The fake story of history

Steve Sailor can’t help but concur with Mark Zuckerberg’s globalist manifesto:

“History is the story of how we’ve learned to come together in ever greater numbers — from tribes to cities to nations.”

As we all know, independence and diversity have always been the enemy of progress. For example, that’s why Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Dependence submitting the American colonies to the British Empire.

Similarly, the father of history, Herodotus, wrote to celebrate the mighty Persian Empire’s reduction of the various Greek city-states to a satrapy ruled from Babylon.

Likewise, every year Jews gather to admit that their stiff-neckedness provoked the Roman Empire into, rightfully, smashing the Temple in Jerusalem on the holy day of We-Had-It-Coming.

And, of course, who can forget Shakespeare’s plays, such as Philip II and Admiral-Duke of Medina Sidonia, lauding the Spanish Armada for conquering the impudent English and restoring to Canterbury the One True Faith?

Similarly, Oswald Mosley’s prime ministership (1940-1980) of das englische Reich is justly admired for subordinating England’s traditional piratical turbulence to the greater good of Europe.

Likewise, who can not look at the 49 nations currently united by their adherence to the universalist faith of Islam and not see that submission is the road to peace, prosperity, and progress? If only unity had prevailed at Tours in 732 instead of divisiveness. May that great historical wrong be swiftly rectified in the decades to come!

Since they believe there is the same as here, then why should any globalist complain when the nationalists send them out of the West?

Equality is not “the rights of Englishmen”

An article on Alexander Hamilton’s opinion on immigration is revealing for what it shows about Jefferson and the false foundation he provides the civic nationalists for their pseudo-nationalism:

Although Alexander Hamilton was himself an immigrant, he was adamantly opposed to the open immigration policies that President Thomas Jefferson proposed in his first annual message to Congress in 1801. Although the incoming president had once opposed unlimited immigration, Jefferson now saw it as a way to secure the future political dominance of his own party over Hamilton’s Federalists.

Hamilton, like most Federalists, was concerned about French influence on American politics. Although the French Revolution had descended into terror and led to the rise of Napoleon, Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party persisted in their attachment to the French. Hamilton feared that Jefferson’s proposal for unlimited immigration would lead to the triumph of the radical principles of the French Revolution over those of the more moderate American Revolution.

Writing as “Lucius Crassus,” Hamilton argued: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”

Invoking Jefferson’s own “Notes on Virginia,” Hamilton observed that “foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners.” He argued that “it is unlikely that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism.”

He continued: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

Hamilton concluded: “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in [Jefferson’s] message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

As I have repeatedly noted, the openness of certain of the Founding Fathers to non-English immigration was not based on principle, and equality was very far from a core principle of the American Revolution, much less the “sacred” and primary principle that the civic nationalists falsely claim it to be.

Equality was not a core principle of the American Revolution at all, nor does the false and ahistorical conservative distinction between “equality of opportunity” and “equality of result” have anything to do with the famous rhetorical phrase that Jefferson inserted in the Declaration of Independence. The equality to which Jefferson refers is actually the “liberté, égalité, fraternité” of the French Revolution for which he subsequently showed such enthusiasm. Equality is a French concept, not an American one, and is not among the Rights of Englishmen.

Moreover, the Congress rejected Jefferson’s unprincipled and tactical call for open immigration, as it restricted naturalization to “free white men” and ” further directed the clerk of the court to record the entry of all aliens into the United States” in the Naturalization Law of 1802.

Fake news, fake jews

We live in an age of lies and falsehoods. The news is fake. The economic statistics are fake. The educations are fake. Churchians practice a fake parody of Christianity. And as Isi Leibler declares, pseudo-liberal and progressive fake jews have abandoned their homeland, their religion, and their Jewish identity in the Jerusalem Post:

Contrary to all the claptrap about democracy that they sanctimoniously preached while in office, leftists are unwilling to accept the fact that their candidate was defeated by a parvenu.

The same chaos has swept through Europe, many of whose citizens are revolting against the failure of the Brussels-based European Union bureaucrats to address their needs and above all the collapse in the quality of their lives resulting from millions of so-called refugees flooding their countries.

This has led to a rise in global populism, a revival of conservative and right-wing political parties and rejection of the “politically correct” way of life imposed by sanctimonious liberal ideologues.

How has this chaos impacted on Diaspora Jews? As history has testified, during periods of stress and anxiety, Diaspora Jews face grave threats. Antisemitism, already having reached record levels since the Nazi era, is poised to become even more vicious.

That situation has been temporarily muted because the prevailing threat of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attacks in many Western nations has directed public anger toward Muslims rather than Jews. This does not apply to Hungary, Greece and Germany.

The Jews, as a minority that has suffered tyranny and persecution, would be expected under current circumstances to concentrate primarily on their own security. Ethics of the Fathers quotes Hillel the Elder, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I?” Liberal-inclined Diaspora Jews – especially those lacking an authentic Jewish education – appear to have reversed this dictum. They consider that the well-being of the world and politically correct standards of social values must be their priority – with disregard to the harm this inflicts on them as a community.

Observing Conservative and Reform Jewish leaders in the US, accompanied by once-mainstream liberal Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League and National Council of Jewish Women, at the forefront of hysterical demonstrations accusing Trump of being fascist and encouraging antisemitism, it is if they have been possessed by a dybbuk.

The same bleeding hearts in the US as well as those in Europe were at the forefront of calls to open the gates to Muslim “refugees” steeped in anti-democratic behavior and nourished on diets of undiluted, visceral antisemitism…. One of the main justifying positive elements of progressive Jews was that even if they did not consider themselves obligated to follow Halacha (Jewish law), their activity would ensure that they at least remained within a Jewish framework. What their leaders are doing now is the opposite – encouraging them to take up liberal causes even if it means forsaking Israel, the most fundamental component providing them with a Jewish identity.

They have reversed Hillel’s maxim and act for what they perceive to be the universal needs of humanity, dismissing the interests of their own people. They are undermining themselves as a community and acting as lemmings marching off a cliff to their own destruction.

There is only one example in Jewish history to which such behavior can be compared. The Jewish Bolsheviks also turned against their own people, and ultimately the revolution consumed them.

Unfortunately, the vociferous anti-Trump Jewish activists represent a far greater proportion of the Left and their bleeding-heart pseudo-liberal allies than the Bolsheviks, who represented an insignificant proportion of Russian Jews.

It is clear that in the Diaspora, committed Jews will remain overwhelmingly supportive of Israel while the pseudo-liberal or progressive Jews will become less interested in Israel and ultimately lose their identity.

The growing divide between the true Jews of Israel and the fake jews who are loyal to neither the West nor Israel is becoming ever more clear. Leibler, as is appropriate, criticizes these fake jews for failing to be loyal to their Jewish identity, or to remain within what he describes as “a Jewish framework”. The Alt-Right, as is also appropriate, criticizes the fake jews for their treacherous dyscivic and dyscivilizational actions against the nations of the West and Western civilization itself.

As Leibler observes, these fake jews are traitors to their people and  to their countries of residence alike, as Mark Zuckerberg demonstrated yesterday in his openly anti-Western, anti-American call for global totalitarian rule subject to his speech and thought policing. Ein Welt, Ein Reich, Ein Facebook. He’s even written a manifesto.

History is the story of how we’ve learned to come together in ever greater numbers — from tribes to cities to nations. At each step, we built social infrastructure like communities, media and governments to empower us to achieve things we couldn’t on our own.

Today we are close to taking our next step. Our greatest opportunities are now global — like spreading prosperity and freedom, promoting peace and understanding, lifting people out of poverty, and accelerating science. Our greatest challenges also need global responses — like ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics. Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community.

Zuckerberg is not the first jew to write a manifesto. It is less well-written than its predecessor, and Mankind had better hope it proves to be less historically destructive as well. Fake jews like nothing better than to call their critics “anti-Semites”, but the fact is, it is the pseudo-liberal and progressive jews of the Left who are observably the true anti-semites, as they have rejected their homeland, they have rejected their religion, and they have rejected their Jewish identity.

Mailvox: the Collapsing Parodist

Tor sent out an email with a big excerpt from McRapey’s forthcoming attempt to take his inimitable skills at imitation to new heights and rip off both Isaac Asimov and Frank Herbert AT THE SAME TIME:

Enter The Flow With Excerpts from John Scalzi’s The Collapsing Empire

The Collapsing Empire is available March 21, but in the meantime, you can transport yourself into Scalzi’s interstellar epic with excerpts on Tor.com. We’ll be posting chapters all week; you can get started right away with the prologue and Chapter One, and check back all this week for additional excerpts, collected below. Happy Reading!

Yesterday I received an email from an intrepid SF reader who boldly dared to go where few would bother. His conclusions:

I read the excerpt and postscript of it just yesterday. It is really bad – there’s an entire chapter where strategy or politics is discussed by some lady who has been walked in on while fucking Wesley Crusher, and she just keeps going at it while continuing the conversation. Deeply pathetic.

Wait… it turns out I made a mistake. The Amazon Look Inside copy has missing pages during the Wesley Crusher episode, which is why I thought it consumed most of the chapter. After reading the Amazon sample, I looked at the Wesley Crusher chapter that Tor posted, and she only has her conversation while having sex for about two pages or so. It is nevertheless patently ridiculous, although much much funnier in the Look Inside version where she has her third party conversation for about 15 pages while getting plowed by a boy toy.

Sadly, the misunderstood version is a better yarn. The ironic thing about it is that end of the book gives away that the Flow or whatever it is called has been based on some convoluted lie the entire time. And now they finish by having to establish a new lie to keep the galaxy going, or something.

It is surprisingly devoid of snark. Or anything resembling emotion. It reads like a damned board meeting or something. It’s like he plagiarized SFWA treasury meetings for inspiration.

Oh. My. I’m not surprised in the least. But I am amused. You know that later today, there will be an executive at Macmillan flipping through the book and saying, “wait, Patrick paid HOW much for this shit?” But then, I thought, surely the reviewer exaggerates!

No, as it turns out, no, he isn’t.

Chapter Two

Kiva Lagos was busily fucking the brains out of the assistant purser she’d been after for the last six weeks of the Yes, Sir, That’s My Baby’s trip from Lankaran to End when Second Officer Waylov Brennir entered her stateroom, unannounced. “You’re needed,” he said.


“I’m a little busy at the moment,” Kiva said. She’d just finally gotten herself into a groove, so fuck Waylov (not literally, he was awful) if she was going to get out of the groove just because he walked into it. Grooves were hard to come by. People have sex, and he was unannounced. If this was what he walked into, it was his fault, not hers. The assistant purser seemed a little concerned, but Kiva applied a little pressure to make it clear festivities were to continue.


“It’s important.”


“Trust me, so is this.”


“We’ve got a customs official who won’t let us take any haverfruit off the ship,” Brennir said. If he was shocked or scandalized by Lagos’s activities he was doing a good job of hiding it. He mostly looked bored. “Offloading our haverfruit is why we came to End. If we don’t sell it, or develop licenses, we’re screwed. You’re the owner’s representative. You’re going to have to explain to your mother why this trip was the cause of the financial ruin of your family. So perhaps you might like to join Captain Blinnikka in talking with this customs official right now to see if you can resolve this problem. Or you can just go on fucking that junior crew member, ma’am. I’m sure those are equivalent activities as regards your future, and the future of this ship, and your family.”


“Well, shit,” Kiva said. Her groove was definitely gone, and the assistant purser, her little project, looked pretty miserable at the moment. “That was a pretty impressive jab you just gave to someone who can fire your ass, Brennir.”


“You can’t fire me, ma’am,” Brennir said. “I’ve got tenure with the guild. Now, are you coming or not?”


“I’m thinking.”

Well, it is sort of reminiscent of Asimovian naming conventions, I suppose. Awful as it is, I don’t think it quite manages to top this legendary exchange from the Hugo Award-winning Redshirts, though.

“Man, I owe you a blowjob,” Duvall said.


“What?” Dahl said.


“What?” Hester said.


“Sorry,” Duvall said. “In ground forces, when someone does you a favor you tell them you owe them a sex act. If it’s a little thing, it’s a handjob. Medium, blowjob. Big favor, you owe them a fuck. Force of habit. It’s just an expression.”


“Got it,” Dahl said.


“No actual blowjob forthcoming,” Duvall said. “To be clear”


“It’s the thought that counts,” Dahl said, and turned to Hester. “What about you? You want to owe me a blowjob, too?”


“I’m thinking about it ,” Hester said.   


You can tell from that gritty, realistic dialogue that McRapey has spent a lot of time with manly, military men, doing manly, military things. But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that McRapey has written that I find funnier than this absolute jewel of pure, unadulterated fiction.


[Vox] really has a thing for me, which is straight-up pure envy, as far as I can tell.


My dear, very dear, Mr. Scalzi, while there are certainly authors whose literary accomplishments and talents I envy, from Umberto Eco and Hermann Hesse to Tanith Lee and Edgar Allen Poe, I can assure you, with 100 percent honesty, that you are not, and have never been, among them.

They ALWAYS get it wrong

See, this is why you should never talk to the media. First, they always get it wrong. Second, if they really want to get a quote from you, they’ll just stalk social media.

The full character of the burgeoning politics of platforms remains to be seen. But right-wing movements have found early traction and see opportunity. Even as farce, Kjellberg’s performance has been illustrative, and a small number of eager observers say they hope that, as backlash mounts, it will be galvanizing. “If Pewdiepie wasn’t #AltRight before,” Vox Day, a former video-game designer and an alt-right leader posted on Gab.ai, a private, Twitterlike service popular with the movement, “he is now.”

I note, with some amusement, that I a) have been promoted to “alt-right leader” and b) just delivered a finished computer game that I designed and executive produced last week. This was the first DevGame course team to go pro, by the way, so congratulations, Team Elveteka.

While we’re on the subject, here is a character image from one of our several computer games currently in development, Divine Right, that the artist just sent me this morning. Yes, wargamers, THAT Divine Right.

In praise of moi

The estimable John C. Wright, Dragon Award-winner and grandmaster of science fiction and fantasy, explains what makes a good editor:

Someone asked me privately why I say that Vox Day is the best editor under whom it has been my privilege to work. I wrote a private answer, but I see no reason not to share it with the world. Mr. Day does not suffer from false modesty.

I do not mind elaborating.

The question is broader than just one author’s opinion about one editor. It is asking what editing is. That is a deeper question, too deep for this column, but I can plant a few signs pointing the direction where a fuller answer hides.

A good editor does not substitute his tastes, his politics, his pet peeves, or his sense of where your story should go for his own. A good editor is like a beauty parlor that brings out the best-looking version of the hair style you want framing your face, not someone else’s face.

That is, a good editor can tell the difference between the subjective and objective parts of the way one judges a story, and limit his comments to the more objective.

A good editor want you to tell your story your way, but he want you to tell it in your highest and best way, not your merely workmanlike way.

A good editor does make specific suggestions rather than vague ones, that is, he tells you which lines should be amended and how, rather than simply say “this needs to be tighter” or “this lacks punch”

Let me amend that. I should be more specific. A good editor knows when to be specific (to cure specific flaws) and when to be general (when he knows you know how to address a general flaw, and trusts you to find a specific solution). That requires good assessment both about the writing and about the writer’s professionalism.

A good editor reads the work and his comments show he understands what point each scene is trying to make, how characters develop, how description works or does not work.

A good editor keeps you informed of his decisions that might effect your book. Vox Day has contacted me more often in the last two weeks than Tor Books has in two years.

A good editor finds good covers.

There is, as you can probably imagine, considerably more there, as well as a few other Castalia authors weighing in on the basis of their own experiences working with me and other editors. For me, one of the biggest challenges in editing Mr. Wright is dealing with his massive vocabulary, which exceeds my English vocabulary, and frequently forces me, or an assistant editor, to resort to the OED in order to determine if the unfamiliar word is a typo, a misspelling, or simply a word with which we are unfamiliar.

8 times out of 10, Mr. Wright is correct and our vocabularies are expanded accordingly.

One mistake I think many editors make is to believe that they, and not the writer, should have the final say in how the book will proceed. While I will occasionally pull rank on a beginning writer whose grasp of what works and what doesn’t can be dubious, with more experienced writers I am inclined to view my edits as suggestions they can take or leave. Usually they listen, but sometimes they don’t, in which case I am content to let them take the chance that they’ll hear it from the readers as well.

It’s their name on the book, after all, not mine. Therefore, it has to be their call in the end. My primary objective as an editor is to make their book better and more successful, not make it my book. I don’t have to agree with them, or even like what they are writing, in order to do that, I merely have to understand what it is they are trying to accomplish.

Of course, it probably helps that, unlike many editors in SF/F, I am actually an established writer in my own right, so I have no need to seek vicarious input in someone else’s book. As Mr. Wright noted, I have even been known to suggest a turn of phrase or two on occasion. And, as some readers have observed, all this editing over the last three years appears to have improved my own writing, as having to articulate various issues to a wide variety of writers helps me better understand some of the weaknesses of my own writing.

In any event, I regard editing Mr. Wright as both a privilege and a serious responsibility. While it would be nice if my own books were read one hundred years from now as well, there are worse things to be remembered for than having been a grandmaster’s editor.

A tale of two techs

SJW-converged Twitter doubles down on its speech-policing:

Twitter has launched a new way to punish users for bad behavior, temporarily “limiting” their account.

Some users are receiving notices their accounts are limited for 12 hours, meaning only people who follow them can see their tweets or receive notifications. When they are retweeted, people outside their network can’t see those retweets.

Some speculate these limitations are automatic based on keywords, but there is no hard evidence.

This would be fine if this was used uniformly to clamp down on harassment, but it appears to be used on people simply for using politically incorrect language.

He claims he got his account limited directly after saying retarded twice. The first time he called a Nintendo policy adding paid extra content to their new Zelda game retarded. The next time he called someone a retard who called him a retard first.

That should help continue to drive down their user base and stock price. Meanwhile, I posted on Gab for the first time using their new Android app. It’s pretty slick for a beta, in fact, the only immediate suggestion I have is that they either expand all the Mentions to show the entire post by default, or, alternatively, provide an option to do so.

It’s fine to just have a list of all the Follows, Likes, and Reposts, but Mentions usually contains more information that requires viewing.

The Gab Android app beta is currently only available to donors.

What to do, what not to do

The Men of the West have suggestions for the Alt-Right, the Alt-Lite, and other defenders of Western civilization:

So, you have looked around and realized that the world is not how it should be. Things that were good in the past  have decayed. Our culture is crumbling around us. We see things that are good and proper being ignored or even intentionally dismantled, replaced with obscenities and evil. Whether we are talking about governmental policies or business practices, or even educational opportunities, we can no longer rely on things as they are. They do not produce an end result that indicates a healthy, godly culture. So what do we do? As I see it, we have three choices.

First, the thing we cannot do, though it is an option, is to just stick our heads back in the sand and ignore it. Look, it is time to make a stand, not just let things progress down this path to destruction.

Secondly, we can point out problems. We can gripe about them. We can write articles, blog posts, and generally complain. Now, I do think we need to do this. It is important. Without calling out the problems, nothing will be done. However, we cannot stop there.

igThird, we have to address these problems, whatever they may be, and begin to do something about them. We point them out, and then enact change. The time for “go along to get along” is past. In fact, it was never a good choice, but so many of us just figured things will work themselves out. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We have to take real action.

  • Use resources that are consistent with our world view. We recently ran a post with such resources. Make it your habit to support them, whether with finances or just by using them. The more we spread these healthy alternatives, the more people will be exposed to them and the more impact they will have.
  • Use your own skills and talents to produce more alternatives. Already, good folks have created alternatives to Wikipedia, Twitter, and more. Other alternatives are in the works. We need folks to step up and create even more of these. If your skill set allows you to help produce those, then go for it. Many, maybe most, of these won’t catch on, but so what? Some will. The more that do, the more that can follow. We just need traction to get these things to succeed.
  • Stop complaining about those who are stepping up. Rather than trying to be a “moderate,” be an extremist. This is no time for moderation. As Barry Goldwater stated: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” We have no patience for moderates. We want wholesale change and will work to make it happen.
  • Network with likeminded folks. Recently, a commenter on this site pointed out that too many people spend time complaining and writing articles, but not enough time actually doing anything. While the majority of his post was incorrect, on this one point, he was spot on. 

These are key points. Unless you are a beta tester or a proofreader, don’t kid yourself into thinking that complaints and criticism are “helping” anyone or doing anything. They’re not. In almost all cases, the criticism is superficial and redundant, while the complaints are both irritating and demoralizing. And perhaps more importantly, if you had ever done anything yourself, you would know that.

So get involved. Do something. Act. Build. Cheer. Support. Subscribe. Sustain. That’s how you can make a difference. That’s how we will stave off collapse.

Genetic politics

It is futile to deny the impact of identity politics, given that both science and history are pointing towards the observable influence that genetics and demographics have at the macrosocietal level:

Here we identify very recent fine-scale population structure in North America from a network of over 500 million genetic (identity-by-descent, IBD) connections among 770,000 genotyped individuals of US origin. We detect densely connected clusters within the network and annotate these clusters using a database of over 20 million genealogical records. Recent population patterns captured by IBD clustering include immigrants such as Scandinavians and French Canadians; groups with continental admixture such as Puerto Ricans; settlers such as the Amish and Appalachians who experienced geographic or cultural isolation; and broad historical trends, including reduced north-south gene flow. Our results yield a detailed historical portrait of North America after European settlement and support substantial genetic heterogeneity in the United States beyond that uncovered by previous studies.

In short, their giant sample and rich genealogical data allowed them to detect large patterns of shared ancestry in living Americans. And, as expected the American nations clearly emerge from the genetic data.

How did this pattern emerge? In short, this is ultimately the result of the four British folkways of Albion’s Seed. Here the genetic data show that they remain alive and well. Previously, in my post Genes, Climate, and Even More Maps of the American Nations, we saw that the founding British colonists came from distinct parts of the British Isles and settled in different parts of North America. The founding British stock are themselves visible in the genetic data, as we saw from fine-scale analysis of Britain

So what then do the clusters of Han et al mean? While the original colonial ancestry of the country has been overrun by subsequent migrants, the founding stock remain as a genetic undercurrent – a common genetic thread – within each American nation. This is especially true in the nations of the American South, where the colonial settlers received less subsequent migration and the original stock remains strong.

Neither conservatism nor progressivism can account for the patterns and trends being observed. This is why it is vital for the Alt-Right to resolutely resist the temptation to lock itself into an ideology that will ultimately doom it to the same sort of ludicrous denial that we so often see from communists, socialists, feminists, free traders, multiculturalists, Churchians, conservatives, neo-Nazis, and others whose political identity requires them to rely upon anti-scientific, anti-historical denial.