrace everything the Doctor stands for: hope. I can’t wait.’

Chris Chibnall, New Head Writer and Executive Producer said: ‘After months of lists, conversations, auditions, recalls, and a lot of secret-keeping, we’re excited to welcome Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor. I always knew I wanted the Thirteenth Doctor to be a woman and we’re thrilled to have secured our number one choice.

It’s got to be a little difficult to fake much enthusiasm for doing what every other SJW in entertainment has already been doing for the last 10 years. Personally, I look forward to the inevitable reboot when the initial fake audience generated by the SJW attention  inevitably drifts away and everyone realizes that the traditional viewership has declined.

Now, personally, I don’t give a damn about Doctor Who. I haven’t watched it since I was in junior high and Tom Baker was the Doctor, and even then I thought it was pretty lame. And the actress is attractive, considerably more attractive than most of the past companions. But that’s all irrelevant, and the casting decision is chiefly noteworthy in that it signifies that absolutely nothing, no matter how classic or beloved, is safe from SJWs. We know we have reached Peak SJW when Heidi is remade, with the blonde Swiss girl played by a gay black transgendered Muslim.


Bitchslapping the neocons

Tucker Carlson brings the pain to Ralph Peters and Max Boot. First, Peters, who has never gotten over the Cold War:

Peters leaps into overstatement, as is his wont: “We can’t have an alliance with terrorists, and the Russians are terrorists. They’re not Islamists, but they are terrorists.” He then alleges that the Russians aren’t really fighting ISIS, but instead are bombing hospitals, children, and “our allies” (i.e. the radical Islamist Syrian rebels trained and funded by the CIA and allied with al-Qaeda and al-Nusra). The Russians “hate the United States,” and “we have nothing in common with the Russians” –nothing!” The Russians, says Peters, are paving the way for the Iranians – the real evil in the region – to “build up an empire from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean.” Ah yes, the “Shia crescent” which the Israelis and their amen corner in the US have been warning against since before the Iraq war. Yet Tucker points out that over 3,000 Americans have been killed by terrorists in the US, and “none of them are Shi’ites: all of have been Sunni extremists who are supported by the Saudis, who are supposed to be our allies.” And while we’re on the subject: “Why,” asks Tucker, “if we’re so afraid of Iran did we kill Saddam Hussein, thereby empowering Iran?”

“Because we were stupid,” says Peters.

Oh boy! Peters was one of the most militant advocates of the Iraq war: we were “stupid,” I suppose, to listen to him. Yet Tucker lets this ride momentarily, saving his big guns for the moment when he takes out Peters completely. And Peters walks right into it when Tucker wonders why we can’t cooperate with Russia, since both countries are under assault from Sunni terrorists:

“PETERS: You sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1938 saying Hitler hasn’t attacked us.

“TUCKER: I beg your pardon? You cannot compare me to somebody who makes apologies for Hitler. And I don’t think Putin is comparable.

“PETERS: I think Putin is.

“TUCKER: I think it is a grotesque overstatement actually. I think it’s insane.

Wait, I thought Assad was Hitler today? Or is it Milo Yiannopoulos? It would be helpful if there was some sort of Hitler du jour mailing list to which we could all subscribe and thereby be assured of remaining up to date on the current Hitler. But Peters was merely the appetizer for the meal Tucker made of the hapless Max Boot:

Perhaps the neocons, having been trounced in round one, thought Boot could do better: they were mistaken. Tucker took him apart simply by letting him talk: Boot didn’t answer a single question put to him, and, in the course of it all, as Boot resorted to the typical ad hominems, Tucker made a cogent point:

“[T]o dismiss people who disagree with you as immoral – which is your habit – isn’t a useful form of debate, it’s a kind of moral preening, and it’s little odd coming from you, who really has been consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over a decade. And so, you have to sort of wonder, like –

”BOOT: What have I been wrong about, Tucker? What have I been wrong about?

”CARLSON: Well, having watch you carefully and known you for a long time, I recall vividly when you said that if we were to topple the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, the region will be much safer and the people who took their place would help us in the global war on terror. Of course it didn’t happen –“

Boot starts to completely melt down at this point


Meme of the Week

The Meme Warriors have spoken. Of the five daily memes that went out last week, Russia DNC proved to be the most popular by a nose. Media Chimps was second, while my personal favorite of the five, Zuckerberg 2020, finished a respectable third. Ironically, the most conventional meme – admittedly, all five were rather more verbose than the norm – finished last.

  1. 26.2%  Russia DNC
  2. 24.2%  Media Chimps
  3. 22.3%  Zuckerberg 2020
  4. 17.6%  CNN Godfather
  5. 09.7%  CNN Zombies
If you haven’t seen all of these, you may want to consider signing up for the Daily Meme Wars. Regular meme service will resume on Monday.

He must be jealous

John Scalzi opines, mostly in experienced, but uninformed ignorance about Milo’s bestselling book, which actually made the New York Times bestseller lists on the merits of its own performance.

This is a little bit of publishing inside pool which apparently Yiannopoulos is not aware of (or is trying to fudge), but: You don’t count wholesale orders because wholesalers will eventually return books if they don’t sell them. The publisher has to make them whole for that, either by shifting credit to other books (which in this case Yiannopoulos as a self-publisher of a single book does not have), or by refunding the money. Yiannopoulos may have shipped 105,000 hardcover copies of the book, but that’s not the same as having sold them. I don’t know in this case what “direct orders” mean — it could be sales to individual book buyers (in which case that would be a sale) or to individual booksellers (in which case they are probably returnable, as book stores are loath to stock anything on a non-returnable basis), or to organizations which are making a “bulk buy” for their own reasons, say, a conservative organization who wants to hand out copies to employees or on the street or whatever.

But however you slice it, by Yiannopoulos’ own words (and by his apparent lack of understanding of how bookselling works), he probably has not in fact sold all 100k of the hardcover books. Also, with regard to the wholesalers and other booksellers, I do hope someone in his organization is keeping money in reserve to deal with returns when they (inevitably) happen. I’m also curious as to how he as a self-publisher is dealing with long-term storage and shipping of the books; I really don’t see Yiannopoulos himself handling that. I don’t picture him as a detail-oriented person. Perhaps this will be a job for the interns.

With all of this said, and again with the reminder that I find Yiannopoulos a hot feculent mess of a person, sales of 18,000 hardcovers in one week is pretty darn good. It was enough to land Yiannopoulos at #3 on the USA Today list and at #4 on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction list (and #2 on the paper’s print/ebook combined list). He’s a legitimate bestseller. And those 18K sales don’t cover ebook sales, which given his audience demographics I suspect are pretty high. Most authors would be absolutely delighted to have 18k in hardcover sales in their first week. People exercising schadenfreude about all this are thus advised to temper their glee somewhat. The book is not a failure in any manner except in contrast to Yiannopoulos’ industry-specific hype, and also (if the professional reviews are to be believed) as a book worth reading.

Can Yiannopoulos sell 100,000 copies of his book? I suspect so in the long run, especially considering that Yiannopoulos can now have it as a rider for speaking events that whomever is having him speak will be obliged to purchase a certain number of the book in order to have him appear — and speaking events and appearances are the actual bread-and-butter for a creature such as Yiannopoulos, for which this book is mostly advertising.

Has he sold that many in the first week? I doubt it. The actual number, in all formats, across all retailers, is somewhere between 18,000 and 100,000 copies. Which, again, is not at all a bad number of books to sell in the first week. Had Yiannopoulos been smart, he wouldn’t have alleged selling 100K books in his first week at all, he simply would have taken those USA Today and NYT list rankings and waved them about happily, and built PR around those.

But apparently he’s not really that smart. Now most of the stories are about how he only sold 18,000 copies in his first week, rather than the 100,000 copies he alleged.

It’s rather amusing to see Scalzi opining on someone else’s book sales and strategies, in light of how his fans claim that anyone doing the same to Scalzi is doing so out of envy. (For the record, I am not envious of Scalzi’s career nor do I think he is envious of Milo’s.)

Now, I can state, with certainty, that Scalzi has it mostly wrong. I won’t say more than that, because Milo’s secrets are not mine to tell, except to observe that no author publishing through the major publishers really understands how the world of independent publishing works at the top. In fact, even trying to compare unit sales doesn’t even make sense, because Milo will be making somewhere between 3x and 5x more per unit than Scalzi and other mainstream-published authors depending upon whether one is utilizing hardcovers, trade paperbacks, ebooks, or audiobooks as the metric.

Where Scalzi is correct is when he notes that Nielsen Bookscan woefully undercounts book sales, so much so that I pay it absolutely no attention whatsoever. And I am absolutely confident that Milo will sell more than 250,000 copies of Dangerous before the end of 2017; my expectation is that he will sell somewhere between 300k and 350k this calendar year. And that is copies sold to the reader, NOT merely units in the distribution channel

As for permitting the media to spin the story of Milo “only” selling 18,000 copies, that is the statement of a man who is accustomed to the media fawning on him and repeating his lies without question. No matter what Milo did, the media was going to find a way to say something negative. But  his assumptions about Milo’s dishonesty is a timely reminder of the 3rd Law of SJW: SJWs Always Project.


Regression to the mean

This is the statistical reality that will always confound the civic nationalists and their ideals of uplift. Iron Spartan comments concerning a couple with whom he is acquainted.

There are a pair of black doctors married to each other at a local hospital. They have two sons and a daughter. With every advantage normally associated with whites, one son failed out of high school, (which is an achievement on its own in the current education environment) went to prison for stealing cars and breaking into houses shortly after his 18th birthday, the other son made it into college and failed out by midterms, and the daughter has two kids by different daddies before she turned 18.

It doesn’t matter how well you train the cat to fetch or teach the dog to use the litter box. Their kittens and puppies are naturally going to revert to what is normal behavior for their kind if they are not subjected to exactly the same training by external forces that their parents were. It is one of the great ironies of the Civil Rights movement that racism, segregation, and the continuous repression of the black minority may have been the primary contributor to keeping the black family together in the USA.

Conservatives always like to blame the Great Society for the demise of the black family, but the reality is that the influence of its perverse incentives were relatively limited. It appears that the most destructive aspect of the Great Society, in this particular regard, is that it permitted African-Americans to return to the dyscivilizational social arrangments historically preferred in African culture.

Every race has its exceptional individuals. Every race has statistical aberrations who should not be judged by the general stereotypes and averages. But societal policies that are made on the basis of exceptions and aberrations are almost guaranteed to be disastrous, whether the outliers are to the right or the left side of the Bell Curve.