#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
That which cannot be sustained will not be sustained. I expect this woman is going to be considerably more open to voting for the Sweden Democrats than she was the day before. Repeat until the deportations begin.
Yet another example, as if there was every any doubt, that my take on immigration was correct. Immigration is rape culture.
All right, so there is clearly a sufficient amount of interest in the concept of annotated classics from Castalia. This leads to the obvious next question: which classics and which commentators?
I think some variant of MMP’s P500 system might work here, where people can preorder a book but will not be charged for it until a certain number is hit, thereby triggering the production process. But before we can figure out what goes in the place of the 500, we’d need to determine what is of the most interest to the most people.
So far, we have the two combinations that I’d originally mentioned:
UPDATE: While I’m flattered that a number of you are interested in my comments on various classics, if you consider that my plate is already rather full, it would probably be more practical to suggest other commentators.
It is looking increasingly apparent that national security will not be in good hands with Hillary:
A computer network used by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign was hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, and the party’s fundraising committee for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.
A Clinton campaign spokesman said in a statement late on Friday that an analytics data program maintained by the DNC and used by the campaign and a number of other entities “was accessed as part of the DNC hack.”
“Our campaign computer system has been under review by outside cyber security experts. To date, they have found no evidence that our internal systems have been compromised,” said Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill.
Later, a campaign official said hackers had access to the analytics program’s server for approximately five days. The analytics data program is one of many systems the campaign accesses to conduct voter analysis, and does not include social security numbers or credit card numbers, the official said.
The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.
The involvement of the Justice Department’s national security division is a sign that the Obama administration has concluded that the hacking was sponsored by a state, people with knowledge of the investigation said.
While it is unclear exactly what material the hackers may have gained access to, the third such attack on sensitive Democratic targets disclosed in the last six weeks has caused alarm in the party and beyond, just over three months before the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.
On the one hand, you would think Hillary would have learned her lesson by now. On the other hand, the sort of person who puts server belonging to the Department of State in her closet and insists on using Gmail as Secretary of State probably isn’t capable of learning that particular lesson.
Anyhow, the US government is in no position to complain about other people electronically spying on its officials, agents, and agencies, as it is the worst offender on the planet.
Nate Silver of 538 addresses the discrepancies while explaining why his systems are, by his own account, “bullish on Trump”:
Another tricky question is how to reconcile state polls with national polls. For example, there have been no polls of Pennsylvania over the past two weeks, during which time Clinton’s lead has evaporated in national polls (and often also in polls of other states, where we’ve gotten them). The FiveThirtyEight model uses what we call a trend-line adjustment to adjust those those old polls to catch up to the current trend. That’s why our polls-only forecast shows Pennsylvania as a tossup even though Trump has only led one poll there all year. Those older polls came from a time when Clinton led by 5 or 6 or 7 percentage points nationally, and they generally showed her up by about the same margin in Pennsylvania. Now that the national race is almost tied, it’s probably safe to assume that Pennsylvania is very close also. Some of the competing models don’t do this, and we think that’s probably a mistake, since it means their state-by-state forecasts will lag a few weeks behind, even when it’s obvious there’s been a big shift in the race.
Bottom line: Although there are other factors that matter around the margin, our models show better numbers for Trump mostly because they’re more aggressive about detecting trends in polling data. For the past couple of weeks — and this started before the conventions, so it’s not just a convention bounce — there’s been a strong trend away from Clinton and toward Trump.
In other words, as I’ve been saying from the start, it’s too soon to tell anything from the state polls. The fact that the trend is towards Trump is apparent, but it’s not certain that it is the start of a cascade preference that will lead to the predicted Trumpslide.
However, it is the first required step in the process, so that’s a good sign for now.
Why the globalists hate Vladimir Putin and why they are terrified that Donald Trump will win the US election:
The international interests that financially wrecked Russia in the ’90s are doing the same to the United States now. Putin stopped them in Russia and Trump is promising to stop them in America. They recognize Trump as the enemy and slander in the only style they know—the paranoid style.
“The international interests that financially wrecked Russia in the ’90s are doing the same to the United States now.”
Trump was once blamed for praising Putin’s performance. But he was right. Pensions, salaries, GDP, and the value of gold reserves in Russia have risen greatly since 1999—in some cases tenfold or more. This was while both inflation and the debt-to-GDP ratio declined by orders of magnitude. The rise in living standard under Putin is reflected in longer life expectancy: It had dropped to a third-world level during the 1990s, to around 55–57, and has now risen back up to 70 by most measures. Birthrates have normalized and recently overtaken the United States. Visit Moscow and you will see infrastructure, buildings, and development that are more impressive than those found in any American city—though the same could be said, of course, for many other countries now.
By contrast, Russians remember the liberal and globalist experiment of the ’90s as a time of great suffering. The early death of literally millions of people from economic deprivation, the utter ruin of many of Russia’s formerly world-class industries: This is the legacy of economic liberalization in Russia. How did it happen?
In short, “entrepreneurs” would run fraudulently acquired businesses into the ground, fire-sale the assets internationally, and move abroad with the profits. This is globalism in its purest form, without the slogans and boosterism. American economists, academics, and businessmen played an important part in all of this. Marc Rich—a fugitive later pardoned by Bill Clinton—was, for example, “the largest trader of Russia’s oil and aluminum on a spot basis,” according to Steve Sailer, who has documented the “rape of Russia” in some detail. George Soros was a large investor in these ventures, which provided the international market with financial backing, and cover for the oligarchs’ robbery of their own people. This was done especially under Boris Jordan’s CS First Boston bank and later Renaissance Capital, Moscow “investment banks” staffed by Soros associates.
Even more important was a group of Harvard and MIT economists who advised and assisted the Russian government in the reforms. These are men still involved in public life in the United States: current vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Stanley Fischer, Jeffrey Sachs, Jonathan Hay, Andrei Shleifer, and Larry Summers, who was later Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. As late as 1998, months before Russia defaulted, Fischer claimed that the Yeltsin regime had to be praised for following the advice of this group. Using the rhetoric of liberalization and globalism, American academics and financiers played a key role in the pillaging of Russia.
The fact that those who financially raped Russia are opposed to Donald Trump is, in itself, reason to support the man’s campaign for the Presidency. And for those who are inclined to cry “anti-semitism” due to the (((heritage))) of more than a few of the individuals named, is this sort of behavior really the sort of thing you want to go on the public record defending?
The Economist was right about one thing. The battle is no longer about Left and Right factions of a nation, but rather, between Globalism and Nationalism. It’s the battle between vampires and humans. And if you support Globalism, you’re on the wrong side, no matter who you are or why you support it.
This was a fascinating take on interpreting the original Alpha and Omega and applying it to the observable socio-sexual hierarchy.
As we believe Jesus is fully God and fully Man, I also believe him to have fully exhibited the redeemed traits of every rank of men. In the Teacher we each see our own place in his Kingdom and our own wavelength of light to the world, forming together as his Body now on earth the same pure light that shone through his flesh many years ago.
α: Christ was the alpha male when he overturned the tables in the Temple and drove out his enemies with a whip. He as the alpha male when he rebuked the Pharisees to their face in public, demolishing their power and credibility in the most humiliating way possible.
The glory of the alpha male, redeemed, is the power he exerts over immoral and weak leaders. When he asserts his dominance over the corrupt he brings justice to the world as no other can, and he provides upright leadership and inspiration that other men and women thirst for without even realizing it. The alpha has the power and energy to inspire in his followers the best of themselves for his cause.
Read the whole thing at Alpha Game.
What exactly is the ideology of the “Social Justice Warrior”? What do you do when you’re targeted by one, whether at work or in general? Vox Day — popular blogger, author, SJW slayer, and polymath — joins me for background and strategy.
Tom Woods was kind enough to have me as a guest on Episode 703 of his podcast, Social Justice Warriors: Who They Are and How to Deal With Them. Tom is a sharp guy and I always enjoy speaking with him.
Of course, we were discussing the book that has been a political philosophy bestseller for nearly a year now, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police. As its first year of publication comes to a close, it is still a top 2 book in the category, trailing only Plato’s Republic.
Which reminds me. How many people here would be interested in reading annotated editions of classics like the Republic or Aristotle’s Rhetoric, which would consist of the text with my commentary on the text woven into it. We could even do it with other classic works and commentators; I would love to have a copy of Clausewitz’s On War annotated by Martin van Creveld. I’m not promising anything, as I have three – no, four – books I’m already writing, but it’s an idea that might be worth exploring.
The Economist argues for openness, Hillary Clinton, and the corrupt anti-nationalist status quo:
Countering the wall-builders will require stronger rhetoric, bolder policies and smarter tactics. First, the rhetoric. Defenders of the open world order need to make their case more forthrightly. They must remind voters why NATO matters for America, why the EU matters for Europe, how free trade and openness to foreigners enrich societies, and why fighting terrorism effectively demands co-operation. Too many friends of globalisation are retreating, mumbling about “responsible nationalism”. Only a handful of politicians—Justin Trudeau in Canada, Emmanuel Macron in France—are brave enough to stand up for openness. Those who believe in it must fight for it.
They must also acknowledge, however, where globalisation needs work. Trade creates many losers, and rapid immigration can disrupt communities. But the best way to address these problems is not to throw up barriers. It is to devise bold policies that preserve the benefits of openness while alleviating its side-effects. Let goods and investment flow freely, but strengthen the social safety-net to offer support and new opportunities for those whose jobs are destroyed. To manage immigration flows better, invest in public infrastructure, ensure that immigrants work and allow for rules that limit surges of people (just as global trade rules allow countries to limit surges in imports). But don’t equate managing globalisation with abandoning it.
As for tactics, the question for pro-open types, who are found on both sides of the traditional left-right party divide, is how to win. The best approach will differ by country. In the Netherlands and Sweden, centrist parties have banded together to keep out nationalists. A similar alliance defeated the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in the run-off for France’s presidency in 2002, and may be needed again to beat his daughter in 2017. Britain may yet need a new party of the centre.
In America, where most is at stake, the answer must come from within the existing party structure. Republicans who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.
The Economist correctly senses that the time for “the liberal world order” is rapidly running out. Notice how, like much of the conservative media and the cuckservative Republicans, the maintenance of the status quo is its only real principle and completely trumps all of their various ideologies. Everyone profiting from the current setup, from literal Socialist to small government Republican, is willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder against anyone who would first stand for the benefit of his nation and his people.
The Economist is speaking with the voice of the transnational elite, who have no loyalty to any nation, who could not care less about Americans, or French, or British, or Chinese, or anyone else, so long as they are allowed to continue to prey upon them. It is not, as some would have it, an exclusively Jewish elite, but rather, an alliance of rapacious elites from every nation, who share an honor among thieves and defend each other at the expense of the various peoples they have been raping for at least four generations.
Globalism is an evil even greater than Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, or Feminism, because it is a trans-ideological meta-evil that can take advantage of any ideology except Nationalism. That is why Nationalism is the most effective response to it and that is why those who love either freedom or their own people should support the Nationalists of every nation and of every ideological stripe.
This is an open thread to discuss Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech at the DNC. Or her epileptic fit, neural seizure, or whatever else happens while she’s making it.
Meanwhile, Google expects everyone to believe that it was just a technical glitch that caused Donald Trump to disappear from the search results for “presidential candidates”.
We found a technical bug in Search where only the presidential candidates participating in an active primary election were appearing in a Knowledge Graph result. Because the Republican and Libertarian primaries have ended, those candidates did not appear. This bug was resolved early this morning.
— Google Spokesperson
Yeah, that sounds entirely credible. Since we all know how neutral Google is when it comes to this election.
Meanwhile, John Scalzi appears to be considering a career as a comedian, because this is the third-funniest thing he’s ever written:
So, before Hillary Clinton puts a cap on the DNC convention with her appearance tonight, let me talk a little about what I think of her as a presidential nominee, (mostly) independent of the fact of Donald Trump as her opponent for the office. And to talk about her as a presidential nominee, I need to talk a little bit about me as a political being.
I want to talk about Hillary Clinton. But first, I need to talk about me! That’s even funnier than his claim to be a “Rockefeller Republican”. Or his declaration that “voting for Clinton” is “not only a preference, but a moral necessity”.
Bernie Sanders is no longer a Democrat:
The nomination was barely sealed up at the Democratic National Convention before Bernie Sanders, who had campaigned against Hillary Clinton for the party’s nod, went back to being an Independent. Sanders, who considers himself, officially, an Independent in Congress because his views lean further left than the Democratic party’s platform, caucuses with Democrats. But until declaring an intention to run for the presidency in 2015, he had rarely, if ever, identified as a member of the Democratic Party.
I thought it was a little strange that someone who wasn’t a Democrat would come so close to winning the Democratic nomination, but then, Donald Trump was only a sometime Republican and that didn’t stop him from winning the Republican nomination.
It just tends to demonstrate the irrelevance of the parties and their nominal ideologies, I guess. But given the timing of this, I think we can safely count out Bernie for any serious campaigning on the Lizard Queen’s behalf.