Tag: conspiracy

Flying in the face of reality

I have no doubt that the Germans are going to go full-Nazi as soon as they overthrow their traitorous political class and their corporate PC lobby.

The involvement by foreigners flies in the face of Germany’s PC lobby which has ruthlessly called critics of Merkel’s migration programme ‘Nazi’ or ‘racist’.

Take 59-year-old Akif Pirincci, an outspoken Right-winger and German writer of Turkish origin, who has warned that Christian Germany is becoming Islamic. His books, one of which is called Germany Gone Mad, were best-sellers until last autumn, when big publishers and bookshops chose not to distribute them any more. It is the first time since the Nazi era that such censorship has occurred.

In another controversy, Catholic journalist Matthias Matussek lost his job at the respected German newspaper Die Welt after he posted his views on November’s massacre in Paris on his personal Facebook page, saying mildly: ‘I think that the terror in Paris will move our (German) debate about open borders and … young Muslim men in our country in an entirely new and fresh direction.’

Despite the censorship, unpalatable truths have still slipped out. Last month, the interior ministry in the large south-west state of Baden-Wurttemberg published figures on criminal offences committed by asylum seekers between January and November 2015.

They made alarming reading. Asylum seekers represent one per cent of the population of the state but were involved in five per cent (27,255) of all registered crimes, among them 1,000 cases of grievous bodily harm, 22 of attempted murder, and 700 of domestic burglary. The highest number of offenders were Syrians, committing 5,576 of the offences.

Andre Schulz, head of Germany’s criminal police association, said recently that in his experience 10 per cent of the migrants would turn to criminality, including theft, sexual assault or drug dealing.

‘The policy has been to leave the German population in the dark …ordinary citizens are being played for fools,’ he declared.

The same process is at work in the USA. It’s a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one; Germany is getting hit harder and faster. This is why establishing new, Alt Right institutions is an urgent necessity. And they are being developed; I have spoken to three separate groups that are in the process of doing this, so be ready to support them and use them and police them as they begin to appear this year.

Because, like the snakes they are, the SJWs are going to throw everything they have into trying to strangle them in their cradles.

SJWs, exposed

The SJW calling himself Hawk S. Rabidus made a risibly false claim.

Nobody else is organizing or manipulating things on Goodreads (or the Hugos) using concerted action. There is no cabal.

There most certainly is, as in both cases, the emergent behavior of the various individuals who share an interest in pushing social justice is observably manifest. In the case of the Hugos, the editors at Tor Books have been engaging in concerted action for decades. They have, by their own admission, decided when new awards will be created, when they will win those awards, and when they will step back and permit others to win them. In the case of Goodreads, it is a group of petty SJWs and SJW librarians who have collectively sought to lower the ratings of right wing authors. Thanks to Sean O’Hara, we were able to put together the list of all 100 or so, including moderators like rivka, and librarians like banillah, Bryan Young, davidofterra, and Getty Hesse.

 SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police
by Vox Day, Milo Yiannopoulos (Foreword)
Getty Hesse’s review
Jan 04, 16

did not like it

I’m putting this review up because the book desperately needs a lower rating. One does not need to read this book. The very blurb is resplendent with contradictions.

SJWs subject the world to “their intolerant thought and speech policing,” and yet the VERY NEXT SENTENCE speaks of “the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality.” Tolerance cannot be intolerant. Vox Day is saying here that something is not itself. And he doesn’t even suggest that their “agenda” is something else masquerading as “diversity,tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality,” oh no, rather these things contradict “both science and observable reality.” I’m not even going to bother to explain why that statement is incredibly idiotic. Anyone with half a brain cell should be able to figure it out.

And, for the record, Vox Day is not “the most hated man in science fiction.” He’s the most laughed at.

If SJWs could do logic, they wouldn’t be SJWs. Forgive the digression, but Getty Hesse’s pseudo-dialectic makes my teeth itch. It’s true that X cannot be Not X, but Y most certainly can be. In much the same way Tom Brady is not the New England Patriots playbook, SJWs are not the professed SJW agenda. As usual, both Vox’s First Law and the First Law of SJW can be seen here.

What is interesting about Goodreads is that it provides an excellent way of publicly identifying where people stand on the socio-political spectrum. Aside from the amusement that this latest showdown has provided, it has sparked some very interesting discussions in our tech circle, including some things we’re going to discuss in our next Brainstorm, where we will talk about the planned fork of Wikipedia and the shape of its eventual replacement.

More importantly, this has finally allowed me to answer the core question with which I have been wrestling: do we create something that is a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia or do we shoot to replace it entirely with something better that the left can be safely permitted to use without converging it like they always do?

Speaking of things that provoke laughter, Rolf Nelson received an email from The Goodreads Team explaining why they would not be removing an obviously fake review in which it was apparent that the reviewer could not possibly have read the book.

Goodreads policy allows users to rate a book as soon as it is listed on the site. We do not dictate on what basis Goodreads members form their personal opinions about a book, so we have no rules about reading the full text of a book before rating and reviewing it. We recognize that not everyone will agree with this policy, but it is one that has worked well for the Goodreads community over time.

Users are entitled to express their honest opinions about the book,
even if others feel them to be misguided or wrong. We don’t evaluate a
reader’s opinions based on how, when, or why they made a judgement about
the work that they read. Given the subjective nature of reviews, it’s
hard to designate one review as “wrong” and another “right.” Even if we
could, it would be impractical to manually verify the authenticity of
every statement made in a Goodreads review, and we have to be consistent
in how we apply our policies.  

That would explain why they were able to ban me in good conscience: they have no need to be consistent about how they apply their unviolated non-policies.

But we shouldn’t be surprised that Goodreads’ policy permits the review of books one hasn’t read, as it even permits the review of books that don’t exist. Two Goodreads librarians have one-starred a book that I supposedly wrote for Ben Bella that was never signed to a contract, that I never wrote, and Ben Bella never published. It’s nice that ignoring reality has worked well for the Goodreads community over time, but history is quite clear on the way that reality tends to impose itself in the end.

One more tangent, if you don’t mind. Ben Bella graciously returned to me the audiobook rights to The Irrational Atheist and we expect it to be available on Audible from Castalia House sometime in the February-March timeframe.

Clarke and the criminal connections

Leo is rather dubious about the evidence concerning certain of Arthur C. Clarke’s supposed idiosyncracies:

Still, a lack of accusations gives us nothing but rumors to work with. Did he associate with anyone later credibly so accused? That would be evidence for me.

Fair enough. It’s not like I know anything about it, although the false claims of his being cleared by the Sri Lankan authorities do tend to make me a little suspicious. Let’s see what is out there. Here is what there is from the 1998 Mirror piece based on the reporter who was sent from the UK to Sri Lanka to interview Clarke.

Sitting in a room he calls his Ego Chamber, Arthur C. Clarke  finally admitted his lifelong secret – not only is he gay but he prefers sex with beach boys. Clarke gives the name Ego Chamber to the study in his Colombo home because the walls are lined with his books and framed photos of himself with celebrities from the Pope to Princess Diana. The room has state-of-the-art computers, satellite TV, video recorders and other hi-tech gadgets which Clarke boasts he uses to communicate with pals at the Pentagon.

When we asked Clarke about suggestions that he may have been one of the original pioneers of sex tourism in Sri Lanka he gave a wry smile and said: “I am more amused than disgusted that anyone should think that. I am all in favour of efforts to stop it. But how do we stop it without interfering with the rights of responsible adults.”

Then he repeated a phrase often used by paedophiles: “I think most of the damage comes from the fuss made by hysterical parents afterwards. If the kids don’t mind, fair enough.”

In recent years Clarke’s name has been linked with two notorious paedophiles, one of whom – a Swiss millionaire – was kicked out of Sri Lanka on the orders of the president for abusing impoverished beach boys. He is now awaiting trial in Zurich accused of sexually abusing up to 1,500 young boys and like Clarke was friends with a lot of Sri Lanka’s top politicians, senior policemen and influential government figures.

Clarke is said to have attended parties at the tycoon’s home. When asked if he had, Clarke replied:

“I may well have done. I mean the very first man I met here in 1954 was a paedophile and made no bones about it. He was in intelligence in the army, a fantastic guy.”

Clarke said of his sexual preferences:

“Here it would embarrass everyone right up to the president. I mean, I am chancellor of the university, a public figure, that is the problem so I would be swallowed alive. I would probably be outed, you see.”

These days the frail, white-haired old man gets around with the aid of a wheelchair and crutches following a polio attack 15 years ago.

But Clarke’s fading health does not stop him enjoying his favourite pastime – playing table tennis with schoolboys at a notorious pick-up haunt for perverts called the Otters Aquatic Club. Crumbling and in need of a coat of paint, the Otters is a meeting point for Westerners who lust after young boys. Those who hang around its games room, pool and tennis courts are perfect prey and are easily persuaded to sell themselves for 1,000 rupees (pounds 10) – a small fortune to them.

Clarke goes there regularly in the afternoon, hobbling on a walking stick, to challenge boys – some as young as 12 – to a game of ping pong.

Asked what his definition for paedophilia was Clarke said:

“There are two different definitions, anyone who interferes with young boys who are not old enough to know their own minds and that’s my definition. It varies for me.”

Asked how he knew whether the boys really did know their own minds as he had not known them for long, he said:

“Because pure and simply they looked reasonably mature. Mature enough for me.”

Told one of them was just 13, he said: “If he really was 13 he will be a very mature 13.”

Asked if he thought that was morally wrong he replied: “No.”

Told that some of the boys had told us they would not have had sex if he had not given them money he said: “I’m sure. But I didn’t make anyone do anything they didn’t enjoy doing.”

Of course, one has to ask why a reporter would fly from the UK to Sri Lanka to interview an old man about his predilections unless he already knew what he would find. There is also more highly specific information from what appears to be a British conspiracy site:

US detectives, who arrested leaders of NAMBLA 10 years ago, say Clarke was named by other paedophiles they quizzed during an FBI investigation. The perverts had set up children’s homes in Thailand as fronts for their sick activities.

One of its leaders was Jonathan Tampico, 48, a top nuclear scientist who worked for the American Government. He served two-and-a- half years in jail for molesting a boy of 12 and is now on the run with a million-dollar warrant on his head for further porn offences. He told detectives he had stayed at Clarke’s home in Colombo and had swapped letters with the author.

Another known paedophile, former church minister John Wakefield Cummings, 56, is serving a 24-years-to-life sentence after admitting molesting 17 boys in his care.

He told police in Sacramento, California, that Clarke had been contacted at his Sri Lankan home by a paedophile who was on the run from the American authorities.

In a sworn statement made to an investigator for Sacremento’s district attorney, Wakefield Cummings told how the pervert fled to Sri Lanka where he was able to contact the paedophile community through Clarke. He then fled from Sri Lanka to Indonesia.

Detectives contacted a child welfare group to warn them about Clarke’s activities.

A senior Sacramento detective said: “We never had any reason to take action against Arthur C. Clarke because he was outside our jurisdiction.

“But Clarke’s name did keep coming up. We were looking into members of The Boy Lovers Association who all seemed to know or be aware of him. He ended up connecting to a lot of people we were investigating. Tampico was one of those who said he went to Sri Lanka. I have seen letters between him and Arthur C. Clarke. There was nothing overtly sexual in them but they were clearly corresponding.”

He added: “Cummings told us in the course of interviews that Arthur C. Clarke is a paedophile. He said Sri Lanka used to be a popular destination for the paedophiles. But then the government changed and they were all thrown out. He said Clarke was one of the few they didn’t expel because of his status.”

Ron O’Grady, of ECPAT confirmed he had been warned about Clarke by police in Sacramento.

Now, I know nothing about any of this so I can’t vouch for any of it, but it’s easy enough to confirm that at least the names are real. Here are public court documents relating to the arrest of the aforementioned Jonathan Tampico. Notice that he and his three fellow defendants are members of NAMBLA, the organization that published the newsletter to which Samuel Delaney admits subscribing. And John Wakefield Cummings is on the registered sex offender list in Clovis, California. Ron O’Grady, who died last year, was a New Zealand minister who founded EPCAT.

Perhaps Mr. Cummings was lying about Mr. Clarke. Perhaps Mr. Tampico was lying about Mr. Clarke. Perhaps Rev. O’Grady was lying about Mr. Clarke. Perhaps all these people from around the world were lying about Mr. Clarke in their discussions with the Sacramento police. But why? Why would his name even come up in the first place?

The Otter Aquatic Club also exists and you can even visit its website. Otter Aquatic Club is one of leading sport promoting club has been in
existence for the past 78 years and it is one of the largest and most
patronized clubs in Sri Lanka.

And then consider how many obvious signs there were about Clarke compared to how much evidence there was about Marion Zimmer Bradley prior to the revelations of last year. A lot of these people are still alive; some of the detectives involved may even still be on the Sacramento police force.

I have absolutely nothing against Arthur C. Clarke. I enjoyed several of his novels. I was delighted to republish the excellent story he wrote for There Will Be War Volume II, “Superiority”. But the truth is what it is. History is what it is. This world is fallen and Clarke would hardly be the first brilliant man of talent to hide a terrible secret.

The question is, will the science fiction world investigate the matter and face the truth, whatever it might be, or will it continue to avert its eyes and permit the monsters in its midst to operate with impunity? Remember, this is a community that awarded Samuel Delaney its highest honor just last year.

Evidence of a false flag

ISIS commended the “three lions” of San Bernardino. All the early news reports talked about three shooters. I personally heard the police on the scanner talking about three suspects, including one taken into custody. So, where is the third shooter? And more importantly, why did an eyewitness report seeing three tall male shooters?

We now know that ATF investigators recovered police issued firearms from the alleged shooters. This key detail was leaked by 2016 GOP Presidential Candidate Carly Fiorina during a press interview after she had overheard a newsroom report that doesn’t fit the official narrative.

We also know that active shooter drills actually took place near the crime scene just days before and possibly even on the same day of the mass shooting as reported by Mac Slavo.

Additionally details from an eyewitness, who came forth on the day of the shooting, may have been overlooked by investigators and suggest that there were actually ‘three white shooters’ instead of the radicalized husband and wife natural-born killer team portrayed in some mainline reports.

The witness, Sally Abdelmageed, worked at Inland Medical Center where the attack took place and saw it all unfold firsthand. It’s also important to note that Abdelmageed is likely not lying and that this quite possibly might be the most accurate eyewitness account publicized to date. After all how can two shooters, a man and a petite woman, be mistaken for three white military men with athletic builds?

In a phone interview with CBS Abdelmageed explained:

    “I heard shots fired and it was from you know an automatic weapon. […] very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on they were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”

When asked what the gunman that shot into the room looked like the eyewitness replied:

    “I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […] huge assault rifle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same”.

“You are certain you saw three men,” the newscaster asked Abdelmageed.

“Yes,” said Abdelmageed.

    “It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”

Now, who is more likely to be lying, this woman or the government? Which party has a longer track record of being less than entirely honest. And the strange behavior of the married couple makes a lot more sense if one considers the possibility that they were simply patsies who were flushed and then identified; the way in which the police found them struck me as just a bit odd at the time.

The US is supporting ISIS

The document trail, the lame explanations, the reports of CIA involvement, the behavior of allies, the declassified documents, and the eyewitness evidence in Iraq all tell the same story:

On the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State, suspicion of the United States runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion.

Ordinary people also have seen the videos, heard the stories and reached the same conclusion — one that might seem absurd to Americans but is widely believed among Iraqis — that the United States is supporting the Islamic State for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting U.S. control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.

“It is not in doubt,” said Mustafa Saadi, who says his friend saw U.S. helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions. He is a commander in one of the Shiite militias that last month helped push the militants out of the oil refinery near Baiji in northern Iraq alongside the Iraqi army.

The Islamic State is “almost finished,” he said. “They are weak. If only America would stop supporting them, we could defeat them in days.”

While U.S. military officials “say the charges are too far-fetched to merit a response”, what is much more far-fetched is the idea that they cannot bomb the Islamic State’s oil facilities for fear of endangering the Desert Snail Darter or whatever their lame excuses are.

The US outrage over Russia’s intervention in Syria, as well as the Turkish ambush of the Russian plane, are clearly indicative of the fact that the Obama administration is allied with ISIS and wants it to succeed in taking out Assad. After all, we know US forces are not welcome there by either the Syrian government or the Iraqi government.

Before you dismiss the idea that the US is actually pro-ISIS out of hand, keep in mind that the US government also bombed the Serbs in order to keep them from defeating the Muslims in Bosnia. Or, you know, read the relevant Defense Intelligence Agency document.

“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”.

The DIA report, formerly classified “SECRET//NOFORN” and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.

The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.

Considering that the mujahideen in Afghanistan were originally envisioned and armed as a U.S. strategic asset against the Soviet Union, it should not be terribly surprising to learn that the Islamic State is a similar arrangement.

Ranger School coverup

The Army is attempting to bury the evidence that it relaxed standards in order to permit women to graduate from Ranger School:

Congressman Russell contacted the Secretary of the Army on September 15, 2015, and requested the Ranger School records for Captain Kristen Griest and First Lieutenant Shaye Haver.

The Secretary of the Army stalled Russell for nine days and then asked for an extension to obtain documents readily available.

The Army waited another two weeks to tell Russell the documents had been shredded.

The Army refuses to tell anyone what the school’s policy is for the storage and destruction of Ranger School records.

The Army refuses to tell the media why they shredded Griest’s and Haver’s records.

The Army refuses to tell the media what they are doing with the third female graduate, Major Lisa Jaster’s records.

The Army wants us to doubt that journalist Susan Keating’s Ranger School sources are real because they are anonymous.

The Army wants us to believe that if Susan Keating’s sources were real they would come forward, when in fact, they are frightened of retribution. Considering the Obama administration’s treatment of whistleblowers, these fears are more than justified.

I very much doubt anyone is even remotely surprised by this. But consider the silver lining: given the way in which recent administrations appear to regard American citizens as the enemy, there are worse things than social justice convergence debilitating the U.S. military.

Destroying the evidence won’t do the Army any good. Everyone knows that the standards were dumbed-down and that the women who “passed” the course are frauds and an insult to all real Rangers, past and present. Want to argue otherwise? Fine, show the records.

Put a fork in the Republicans

They’re done. They’re not only sell-outs, they’re never going to be seriously competitive with the Democratic Party because apparently they have hamstrung themselves and agreed to never challenge voter fraud:

The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

    The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.

    The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.

    The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

Do you seriously believe any party that would agree to such handcuffs is even remotely capable of defending American interests?

An absence of evidence

Paul Craig Roberts is suspicious about the contradiction between the evidence and the mysterious vanishing confession in the Boston Bomber trial:

I have been contacted by attorney John Remington Graham, a member in good standing of the bar of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. He informs me that acting in behalf of Maret Tsanaeva, the aunt of the accused Tsamaev brothers and a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic where she is qualified to practice law, he has assisted her in filing with the US District Court in Boston a pro se motion, including an argument of amicus curiae, and an affidavit of Maret Tsarnaeva. The presiding judge has ordered that these documents be included in the formal record of the case so they will be publicly accessible. The documents are reproduced below.

The documents argue that on the basis of the evidence provided by the FBI, there is no basis for the indictment of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The FBI’s evidence clearly concludes that the bomb was in a black knapsack, but the photographs used to establish Dzhokhar’s presence at the marathon show him with a white knapsack. Moreover, the knapsack lacks the heavy bulging appearance that a knapsack containing a bomb would have.

As readers know, I have been suspicious of the Boston Marathon Bombing from the beginning. It seems obvious that both Tsamaev brothers were intended to be killed in the alleged firefight with police, like the alleged perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo affair in Paris. Convenient deaths in firefights are accepted as indications of guilt and solve the problem of trying innocent patsies.

In Dzhokhar’s case, his guilt was established not by evidence but by accusations, by the betrayal of his government-appointed public defender Judy Clarke who declared Dzhokhar’s guilt in her opening statement of her “defense,” by an alleged confession, evidence of which was never provided, written by Dzhokhar on a boat under which the badly wounded youth lay dying until discovered by the boat owner and hospitalized in critical condition.

I’m always mildly suspicious whenever the alleged perpetrators are found quickly before being killed in a lethal shootout. If only the police could track down missing children so effortlessly.

And suspicion would appear to be justified considering “he could not find a single attorney in the state of Massachusetts who
would sponsor his appearance before the Federal District Court in
Boston.”

What is it that they fear? What is it that they know?

Mailvox: whitewashing history at Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s gatekeepers are up to their usual shenanigans, in this case, attempting to casually brush the topic of Cultural Marxism under the carpet to keep it from innocent eyes:

In case you haven’t noticed the “Cultural Marxism” entry to wikipedia has been deleted and replaced by “conspiracy theory” at the body of the “Frankfurt School” page.

I noticed this a few days ago.  After reading a work on Critical Race Theory which wasn’t inspired by an article I read on the Baltimore riots.  It reminded me a lot of the line of thinking that Pat Buchanan describes as Cultural Marxism in “Death of the West.”  Naturally, I looked up Cultural Marxism on wikipedia and I find that the page had been deleted and replaced.  Orwell would be proud.  To be quite honest, this really has shocked me.  Call me sheltered, but the audacity and dishonesty of it is appalling.

Being an optimist (or a masochist) I looked at the talk page to see if I couldn’t reason with someone.  Turns out that the page replacement took place in November and that a single editor it engages in some serious gate-keeping.

Over the past five months several dozen people have expressed concerns with the page and he dismissed and passive-aggressively threatened them all without answering any arguments.

I decided to engage with him, but the results are about what you’d expect.

Here’s a summary:

Me:I don’t think Cultural Marxism counts as a conspiracy by any reasonable definition and this article leans way left.  Can you please define your terms for Cultural Marxism and give me your criteria for conspiracy theory.

Him :Ok go ahead and try to prove your conspiracy theory Mr. Tin-foil hat man.  Oh and Welcome (grumble)…can you please go away…be a shame if someone were to report you for vandalism…..and did you know Satanic, baby eating, white supremacist Anders Breivik used the phrase “Cultural Marxism” in his manifesto…you don’t want to be like him do you…be a shame if you got reported….

You can imagine two days of this I’m sure.  But if you have time, I’d love to know what you think of the debate.  I’ve rarely dealt with someone so completely unwilling to actually argue all the while claiming that the battle was over before I got there and that he’s the victor. 

I’ve finally got him to consider an academic source from Paul Gottfried, but it looks like this will take time.

So, what I’d really like is you to give a shout on your blog detailing what’s happened.  It’s bigger than two guys fighting on the internet considering how many people use wikipedia, if only to get oriented in finding out more about a topic.  I know I do, or before this did.  Just a link would get more people involved.

I’ve decided to ask you because a) Castalia has published work by William Lind, one of the (if not the) coiners of the phrase “Cultural Marxism” to describe the ideology, obsessions, tactics, and behaviors of the Left and their current diffusion in society at large and b) because no one should know better than you that so-called little issues like Gamergate and the Hugos are key battlegrounds in the culture wars and will lead to bigger things. 

Honestly I think keeping wikipedia honest (as far as it’s possible) is even bigger.  This isn’t just a case of “oh no!  Somebody’s wrong on the internet!”

What do I think? I think this is simply SJWs SJWing. And what do SJWs do? The lesson, as always, is this: SJWs always lie. The ironic thing is that Wikipedia has a fairly extensive entry on one of the more important cultural Marxists, Herbert Marcuse, and even quotes him in some detail concerning the cultural Marxism he advocated, and which the SJWs practice.

  • “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”[17]
  • “Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”[17]

It should come as no surprise that cultural Marxists, which is what the SJWs manifestly are, don’t want people to understand their core doctrine or its roots in the misapplication of a failed economic theory.

SJWs in OSS II

It’s being further investigated by others closer to the OSS dev community, but the evidence about SJWs invading Open Source Software is bolstered by additional emails posted to the London Ruby User’s Group mailing list:

Really great you both brought this up. I’ve been responsible for building up a small tech team within Barclays and we’ve had a push towards much more diversity. This has been driven by the huge lack of diversity within the existing tech teams. We are tasked with building prototypes which are not business critical so we have a lot of space to move around with then other areas of the company which require levels of experience & current ability which traditionally bias against minorities facing oppression.

  • We avoided posting adverts on tech mailing lists and in places where women and minorities are underrepresented, instead using the same budget we would have used on places like unicorn jobs, in places such as in Ethnic minority related magazines and publications, LGBT related publications and websites (such as out.com). The cost of advertising was so expensive in tech related spaces we could cover many more adverts in spaces that would reach to minorities and we got an excellent response.
  • We never assume to know someones preferred pronoun. When responding to applicants we always ask for their preferred pronoun, even if it seems obvious (there’s more than 2). The response to this has been great so far.
  • We’ve effectively had to create our own internal structure independent from the rest of the company to ensure that diversity is catered for. Slowly but surely though, we’re affecting the rest of the business.

So far we’ve grown the team to 6. 4 of us identify as female (with one
being transgender) and 5 of us are PoC.

That’s pure SJW entryism at work. Notice how the SJWs a) are safely ensconced in an area where they can avoid being held accountable for providing objective business-critical results, b) have created their own independent internal structure, c) have long range goals to enforce their ideology on the rest of the company.

It also shows how you can best hunt down and eliminate SJWs from your organization. Look for them in non-critical roles where the focus is internal rather than external. And don’t expect to be able to rely upon objective metrics to provide an excuse for firing them, they actively avoid being measured or held accountable in any way. Your best bet is to nail them on their consistent refusal to abide by company guidelines, their failure to fulfill certain specified responsibilities or follow clear directions, or their repeated hiring of people who are observably unqualified.