Tag: conspiracy

The hope for world order

If you’re having trouble seeing things from the globalist perspective and wondering how they can possibly justify their ruthless attacks on national and individual sovereignty, it can be helpful to read their doctrines. Henry Kissinger puts forth his global vision in World Order:

The issue of peace in the Middle East has, in recent years, focused on the highly technical subject of nuclear weapons in Iran. There is no shortcut around the imperative of preventing their appearance. But it is well to recall periods when other seemingly intractable crises in the Middle East were given a new dimension by fortitude and vision.

Between 1967 and 1973, there had been two Arab-Israeli wars, two American military alerts, an invasion of Jordan by Syria, a massive American airlift into a war zone, multiple hijackings of airliners, and the breaking of diplomatic relations with the United States by most Arab countries. Yet it was followed by a peace process that yielded three Egyptian-Israeli agreements (culminating in a peace treaty in 1979); a disengagement agreement with Syria in 1974 (which has lasted four decades, despite the Syrian civil war); the Madrid Conference in 1991, which restarted the peace process; the Oslo agreement between the PLO and Israel in 1993; and a peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994.

These goals were reached because three conditions were met: an active American policy; the thwarting of designs seeking to establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles through violence; and the emergence of leaders with a vision of peace…. Once again, doctrines of violent intimidation challenge the hopes for world order. But when they are thwarted—and nothing less will do—there may come a moment similar to what led to the breakthroughs recounted here, when vision overcame reality.

Kissinger is a clear and lucid writer. His historical knowledge is deep and impressive. But he makes no case for his vision, he simply assumes the reader will share it; and it is easy to understand why America finds itself caught up in a convoluted web of international intrigue given the political influence of the author. The arrogance and hypocrisy in that open tacit claim that “nothing less will do” than the imposition of universalist principles through violence by leaders with a vision of peace is astonishing. And more than a little ironic in light of Kissinger’s criticism of the “remarkable arrogance” of the European colonial powers.

The pamphlets and treatises of the colonial powers from the dawn of the twentieth century reveal a remarkable arrogance, to the effect that they were entitled to shape a world order by their maxims. Accounts of China or India condescendingly defined a European mission to educate traditional cultures to higher levels of civilization.

What is truly remarkable is the complete lack of self-awareness demonstrated here. The globalists are doing EXACTLY the same thing they complain about the colonial powers having done, and what Kissinger correctly observes the Iranians to be doing: asserting their entitlement to shape a world order by their maxims. But precisely how is Kissinger’s “vision of peace” any more rationally justified or globally authoritative than Mahmound Ahmadinejad’s publicly proclaimed “promise of God”?

And what is the globalist hope for world order if not a doctrine of violent intimidation?

The economic imperative of Asteroid Wars

This sudden push for asteroid defenses seems a little out of left field:

Asteroids could wipe out humanity unless more effort is made to track and destroy them, a leading body of scientists and astronauts has warned. Lord Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins are among more than 100 experts calling for the creation of a huge asteroid detection system to prevent a doomsday scenario.

At an event at London’s science museum on Wednesday night, Lord Rees read out a declaration resolving to “solve humanity’s greatest challenges to safeguard our families and quality of life on Earth in the future.”

The dire threat of asteroids producing an urgent need for space-based defense systems. Now, where have I heard something like that before? As it happens, in the testimony of a woman who was an associate of Werner von Braun back in the 1970s, which dates back 14 years.

He said the strategy that was being used to educate the public and decision makers was to use scare tactics. That was how we identify an enemy. The strategy that Werner Von Braun taught me was that first the Russians are going to be considered the enemy. In fact, in 1974, they were the enemy, the identified enemy. We were told that they had “killer satellites”. We were told that they were coming to get us and control us—that they were the “Commies”.

Then terrorists would be identified, and that was soon to follow. We heard a lot about terrorism. Then we were going to identify third-world country “crazies”. We now call them Nations of Concern. But he said that would be the third enemy against whom we would build space-based weapons.

The next enemy was asteroids. Now, at this point he kind of chuckled the first time he said it, “Asteroids—against asteroids, we are going to build space-based weapons.”

And the funniest one of all was what he called aliens, extraterrestrials. That would be the final scare. And over and over during the four years that I knew him and was giving speeches for him, he would bring up that last card: “And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We are going to have to build space-based weapons against aliens, and all of it is a lie.”

I think I was too naïve at that time to know the seriousness of the nature of the spin that was being put on the system. And now, the pieces are starting to fall into place. We are building a space-based weapons system on a premise that is a lie, a spin. Wernher Von Braun was trying to hint that to me back in the early 70’s and right up until the moment when he died in 1977.

Of course, since we know the military-industrial complex is going to manufacture wars in order to keep its system of income distribution running smoothly, I would think it is eminently desirable for the wars to be waged against space rocks and entirely imaginary. It makes for an interesting investment plan, anyhow.

And is there not an even darker possibility? What if the whistleblower who is warning about these manufactured wars is actually an agent for the aliens who wants to see Earth disarmed? Wheels within wheels, my friends. Wheels within wheels.

Anyhow, it’s nice to see that the AGW/CC alarmists have a new toy with which to play.

The end of the Common Law

The British turn their backs on 900 years of legal sovereignty:

Today Parliament votes on extending the European Arrest Warrant scheme. Indefinitely.

I’m perplexed. Usually when we approach a significant milestone in this country we hold a national commemoration of sorts. But alas, thanks to David Cameron’s Three-Line-Whip, and the grim tendency of today’s MPs to fall into line by putting Party before country (and self before children/grandchildren), we seriously face the prospect of Britain falling one year short of a worthy 900th anniversary next year: of the independence of the British legal system.

How can I say this?

Because we appear to be tearing up almost a millennium of hard-won legal rights, to accommodate the free movement of (at most) several hundred European criminals – or ‘alleged’ criminals. At least, that’s how I would explain it to an alien in an elevator pitch.

As a police officer told me recently, “we wouldn’t be supporting these powers if politicians didn’t keep pushing free movement and EU expansion.” So, before this ‘wicked’ Parliament (and I don’t use this word as enthused street-slang) fires another nail into the coffin of citizenship and justice, not just for Britons, but all European residents, let’s reiterate some highlights from times before November 2014, when British generations slowly triumphed to be the masters of their own judicial system.

These cultural wars are long-wave historical events. They won’t be won or lost in our lifetimes. We can, of course, ignore them and simply go along to get along. Or we can take part of them, acting in the full knowledge that while we might win, or lose, a battle here and there, we will not get the chance to see the final outcome.

But we can influence it. Don’t you think Pelagius and the Asturians would look on the results of the Reconquista and feel that theirs had been lives well-lived?

Some thing that these extended timescales proves that there is no conspiracy and “progress” is a mere accident of history because no human lifespan is long enough to encompass the strategy or the consequences. The logic is correct, but then, logic also suggests an alternative, which is that there is something, or someone, that exists on a larger timescale and is capable of guiding events of these temporal proportions.

So, the question comes down to this: given what we can observe with the limited means at our disposal, which do you find more unlikely? A coin almost always flipping tails at random or some sort of unknown, long-lived being imposing its will on the coin toss?

I very much disagree with Sherlock Holmes. Vox’s 4th Law of Logical Analysis states: once you have identified the improbable, look more closely at what you assume to be impossible.

SJWs plotting entry points into games

SB discovered this excerpt from the Dispatch from the Queerness and Games Conference:

The first keynote of the conference was by Lisa Nakamura
on Social Justice Warriors in video game culture. She broke down what
seemed to be the ‘taxonomy’ of an SJW to better understand how people,
usually those actively against social justice movements, both see
themselves and what they want to get rid of. Some qualities Lisa listed
out: SJW framed as opposite to SWM or straight white male, a common term
used for a projected most privileged identity; fundamentally insincere
in their motives and use of ideology, while at the same time too sincere
and unable to take jokes or fit in; not native to the community,
foreigners from Twitter and Tumblr trying to immigrate to video games.
This helps identify not only how gaters treat people they assign as SJW,
but also how they see themselves: person vs ideologue; genuine vs
manipulative; native vs the opportunistic.

Wrapped up in this is how to
be a minoritized person that is a ‘true’ force for change, aka not a
fake feminist or gamer that wants social good, by the way of practicing
‘cruel optimism.’ Cruel optimism is that common response to inequality
that’s a mix of positivist individualism and ‘harsh reality,’ like for
more minoritized people to create games and THEN media will get better,
just sit back and wait and it’ll take care of itself. I feel like we see
this with the overabundance of girls in STEM initiatives and no
resources for those right now fighting against marginalization. Lisa
used the term ‘procedural meritocracy,’ that in order to earn respect in
gaming, you have to display exceptional skill. Basically the idea is if
men who spout sexist stuff online are beat in a video game fair and
square by a woman, they will include her based on meritocracy and
proving she’s not a fake geek girl.

This attitude doesn’t address that
the barriers to gaining skill are still very high for minoritized
people, and that this process ultimately turns the bullied into a new
bully; you climb the ranks so you can police the behavior of others,
essentially giving permission to those already at the top. The true
warrior looks like other gamers, talks like other gamers, and plays like
other gamers. The SJW doesn’t play by the same rules, or even worse,
doesn’t play the same games. This is hyperbolized by the codification of
certain games as worthy of getting paid for playing and not, and how
that is gendered, raced, etc. I think this is a pretty useful
perspective to have because it helps people frame how they talk to those
projecting the image of the SJW and better yet work to counteract the
qualities of being conniving interlopers by referencing their
credibility in the community.

This is classic SJW entryism in action. It’s not conspiracy theory, it is an actual, ongoing conspiracy on the part of SJW radicals to enter the game industry and prevent people from designing, developing, and playing the games they wish to design, develop, and play. This is why they have to be identified, confronted, and called out. They are actively planning to take over the game industry, just as they have nearly taken over SF/F and the sports media with their hyperpoliticization of it.

Do not tolerate them. Do not compromise with them. Do not seek to find a balance with them or meet them halfway. That is the core of their strategy, which they then rinse-and-repeat. They have repeatedly said that we are not fit for public discourse; very well, then do not engage in any discourse with them or permit them entry to anywhere we are.

If there is no place for us where they are, then there can be no place for them where we are.

SJWs and the mask of sanity

Roosh wrote a very important column delving into what Social Justice Warriors are, what they do, and how they go about doing it:

Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.

The true definition of SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists and liberals who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda, censor speech, and punish individuals by getting them terminated from their employment. They have also been successful at positioning themselves in the upper echelons of universities, media organizations, and tech companies….

SJW tactics evolved by necessity to keep their ideology alive in a modern climate where science—even 100-year-old science—contradicts the bulk of their ideas.

For example, a basic tenet of SJW thought is that there is no difference between men and women besides their physical bodies, that evolution stopped at the neck for human beings and gave both sexes an identical brain. Human biology can not sustain this notion [1] [2] [3], so when a person tries to state that men and women are different to a large audience, the SJW does one of three things:

(1) Attempts to censor the speech through mob action
(2) Calls the person a misogynist who hates women to inoculate the general population from considering the accurate information presented
(3) Destroys the livelihood of the person by contacting his employer so that he is less able to exercise his free speech

You’ll often encounter SJW debate tactics trying to use consensus to persuade you: “How can you think X when so many people think Y?” As you may already know, consensus is a poor judge of facts or morality.

Readers here know the SJWs as “pinkshirts” and “rabbits”, although if one wants to get more specific, the SF/F pinkshirts are a subset of SJWs and SJWs are a subset of rabbits aka r/selected. The important thing for those of us on the political right to keep in mind is that SJW!=leftist. SJW is an extreme subset of leftism, as Roosh points out, an extreme subset, and it is possible to ally with the leftists they are every bit as inclined to attack on a tactical basis from time to time. Just as the Bolsheviks wiped out the Mensheviks and NASDAP put the KPD in concentration camps, the extreme Left engages in internecine combat as readily as inter-ideological conflict.

It’s a long post, but a very good one. Read the whole thing. You will recognize most of the strategies and tactics he describes as what we’ve seen in the SFWA purging, the Eich affair, and in the comments here when the SJW trolls run through their usual routines.

The most important thing to take away from it is to understand the complete impossibility of compromise or even discourse with them. They do not engage in rational debate because they are not rational and they do not engage in honest discourse because they do not believe in objective truth. They can only be a) ignored, or b) destroyed. Since we’re not permitted to hunt them down like the worthless parasites they are yet (give it another 20 years), the current solution is implacable opposition, rhetorical dismissal, and a complete rejection of their wheedling attempts at entryism.

Every apology or attempt to find common ground will be viewed as a display of weakness and attacked. This is why it is important to ignore the well-meaning moderates, who simply do not understand with what they are dealing and will unwisely attempt to give the SJWs the very entry points they are seeking. Don’t argue with the moderates, just let them speak their piece, nod and smile, and completely ignore their self-defeating advice.

They inevitably attempt to sell their irrationality beneath a mask of seeming reason and common sense. Because they are intrinsically parasitical, they need to obtain acquiescence, if not full mental buy-in, from people in the organizations they are invading. They seek submission, eventually, but they will settle for tolerance. The pattern is clear: Step one: tolerance. Step two: compliance. Step Three: submission.

Therefore, the correct answer is always no. “Wouldn’t it only make sense if….” No. “Can’t we just….” No. “Wouldn’t it be fair to….” No. “You have to admit….” No. “If you would just apologize…” No.

“No” strips the mask of sanity from their faces and reveals the angry, shrieking madness underneath. Never forget, they cannot win without your compliance. So do not, under ANY circumstances, comply.

A throwback

Spacebunny posted this on Twitter for Throwback Thursday. As you can see, my connection to the USMC is not exactly of the intellectual, mutually respectful sort that Mr. Lind enjoys. As it turned out, this marked the end of my long-haired mohawk days. Of course, neither of us would dare to mess with “the 6-foot-4 ex-Marine badass” that we are reliably informed many people imagine John Scalzi to be. By John Scalzi.

Accidents?

Zerohedge appears to be more than a little suspicious:

Three months ago, the CEO of Total, Christophe de Margerie, dared utter the phrase heard around the petrodollar world, “There is no reason to pay for oil in dollars,”  as we noted here. Today, RT reports the dreadful news that he was killed in a business jet crash at Vnukovo Airport in Moscow after the aircraft hit a snow-plough on take-off. The airport issued a statement confirming “a criminal investigation has been opened into the violation of safety regulations,” adding that along with 3 crewmembers on the plane, the snow-plough driver was also killed.

Total, in case you didn’t know, is “the world’s 13th biggest oil producer and Europe’s 2nd largest. It’s a little strange, however, that this accident would have occurred in Russia, as one would presume that de Margerie was there as some sort of business partner or even ally of Putin. There is, after all, a long history of Russo-French alliances contra Germany, England, and now, perhaps, the USA.

Did the defenders of the global dollar target him? Or did Putin make him an offer that he couldn’t refuse, which he neverthless refused?  Who knows? We’ll probably never know. Anyhow, it’s not for we minnows to overly concern ourselves with the struggles of the mighty sharks and whales and squids and krakens in the depths. They will sort themselves out in the end.

However, this was not the only fatal accident of late:

American journalist Serena Shim has been killed in a car crash in Turkey just days after Turkish intelligence services had accused her of spying. She was reporting on the siege involving ISIS in Kobani at Syria’s border. Shim was a US citizen though she worked for Iran’s state-owned Press TV as correspondent in Turkey and other regions. She was returning her hotel in the city of Suruç when her car crashed into a ‘heavy vehicle’. The Daily Mail reports the car collided with a cement truck.

I suppose the silver lining is that even if these are targeted hits, those responsible for them still feel the need to disguise their actions. Although I have to say that banker’s “nailgun suicide” still stretches credulity. Frankly, at this point, I’m surprised that any politician is still willing to travel by plane:

The campaign plane of Eduardo Campos, a Brazilian presidential candidate and scion of a resurgent political dynasty, crashed on Wednesday in the port city of Santos, killing him and six others and shaking up an increasingly competitive race in Latin America’s largest democracy.

No murders in Newtown, CT

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2012, there were ZERO murders in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.

That would appear to be the conclusive evidence for which the Sandy Hook skeptics have been searching. Not only are there no murders listed for Newtown, but there is not a single city in Connecticut that reported 26 murders for the entire year. Hartford reported the most, with 23, followed by Bridgeport with 22. Which leads one to wonder how this could be possible considering that 26 people were supposedly shot and killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012.

Apparently it wasn’t “an offense known to law enforcement”.

The thing is, people who doubt conspiracy theory constantly claim that they do so because it is so hard to hold a story together. And yet, when there is clear evidence that someone was careless and a story is not holding up, they are the first to produce some excuse for ignoring it.

It should be interesting to hear how a widely reported mass murder that was front-page news around the world was not known to law enforcement.

Wikileftia

I’ve previously pointed out the way that the Wikipedia editors seek to minimize those they dislike and elevate those they support. But their left-wing bias is getting increasingly out of hand, as evidenced by their rationalizations for not permitting criticism of their favorite token black scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Keep in mind, these are actual quotes from Wikipedia editors discussing why it’s okay to airbrush history in order to protect their precious prophet.

1. “Telling a funny anecdote with fudgy details to make a joke/point is not a controversy, its what public speakers do.”

2. “It doesn’t matter if we can demonstrate it happened or not, many things happen in many people lives, we don’t write each of them into every persons biography.”

3. “[W]e may have to leave this up for a few days until S Davis drops his ‘censorship’ campaign.”

4.”So, [Tyson]‘s not making a point about Bush, he’s making a point about the lost opportunity of 1.3 billion people not contributing to the advancement of human knowledge.”

5. “This is thus far a relatively insignificant story pushed by a fringe attack blog[.]“

6. “We shouldn’t be asserting that ‘No evidence exists’ based upon the current sourcing.”

7. “There are literally thousands and thousands of articles about this topic […] If this was something important, then you would see a lot more sources covering.”

8. “[I]t is a non-notable commentary that begun in an obscure media site and was picked up with even more obscure sites/blogs.”

9. “[T]his is being kept off because Wikipedia is deeply conservative in the non-political meaning of the word.”

There are a plethora of examples of this Wikileftia bias. If you look at the page, about me you’ll see that a “Feud with John Scalzi” is apparently my primary View, but you won’t see any corresponding “Feud with Vox Day” on the Scalzi page even though a) he is the one who started it back in 2005, and b) he is the one who keeps talking to various media outlets about it, thereby rendering it notable.

The worst offenders may be the champions of Sam Harris. In the criticism section, they actually offer defenses of the very criticisms made, and the most substantive critiques, such as my complete demolition of his Red State argument, which was so successful that he dropped it entirely, are not there.

Wikipedia isn’t entirely useless. But for any public figure of any political controversy at all, it is entirely misleading.

GamerGate and Gameolist

A conspiracy of “Game Journalism Professionals” akin to the infamous JournoList is exposed by Sargon of Akkad:

And The Escapist publishes its Blacklist of game-related publications that are to best avoided as a result of their documented SJW-corruption and lack of journalistic integrity. It pains me to see both Gamasutra and Game Informer on that list; I grew up with the late Paul Anderson and I’ve known Andy McNamara since Game Informer was little more than a few pages of tissue-thin game advertisements.

Blacklist:
Ars Technica: 50.31.151.33
Destructoid: 23.29.115.146
Eurogamer: 94.198.83.18
Gamasutra: 192.155.49.228
Game Informer: 72.52.14.115
Gameranx: 65.75.153.171
Games On Net: 203.16.214.132
Gamespot: 64.30.228.81
IGN: 54.209.144.209
Kotaku: 23.235.43.192
N4G: 67.228.244.148
PC Gamer: 89.167.143.59
Polygon: 216.146.46.10
Rock Paper Shotgun: 80.87.130.179
VG247: 94.198.83.26

Milo Yiannopoulis has more at Breitbart:

High-profile editors, reporters, and reviewers from heavyweight gaming news sites such as Polygon, Ars Technica, and Kotaku use the private Google Groups mailing list, which is called Gaming Journalism Professionals or GameJournoPros, to shape industry-wide attitudes to events, such as the revelation that developer Zoe Quinn had a sexual relationship with at least one prominent games journalist — a journalist who had mentioned her and her products in his reporting….

The GameJournoPros emails appear to confirm widely-held suspicions that
video game journalists operate with one voice and collude on major
issues to distort coverage of ethics violations and to support figures
to whom they are politically sympathetic.