#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
The very best rhetoric is when it aligns perfectly with the dialectical truth.
That’s the sort of thing that the acronym BTFO was invented for. But it’s nice that Rep. Jordan helped underline why Conservative Inc. is suddenly pushing for NET ZERO IMMIGRATION and no more legal or illegal immigrants from THE THIRD WORLD.
That sound you heard was the Overton Window shifting. Not nearly far enough, of course, but it has moved substantially.
You can actually smell the peace. On the plus side, we should get at least two bang-up episodes of The Rookie out of this.
The ban on dual-citizenship in Japan was upheld as constitutional by the Japanese Supreme Court:
Japan’s top court has rejected an appeal by a Japanese-born U.S. citizen challenging the constitutionality of the country’s ban on dual citizenship, finalizing lower court rulings.
The decision by the Supreme Court’s First Petty Bench, dated Monday, was on a claim that Article 11 of the Nationality Law, which stipulates the loss of Japanese nationality upon voluntarily acquiring a foreign nationality, infringes on the right to self-determination.
The Fukuoka District Court turned down the initial claim in 2023, noting that the law was appropriate and was not beyond the scope of discretion. The Fukuoka High Court also supported the first decision last year.
According to the ruling, the woman acquired U.S. citizenship in 2004. She applied for a Japanese passport in 2017, but her application was rejected the following year on the grounds that she had lost her Japanese nationality.
This is an interesting rejection of Clown World’s anti-nationalist campaign, particularly because the Japanese constitution was imposed upon Japan by the US occupiers after World War II. It’s a strong indication that the dual-citizenship effectively created by the US Supreme Court decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) was both incorrect and inappropriately utilized in an excessively expansive manner to create a supra-national individual right that does not and should not exist.
Being ruled by foreigners is not only a curse in the Bible, it is a common late stage in empires that usually presages an eventual collapse.
In which a whistleblower discovers that no one cares about would-be heroes.
Advice from the Terminated
I once was terminated from a long-term white-collar job and refused to take the generous severance package they offered. Here’s some advice based on what I learned.
Only Do Real Whistleblowing
If your company is doing something unethical or even illegal and you feel you must inform others, never do so internally, trusting your managers to be appreciative or even just reasonable. Sadly, sometimes no good deed goes unpunished. Go external to have proper protection, especially if you have a reputation for being difficult (where your “not listening” means not always being compliant enough!).
“Help”, “Guidance” and “Protection” = Corrective Action
If you are being given “guidance” or “help” or even “protection” by your managers or HR person or Dean of Diversity – even if this is framed as “friendly concern” – consider that such actions can easily be characterized as discipline or corrective action later on. Especially if you are told you need to sign what you think is just something like an “incident report”, even when you think that your supervisor is supporting your actions – or even just acknowledge the reception of an email seemingly containing both praise and what could possibly be perceived as a subtle warning. I’d immediately start looking for a new job if you get one of these.
Your Excellent Reputation is Only as Good as Today
Years of past successes, impressive references, compliments about communication and social skills, professional accomplishments, glowing talent management evaluations, etc. can become irrelevant in a minute. If you are perceived by higher-ups as being insufficiently supportive of your organization’s direction or “problematic” in any way, watch out! And do not think for a minute that one manager will ever overturn the termination decision of another.
Just Shut the Hell Up
If you are involved in a meeting with higher-ups and you suspect that they are not open to concerns about how you are being treated unfairly do not try to persuade them at all. Just listen very carefully during the meeting, taking notes if that seems acceptable, and saying “Thank you”, and “I understand” a lot (maybe ask if you can record the meeting, as you truly don’t want to miss anything important – this, of course, will also serve to protect you). Later on, you can do more reflection and try to figure out what to do next. All of this is especially important if you are feeling frustrated or caught off guard by what happens. Unlike me, try not to show any lack of prudence or a dearth of absolutely impeccable manners and poise. Any weakness you show here might enable groups to create accounts about how they felt victimized by you.
You Can’t Afford to Think You are Smarter and More Clever Than Them
If it comes to legal manners, do not represent yourself, ever. Even if you are highly ethical, that won’t help and could even hurt: they know the legal game better than you ever could. And take heed: If the state is involved in the case, be aware of what ultimately will be made public and what won’t be made public. Also note that there is nothing Illegal about a company selectively choosing to enforce their own internal policies. Combine this with at-will employment, and this combination also will make getting any unemployment benefits that much more difficult.
Mike Waltz should have been arrested and put on trial for treason:
President Donald Trump sacked his national security adviser Mike Waltz because he was plotting with Israel’s leader to attack Iran, it was claimed last night. Waltz, 51, was thought to have been fired because he accidentally added a journalist to a Signal chat about plans to attack Yemen’s Houthi terrorist group, causing global embarrassment for the Trump administration.
But last night the Washington Post reported the real reason for Trump’s ire was that Waltz huddled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the latter’s White House visit in February and ‘appeared to share the Israeli leader’s conviction that the time was ripe to strike Iran,’ according to a source.
Trump was angered that Waltz ‘engaged in intense coordination with Netanyahu about military options against Iran ahead of an Oval Office meeting between the Israeli leader and Trump.’
The source said: ‘Waltz wanted to take US policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the US hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution. It got back to Trump and the president wasn’t happy with it. You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not the president of another country.’
Someone should probably tell Congress that too.
But not for defamation. Oh, no, he wouldn’t want to open up that can of worms. He’s suing the woman who used to live in his house for breaking her NDA.
The author Neil Gaiman is seeking more than $500,000 from Caroline Wallner, the potter who accused him of sexual misconduct during the time she lived and worked on his property in Woodstock.
Wallner moved to Gaiman’s property in 2014 when he offered her and her ex-husband, a builder, work as caretakers. The alleged abuse occurred between 2018 and 2020, after Wallner’s marriage had fallen apart and her husband had moved out, leaving Wallner behind to take care of their three children. It was then, Wallner says, that Gaiman began to pressure her for sex in exchange for staying on the property. “‘I like our trade,’” she recalled him saying. “‘You take care of me, and I’ll take care of you.’”Gaiman denied that he’d abused Wallner and told New York that it was she who had initiated their sexual encounters, but in 2021, Gaiman paid Wallner $275,000 in exchange for signing an extensive nondisclosure agreement that prevents her from suing Gaiman or telling anyone about her alleged experiences with him. Now, Gaiman has filed a demand for arbitration, accusing Wallner of breaching their NDA by sharing her story with the media, including with New York Magazine. In his claim, Gaiman argued that Wallner violated the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions of their agreement and is requesting a full repayment of their settlement amount, plus attorneys’ fees and $50,000 for each interview she’s given to the media. (Wallner’s ex-husband, who signed the NDA as well, is also named in the claim, shared with New York.)
Vincent White, Wallner’s lawyer, was surprised Gaiman had filed the claim against his client. White, an employment lawyer in New York who specializes in sexual harassment in the workplace, said that in his experience, allegedly abusive men only rarely sued women for violating NDAs because the optics were so poor. When you’re trying to silence someone who’s alleging “really heinous acts,” White said, “everyone thinks, Oh, the allegation must be true. I would think he may have come to the conclusion he has nothing left to lose.”
Unless Gaiman has a gambling problem or went short on gold, there is only one reason to sue Wallner for breaking her NDA: he’s hoping to intimidate other individuals under NDA with him from breaking theirs. Which means that if he’s unsuccessful, we’re very likely going to see more alleged victims coming forward; I expect the final number to be closer to 50 than the eight who have already spoken out.
And imagine how awful and creepy a man has to be to even want to buy a woman’s silence about her experience with him, let alone pay millions of dollars for it.
The UK Supreme Court has correctly observed that the adjective modifies the verb:
The Supreme Court has announced that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex in a landmark judgement. Lord Hodge said that five Supreme Court justices had unanimously decided that ‘the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act refer to a ‘biological woman and biological sex’.
He recognised ‘the strength of feeling on both sides’ and cautioned against seeing the judgement as a triumph for one side over another, stressing that the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
But the decision could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply, including how women-only spaces are allowed to operate.
It is interesting, however, to observe how many NPCs can have their programming rearranged by nothing more than repetitive exposure to even the dumbest rhetoric.
One can’t say that this arrest comes as a huge surprise. Although I had Jared Leto and Neil Gaiman higher on my Arrest Bingo card than Russell Brand. It’s not a great time to be a skeezy celebrity known for preying upon one’s fans, however “consensually” one wishes to insist it all was.
British police on Friday charged Russell Brand with rape and sexual assault following an 18-month investigation sparked when four women alleged they had been assaulted by the controversial comedian.
London’s Metropolitan Police force said Brand, 50, faces one count of rape, one of indecent assault, one of oral rape and two of sexual assault. The alleged offenses involve four women and took place between 1999 and 2005 in central London and the English seaside town of Bournemouth.
Police said the investigation remains open and urged anyone with relevant information to contact the force.
In September 2023, British media outlets Channel 4 and the Sunday Times published claims by four women of being sexually assaulted or raped by Brand. The accusers have not been identified.
The comedian, author and “Get Him To The Greek” actor has denied the allegations, saying his relationships were “always consensual.”
Brand is due to appear in a London court on May 2.
The obvious question this raises is if it’s only celebrities currently out of favor with the media who will be held accountable before the law or if it will go after its skeezy darlings too.
And, you know, what about those Pakistani rape gangs whose victims number in the thousands?
The “tariff rates” to which the God-Emperor 2.0 utilized to generate his newly-announced tariffs aren’t actually anything of the sort.
Flexport’s team was able to reverse engineer the formula the Administration used to generate the “reciprocal tariffs.” It’s quite simple, they took the trade deficit the US has with each country and divided it by our imports from that country.
This makes a lot more sense, because Switzerland doesn’t have a 61 percent tariff on anything. Which means that we’re in the realm of rhetoric here, not dialectic, and I suspect what the God-Emperor intends is for everyone to simply accept a 10-12 percent tariff rate without any reciprocating tariffs on their own imports.
I’ll admit, I’ve seldom been more wrong than seeing the initial tariffs being graduated UK-EU-CH instead of the other way around, as I was expecting. But Trump’s usual tactic is to slap his interlocutor into accepting his framework, then offering a much more palatable deal that would have looked unattainable before the metaphorical slap in the face.
Regardless, he’s doing the right thing if he wants to rebuild America’s industrial capabilities again.
It’s a good thing the British Labour Party aren’t authoritarians and that they’re fighting so strongly against authoritarianism in Russia, because without them, the British wouldn’t have freedom and democracy and protection from Gab! Meanwhile, in the UK…
Just days after we exposed the UK government’s escalating attacks – including their admission of targeting our infrastructure providers in an act of economic terrorism – new developments confirm that our warnings about the dangers of the UK’s Online Safety Act are being recognized at the highest levels, while simultaneously revealing the truly draconian nature of their threats.
First, the Vindication: A recent report in The Guardian has revealed that officials from the U.S. State Department directly challenged the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, regarding the severe threat the Online Safety Act poses to freedom of expression.
According to the report:
-Officials from the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) met with Ofcom in London.
-During this meeting, they explicitly raised concerns about how the Online Safety Act risks infringing free speech.
-A State Department spokesperson confirmed this, stating: “As vice-president Vance has said, we are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. It is important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression.”
This is significant validation of everything Gab has been fighting against. Even elements within the US government recognize the UK Online Safety Act for the threat it is.
Now, the Stark Escalation: While Ofcom downplays the Act, claiming it only targets “illegal content,” the reality is far more sinister and extends into unprecedented personal threats. The scope of this law isn’t limited; it potentially applies to any user-to-user service accessible in the UK.
And here’s the truly chilling part: Buried within this tyrannical legislation is the power for UK authorities to bring criminal charges against named senior managers at companies deemed non-compliant.
Andrew Torba is at the forefront of this fight and he’s really proven the importance of one man standing his ground against the forces that Clown World brings to bear on every organization that refuses to submit to its Narrative. Fortunately, it appears the God-Emperor 2.0 and his administration are starting to pay attention to this sort of thing, but we can’t count on him or anyone else to ride to the rescue.
We just have to keep building our platforms and infrastructures. I should have some good news on those fronts on tonight’s Arkhaven Nights.