Get off Facebook already

Facebook is turning in those “suspected of hate speech” to law enforcement in France:

In a world first, Facebook has agreed to hand over the identification data of French users suspected of hate speech on its platform to judges, France’s minister for digital affairs Cedric O said on Tuesday.

O, whose father is South Korean, is one of French President Emmanuel Macron’s earliest followers, and has been influential in shaping the president’s thinking on Big Tech as an advisor at the Elysee palace in the first two years of Macron’s presidency.

The decision by the world’s biggest social media network comes after successive meetings between Zuckerberg and Macron, who wants to take a leading role globally on the regulation of hate speech and the spread of false information online.

So far, Facebook has cooperated with French justice on matters related to terrorist attacks and violent acts by transferring the IP addresses and other identification data of suspected individuals to French judges who formally demanded it.

Following a meeting between Nick Clegg, Facebook’s head of global affairs, and O last week, the social media company has extended this cooperation to hate speech.

“This is huge news, it means that the judicial process will be able to run normally,” O told Reuters in an interview. “It’s really very important, they’re only doing it for France.”

If you’re still on Facebook at this point, you will deserve whatever ramifications happen to befall you as a result in the future.


The silence of the losers

The media doesn’t want to talk about Google being busted for interfering illegally in the US presidential election:

The liberal corporate media has totally ignored the explosive Google exposé by Project Veritas revealing systemic efforts by the tech company to prevent President Trump from getting reelected in 2020.

CNN, WaPo, CNBC, HuffPost, The New York Times, Vox, Vice, Newsweek, Politico, and even The Daily Beast haven’t written a single piece on the devastating evidence presented by a Google whistleblower and undercover footage of a Google executive discussing how to algorithmically manipulate the 2020 presidential election.

Regardless of what one thinks of Project Veritas, the damning information they revealed is extremely relevant and newsworthy, and confirms numerous instances of anti-competitive censorship practices by Google. The media still remained silent even after a member of Congress, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), addressed the bombshell Google exposé on Twitter.

“Google should not be deciding whether content is important or trivial and they most assuredly should not be meddling in our election process. They need their immunity stripped,” he wrote.

My father was investigated for an extended period of time by the Federal Election Commission because he published an impartial and very well-regarded election guide for the 1990 Minnesota elections called People & Politics. I still remember having to walk the gauntlet of the news cameras camping out at the company offices. He was finally cleared of any wrongdoing, but they harassed him for YEARS over that. What Project Veritas has revealed is evidence of a MAJOR series of crimes that have been committed by Google and its employees.


SJWs lament the failure of demonetization

They’re beginning to realize that denying access to a failing revenue model isn’t working:

When YouTube wanted to punish political pundit Steven Crowder amid widespread outcry over his homophobic comments, its first move was to disable Crowder’s ability to run ads on his videos. The punishment was meant to revoke a key source of income, presenting a strong incentive for Crowder to change his behavior. But Crowder didn’t care, “This really isn’t that big of a ding for us,” he said.

Crowder sells T-shirts, hats, stickers, and subscriptions for more videos through his website, which is where he’s indicated most of his channel’s money comes from. Selling merchandise and subscriptions through other platforms isn’t just a way for creators to make more money, it’s also a way for creators to insulate themselves from YouTube’s ever-mercurial rules and algorithms. And it means that if a creator’s ads are cut off for whatever reason, they’ll still have a source of revenue.

Creators have realized that “YouTube can do whatever the hell they want to,” Wyatt Jenkins, Patreon’s VP of product, told The Verge. Because of that, they’ve started looking for ways to establish other relationships with their viewers. “They’re like, ‘If I’m going to make a run at this and do this for a living, I should probably have my best fans in my world.’”

Taking away a channel’s ability to run ads is supposed to send a message that YouTube is punishing creators who severely step out of line. The company stated as much in a June 5th blog post, reiterating that channels repeatedly brushing up “against our hate speech policies will be suspended from the YouTube Partner program, meaning they can’t run ads on their channel.” Creators also won’t be able to use alternative monetization techniques like Super Chat or channel memberships, according to YouTube.

For up-and-coming YouTubers reliant on that revenue, it can pose a huge problem. Many people just entering YouTube’s Partner Program, a threshold that signifies a creator can start earning ad revenue, may rely on that advertising money as they start their career. Channels that face day-to-day monetization issues, one of the biggest issues within the community, are struggling to understand what works and what doesn’t. But for larger creators, who still keep their ability to reach a huge number of subscribers, the punishment doesn’t necessarily accomplish YouTube’s goals.

Established creators — like Crowder, who reaches more than 4 million people — often have a large audience ready to buy products, significantly lessening the severity of the punishment. When YouTube cracked down on gun videos last year and removed ads from a number of channels, many of those channels circumvented the impact by signing sponsorship deals or starting Patreon accounts, allowing them to continue exactly what they’d been doing before.

Relying on ad revenue alone is difficult, Felix “PewDiePie” Kjellberg said in a video about YouTube ads last year. “It’s inefficient, it’s unstable, and an insecure revenue model,” according to YouTube’s biggest creator. Most YouTube creators “don’t sustain themselves on ad revenue,” Kjellberg said.

Translation: SJWs are going to start putting more pressure on the payment processors. This is why we’re already taking action to avoid relying upon the converged major US-based ones.

Build your own platforms….


(((Dennis Prager))) is a shameless liar

The intensity of the ongoing neoclown campaign against Western nationalism and the shamelessness with which they are attempting to redefine the perfectly straightforward concepts of “nationalism” and “Western civilization” indicates that they know they are on their way out. Again. In his recent column, (((Dennis Prager))) offers the precise opposite of “clarity” about nationalism:

Nationalism is beautiful when it involves commitment to an essentially decent nation and when it welcomes other people’s commitment to their nations. Nationalism is evil when it is used to celebrate an evil regime, when it celebrates a nation as inherently superior to all others and when it denigrates all other national commitments.

One should add that nationalism is evil when it celebrates race, but that is not nationalism; it is racism. Nationalism and racism may be conjoined, as German Nazism did. But they are not definitionally related. While some Americans have conjoined American nationalism with race (such as the Confederacy, the Ku Klux Klan and currently various fringe “white identity” movements), American nationalism, based as it is on the motto “e pluribus unum” (“out of many, one”), by definition includes Americans of all races and ethnicities. That is how conservatives define American nationalism. I have never met a conservative who defined American national identity as definitionally “white.”

Notice the way in which the horrifically deceptive devil’s son completely omits both the most relevant definition of nationalism from the dictionary as well as its etymological roots. He is truly of his father, the deceiver.

the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

Nationalism is, by logic, linguistics, and definition, a subset of racism because nation is a subset of race. The only “nationalism” that is not intrinsically related to race is civic nationalism, which is not nationalism at all, but an ersatz paperwork substitute for it.

The irony, of course, is that these neoclowns are attempting to destroy American nationalism in the interests of their own nation. They are pure and unmitigated evil, all the more so for their attempt to disguise themselves as intellectual wolves in sheep’s clothing. But they are not particularly bright intellectual wolves, as it is more than a little amusing to see how (((Prager)))’s own definition of evil nationalism obviously applies to the Jewish variety.

UPDATE: Phelps points out that (((Prager))) also lies about “e pluribus unum“.

This is an ABSOLUTE lie. It never meant, “out of many races”, it explicitly meant “out of many states, one confederation.” That is why it is the United STATES, not United Races.


The problem of sources

Unauthorized historian RFB points out that the problem of whom to believe is as old as history:

Last week I broke my sabbatical seclusion to attend a panel that my colleagues in the Department of History had organized on “Understanding the Trump Phenomenon.” The panelists covered a range of themes: climate change denialism, white nationalism, the global failure of capitalism, the latent illiberalism of American culture, and world-wide yearnings towards totalitarianism—all the usual -isms. And then they opened the floor to questions. Like a good fencer, I got my hand up first and said something about the need to think of American culture in more regional and long-range terms, particularly the differences in conceptions of liberty that David Hackett Fisher has shown to be in play, but it was already too late. The room was primed to descend into pessimism and despair, although since we’re talking academics here—fellow professors and graduate students in History for the most part—it was subtle and came out mainly in the kinds of questions asked.

One question in particular had my colleagues on the panel stumped. “How,” one of our graduate students asked, after the conversation had ranged round the many ways in which the progressive liberal experiment in America seemed doomed, “do we know what news sources we can trust anymore?” Her voice rose as she spoke, in that way that I have regularly heard my friends’ voices rise over the past few weeks; even men’s voices go up as their anxieties kick in and they start pleading with the universe to make the results of the election go away. “How do we know what news sources we can trust anymore?” My colleagues made a stab at it: “Go with sources that you have to pay a subscription for.” But mainly they sat and shook their heads, clearly at a loss. They wanted to give the students an answer, but were distressed that they couldn’t name news sources that they themselves trusted fully, not even The New York Times. “It is a wild wild world out there,” they seemed to be saying. “Even we aren’t sure whom we can believe.”

Read the whole thing there. It’s intriguing, particularly as concerns the intellectual rivalry between William, a canon of the Augustinian house of Newburgh, and Geoffrey of Monmouth.


Hazony dons the nationalist skinsuit

It’s beyond obvious that Yoram Hazony is attempting to create a new gatekeeping outpost in between civic nationalism and genuine nationalism, but he’s not anywhere nearly smart enough to do so effectively. His posited distinction between “nationalism” and “racialism” is not only absurd, it is very, very easily exploded.

Yoram Hazony
I think it’s as clear as daylight. I wrote a book drawing parallels between Jewish-Israeli nationalism and American, British, and other nationalisms, and arguing for their legitimacy. The book rejects racialism across the boards. All you need to do is to read it.

Yoram Hazony
But my opposition to mixing nationalism with race theories has been explicit every step of the way. It’s explicit in the conference announcement and on the website. You don’t have to agree with me. Still, it takes some nerve to pretend I’ve been anything but open about this.

I read Hazony’s book. Unlike many on the nationalist Right, I saw through him immediately and pointed out that his “National Conservative” conference was an obvious attempt to set up yet another neoclown gatekeeping organization, this one focused on nationalists. Hazony’s further attempts to “defend his ideas” readily reveal him to be not only a gatekeeper, but a shameless liar of the Ben Shapiro variety for two very obvious reasons.

First, to the extent there is any distinction between two terms that have historically been used in a synonymous manner, nation is a subset of race. Necessarily. So to base an argument on the idea that nation is actually a broader category than race is worse than dishonest, it is deeply stupid. It’s a total nonstarter.

Second, the etymology of nation makes it obvious that racialism is, and always will be, an element of nationalism.

1250–1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt(us) (past participle of nāscī to be born) + -iōn- -ion

One’s nationality derives from one’s birth, not one’s geographical location or paperwork. It is an identification based on DNA, blood, and family, not ideology, confession, documents, or current location in the space-time continuum. By appealing to the fact of adoption, Hazony is stupidly attempting to derive a rule from its occasional exception.

UPDATE: Hazony is also a true son of his father:

Yoram Hazony@yhazony
Sorry, there is no such thing as “genetically Jewish.” Jews are a nation, not a race. Anyone on earth can join the Jewish people, as Ruth the Moabite did—by accepting our people as her people, and our God as her God.Yoram Hazony added,

owen cyclops@owenbroadcast
so atheist jews, who reject your god, arent jews then?

Yoram Hazony@yhazony
Atheist Jews remain Jews. We were talking about non-Jews who want to join the Jewish people and what’s involved.


Don’t wait to have kids

And listen to GenX, not the idiot Boomers. You’ll be glad you did:

Kirstie Allsopp has slammed young couples who wait until their thirties to have children.

The Location, Location, Location presenter, 47, took to Twitter on Wednesday to urge women in their twenties not to wait until they ‘have more money or feel ready’, and to save their money for ‘proper childcare’, instead of splashing on lavish weddings and expensive houses.

Expressing her frustration at millennials who tell her they want ‘a few more years of fun’, she argued that ‘nothing will ever be more fun than children’.

Kirstie also revealed her regret at waiting until she was 35 and 37 to have her sons Bay, 11, and Oscar, nine, admitting that she was ‘too old’ to have a third, and had only waited until her thirties to start a family as she hadn’t met the right man.

However her impassioned Twitter thread sparked a heated debate, with many followers warning her that her message was putting unnecessary pressure on young couples, and could panic women into starting families…. Slamming the TV presenter’s message, one follower wrote: ‘Stop telling women in their late 20s they’re running out of time to have kids. It’s so damaging.’ Another argued that millennials should be allowed to live their lives to the full while they were still commitment-free, so they wouldn’t feel they missed out later.

The problem is that no one feels they’ve missed out more than a woman who focuses on having fun during her fertile years only to discover that she missed out on motherhood. Don’t wait. You won’t regret it.


Yoram Hazony is a Fake Nationalist

Hazony  proves to be just another basic bitch neoclown, and his book, The Virtue of Nationalism, is, despite its various merits, little more than an attempt at establishing a gatekeeping post for the civic nationalists.

This personal invitation arrived in my email inbox recently:

Naturally, I was delighted. I had been very impressed with the Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue Of Nationalism and had even had an affable exchange with him via Twitter Direct Message about his publisher’s curious failure to release the book in audio form:

So Lydia and I duly paid our $285 fee (each) to register. But we got this response:

It’s a form letter. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, who tried in his frugal way to get press credentials, got exactly the same thing.

Jared very reasonably wrote back to ask if would he be denied press credentials if he were “a socialist or Open-Borders advocate” a.k.a. a typical member of the Main Stream Media.

Needless to say, Hazony and Brog did not have the courtesy to reply.

I’m not even a little bit surprised. You may recall that despite his protestations in his book, Hazony appeared to be more civic nationalist than genuine nationalist, and that has proved to be the case. In spades.

National Conservative = Neoclown Cuckservative.


DBC: Mere Christianity II

This is the quiz for the Darkstream Book Club: Mere Christianity II.

1. What did the older thinkers really mean by “The Law of Nature”.

  • a) The physical laws of Creation.
  • b) The Law of Human Nature.
  • c) The Law of Tooth and Claw.
  • d) Sir Isaac Newton’s three Laws of Thermodynamics

2. What was the reason for the name being given to the Law of Nature?

  • a) The law dealt with the natural world.
  • b) The law was based on the natural environment.
  • c) The law was imposed by human government.
  • d) No one needed to be taught it.

3. In what way does Lewis suggest that the Nazis cannot be criticized for their actions?

  • a) In the absence of an accepted standard for human behavior.
  • b) In the absence of Christianity.
  • c) On the basis of moral relativity.
  • d) Because Lewis more or less agreed with Nazi principles.

4. Why do some people say the Law of Nature is unsound?

  • a) Because the laws of nature can’t apply to artificial social constructs.
  • b) Because different ages have different moralities.
  • c) Because it contradicts the teachings of Christianity.
  • d) Because the Law of Nature is a social construct.

5. What two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves?

  • a) I think, therefore I am.
  • b) The Law of Nature exists and it is broken.
  • c) Right and wrong are illusions in which we must believe in order to have a civil society.
  • d) Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, love under law.

Mere Christianity I


Eliminating student loan debt

President Trump needs to get out in front of this issue in a big way. It is a definite election-winner:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., will propose on Monday eliminating all $1.6 trillion of student debt held in the United States, a significant escalation of the policy fight in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary two days before the candidates’ first debate in Miami.

Sanders is proposing that the federal government pay to wipe clean the student debt held by 45 million Americans – including all private and graduate school debt – as part of a package that also would make public universities, community colleges and trade schools tuition-free.

Sanders is proposing to pay for these plans with a tax on Wall Street his campaign says will raise more than $2 trillion over 10 years, though some tax experts give lower revenue estimates.

Sanders will be joined Monday by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who will introduce legislation in the House to eliminate all student debt in the United States, as well as Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who has championed legislation to make public universities tuition-free.

Politics aside, eliminating student debt is the right thing to do. The power of the banks needs to be broken and this is the most effective way to begin doing that. Student loan debt is intrinsically predatory and cannot be justified, especially in light of the massive endowments of the elite universities.

The fact is that most people should not go to college. But if corporations are going to demand worthless pieces of paper for a job, then those worthless pieces of paper should be provided to everyone who wants one for free.

Remember, periodic debt forgiveness is straight out of the Bible and is even referenced in the Lord’s Prayer. Debtors must be forgiven, concerns about fairness notwithstanding.