#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
I am Vox Day, Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil, Lead Editor of Castalia House, Lead Designer of Infogalactic, and bestselling political philosopher. You are hereby permitted to Ask Me Anything, although I recommend keeping the preening and posturing to a minimum.
VD, SDL, ELoE. AMA 7 PM EST. This will also serve as an open thread to discuss tonight’s AMA.
Not the betting odds, but rather, the number of betters, predict a Brexit-style upset:
It is news that will strike fear into the hearts of perhaps half of America and large chunks of the world outside of it. Despite a calamitous week of campaigning, betting markets on the US election are almost a mirror image of those on Britain’s EU referendum at this stage. And they could be pointing to a victory for Donald Trump.
Bookmaker William Hill says 71 per cent of the money so far staked is for Democrat Hillary Clinton. But 65 per cent of the bets by number are for the controversial Republican. That means a lot more punters are putting smaller bets on Trump, almost exactly the same pattern as was seen in the run up to the Brexit vote when the money was for Remain but the majority of bets were for Leave.
William Hill’s spokesman and resident betting expert Graham Sharpe, an industry veteran of 44 years standing, said: “It’s very, very similar to the Brexit vote. There is a metropolitan media bias that says Trump can’t win, but they can’t vote. In betting terms, this is not a done deal. I see parallels with the Brexit vote at this stage.”
On the other hand, they’ve still only increased the odds to 4-1 against. Nate Silver is calling it 85 percent for Hillary.
Still, they all sound awfully desperate and shrill, especially compared to anyone who can remember Reagan landslide.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday will propose a five-year ban on executive branch officials lobbying after they leave government if he is elected, according to excerpts of a speech on fixing ethics problems in Washington. Trump also will say he plans to ask Congress to impose its own five-year ban on former lawmakers and their staff lobbying as well as set a lifetime ban on senior executive branch officials lobbying for foreign governments.
It’s not quite as strong as Reynolds’s call for a 100 percent tax, but it would certainly help drain a little corruption from the swamp.
One way you can be certain that Infogalactic already threatens the SJW’s control of the cultural high ground that is the online knowledge base is the reaction of SJWs to it. I am reliably informed our old acquaintance and master of rhetoric, Cameltoes Freckeltongue, is bent out of shape about the fact that our editors are removing the ideological graffiti that litters many, if not most, Wikipedia entries.
I thought that you might like to know about Camestros’s latest meltdown. He’s posted about infogalactic and the science article editing out the “women in science” section. He uses this to claim you are erasing women’s contributions to science, without of course the understanding that the inclusion of such would be motivated by feminist worldview, and irrelevant to science as practice and theory.
I do so love the smell of SJW outrage in the morning. Our email correspondent is correct, as it appears Cameltoes understands the difference between “science” and “political activism directed at science” about as well as he grasps the difference between “dialectic” and “rhetoric”.
Voxopedia: where information about women goes to be erased
The erasure of women’s achievements in science is a known phenomenon, but it is rare that you get to see it happen in such a simple and direct way. Over at our new favourite train-wreck, Vox Day had been busy quite literally erasing women’s contribution to science.
This is the relevant Wikipedia page sub-section from the main ‘Science’ article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Women_in_science
The Voxopedia, sorry Infogalactic page has had the section removed: https://infogalactic.com/info/Science#Science_and_society
It’s true, the “women in science” section has been deleted from the Science page. Why? First, because there is absolutely no case whatsoever that justifies its inclusion there. Second, because there is already a separate and detailed Women in Science page that is, quite correctly, devoted to the subject.
The topic “women in science” is an entirely separate subject than the topic of “science” for the same and obvious reason that the person sitting inside the car is not the car. Moreover, if “women in science” was a legitimate aspect of the topic “science”, then literally every topic would obviously need a similar “women in x” section.
Otherwise, it would quite clearly be sexism, historical discrimination, and thoughtcrime to fail to devote a section to women for every entry from Art to Zoology, including, but not limited to, the Battle of Borodino, the Sicilian Vespers, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, and the page about Milo Yiannopoulos. Women were somehow involved in all those things, so there is no rational basis for which a “women in x” section can be justified for one topic and fail to be justified for another.
The real question is: Why was “women in science” ever part of the Science page in the first place? After all, there are no “Negroes in science” or “children in science” or “Native Americans in science” sections. There isn’t even a “men in science” page addressing the unique concerns of men as they relate to the method, the profession, and the knowledge base of science.
The answer, of course, is that “women in science” is nothing more than an ideological intrusion by SJWs attempting to converge the very description and summary of science toward “the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice”. They aren’t genuinely concerned about either women or science. What concerns them is maintaining control of the flow of information and converging it to suit the Narrative as necessary, which is why Wikipedia’s 531 thought police patrol the encyclopedia so relentlessly.
Infogalactic threatens that control and the SJWs know it. They’re already past the Ignore phase and have entered the Mocking phase, which is remarkably fast considering that we only launched it one week ago. We’ll know Infogalactic is firmly established when they do a 180 and go from mocking it as “Voxopedia” to denying I had anything to do with its success. Anyhow, if you’d like to help us shatter their control entirely, as we intend to do within the next 36 months, sign up for a subscription, buy a Planetary Knowledge Core t-shirt, or donate to Phase Two: Neapolitan Spoon.
Note to Infogalactic supporters: we had a highly productive Techstars meeting Monday night with 19 volunteers, and as a result of the considerable technical talent now available, we have decided to significantly modify the Roadmap. The modified Roadmap will be posted later today; check out Infogalaxians this afternoon if you’re interested.
Castalia House and Mike Cernovich are happy to announce their first collaborative effort, MAGA MINDSET: Making YOU and America Great Again.
MAGA MINDSET: How to Make YOU and America Great Again is not a traditional political analysis of Donald Trump or the success of his political campaign, which would be boring and useless to the reader. MAGA Mindset is an overview of the cultural forces that have propelled Trump forward while using the example of his candidacy as a case study for the reader’s own life.
MAGA MINDSET will give you a deeper understanding of America, the challenges it is facing, and how those challenges created the conditions for Donald Trump’s inevitable rise. You will understand how Mike Cernovich was able to successfully predict Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee when all the professional political pundits considered his campaign to be a joke, and why, win or lose, the Trump revolution will continue beyond the 2016 election.
In MAGA MINDSET you will learn:
* The cultural forces behind Trump’s rise
* How Trump and other masters of social media are able to drive the news cycle
* The mindset techniques and strategies YOU need to succeed at life, even when it seems hopeless
Mike Cernovich is the bestselling author of Gorilla Mindset. He is a lawyer, a journalist who has broken several news stories of international interest, and the producer of the film documentary Silenced.
MAGA MINDSET: Making YOU and America Great Again retails for $7.99 and is available exclusively at Amazon. It is 101 pages and DRM-free.
Now, you may well wonder what is the point of releasing a book about Donald Trump only a few weeks before an election that the media, and almost everyone else, assume that he is going to lose, and lose badly. You may also wonder how it is possible that a book of barely 100 pages could possibly be worth the asking price.
But, as Mike points out in the Introduction, this isn’t a book about who will or won’t be the next President. This isn’t a book about how to run for office, much less a history of an American political campaign. This is a book about the challenges faced by both America and you in the years ahead. Whether Donald Trump wins or loses on November 8th, neither he nor the cultural forces that caused his rise are going to disappear. If anything, they are going to grow stronger and make the lessons contained in this book that much more important for the reader.
And those lessons are important. Because, in a society riven by cultural war, one of the most vital is the ability to affect the culture. Mike Cernovich not only explains how Donald Trump has been able to do that, he explains how you can learn from his example and achieve your own vision. This isn’t think-and-grow-rich snake oil or the Prosperity Gospel, it is a practical analysis from an author who has been practicing exactly what he is preaching that picks up where Gorilla Mindset left off.
From Amazon:
#1 in Books > Social Sciences > Communication & Media Studies
#1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Leadership
What is particularly amusing about the latter category? Twelve spots behind, at #13, is Stronger Together: A Blueprint for America’s Future, by Hillary Rodham Clinton (Author), Tim Kaine (Author)
Here it comes. It looks like the media is finally willing to talk about what Gennifer Flowers said openly on Hannity & Colmes back in 1998. Hillary Clinton is not even close to straight:
From Drudge: Hillary Fixer Breaks Ranks: I Arranged Sex Trysts For Her — With Men & WOMEN
I wonder when they’ll drop the Webb Hubbell bombshell. Anyhow, she should have known better than to go after Donald Trump on that particular issue.
It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going to happen if you put a selection of intelligent, not very attractive women in amongst the biggest collection of gamma males in the known universe:
I’m a STEM worker, at a research lab. Lots of females have come through here. Increasingly more over the years. I have to say that most of them are coasters. Let’s face it, I’m dealing with a LOT of socially challenged men here. This is NERD CENTRAL.
The girls are VERY adept at getting the guys to do the heavy lifting for them. And, they are even more adept at establishing social networks beyond the ken of anything your standard issue STEM male could possibly comprehend.
This has led to some very interesting situations.
But, on the whole, the women in my 17-year history with this lab have caused FAR more problems than they have solved.
Of course, there is the odd exception, when you find a female scientist or engineer who is an absolute treasure. They DO exist.
But they represent a very small percentage of the women coming through here. And the chaos caused by all the other women makes one wonder if they are worth it.
Sad to say. VERY sad to say. C’mon we WANT HOT SEXY BABES WORKING HERE! WE ARE A LEGION OF GEEKS!
First, these women are naturally going to be inclined to make up for lost time in enjoying their high relative SMV for the first time in their lives. Second, it’s going to be the cheerleader/geek homework scenario writ large. Third, women are going to take over and rule the administration and HR, and promptly steer the organizations in the direction that happens to be of interest to them, which may or may not have anything to do with either a) science, or, b) the nominal purpose of the organization.
And it will happen every single time. No amount of education or professional training trumps the socio-sexual hierarchy.
The primary contribution any woman can make for science is to stay completely out of it. No matter how good she is, no matter how smart she is, she cannot possibly compensate for the complete devastation and distraction she is going to leave in her wake over the course of her career among the socially and sexually hapless gammas who might have otherwise happily spent decades slaving away in the laboratories.
Fox News Just Reported That Julian Assange “Will Be Arrested In A Matter Of Hours”
Just watched the video. They did say it, although they may be getting it from the same 4chan source that I linked to yesterday.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?”
– Hillary Clinton, 23 November 2010
“Faced with the speculation of the last few hours, the Government of Ecuador ratifies the validity of the asylum granted to Julian Assange four years ago. We reaffirm that his protection by the Ecuadorean state will continue while the circumstances that led to the granting of asylum remain.”
– Guillaume Long, Foreign Minister, Ecuador
This should be a calm and civil discussion between cultivated, high-minded individuals. Or, you know, not.
I will be doing an Ask Me Anything on /r/altright tomorrow at 7 PM EST.
National Review finally comes around on Trump, in the form of a lengthy VDH article:
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump’s sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters.
The Beltway establishment grew more concerned about their sinecures in government and the media than about showing urgency in stopping Obamaism. When the Voz de Aztlan and the Wall Street Journal often share the same position on illegal immigration, or when Republicans of the Gang of Eight are as likely as their left-wing associates to disparage those who want federal immigration law enforced, the proverbial conservative masses feel they have lost their representation. How, under a supposedly obstructive, conservative-controlled House and Senate, did we reach $20 trillion in debt, institutionalize sanctuary cities, and put ourselves on track to a Navy of World War I size? Compared with all that, “making Mexico pay” for the wall does not seem all that radical. Under a Trump presidency the owner of Univision would not be stealthily writing, as he did to Team Clinton, to press harder for open borders — and thus the continuance of a permanent and profitable viewership of non-English speakers.
Trump’s outrageousness was not really new; it was more a 360-degree mirror of an already outrageous politics as usual. One does not need lectures about conservatism from Edmund Burke when, at the neighborhood school, English becomes a second language, or when one is rammed by a hit-and-run driver illegally in the United States who flees the scene of the accident. Do our elites ever enter their offices to find their opinion-journalism jobs outsourced at half the cost to writers in India?
It sounds to me as if the conservative media is beginning to worry that they went too far and are beginning to understand that they have lost a significant portion of their audience. They preened and postured, and now, if Hillary wins, they will be tied to her like an anchor forever.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but as for me, they simply have no credibility as political observers. Their position never made one single iota of sense.