Tag: media

Cucky doesn’t like “cuckservative”

David French, a National Review writer who really, really, really wants you to know that HE HAS AN ADOPTED BLACK SONDAUGHTER, doesn’t think the “cuckservative” term should be used. Because, ah, well, it helps the far Left?

I understand frustration at political correctness. In fact, I’ve done something about it, filing more lawsuits to protect students and professors from campus PC tyranny than perhaps any other lawyer in the United States. I agree with the incredulity and rage at elites’ unwillingness to secure the border and their insistence that every immigration debate has to be racialized, with conservatives constantly accused of bigotry. In their frustration, I’ve even seen conservatives I call friends deride those they deem insufficiently devoted to the cause as “cucks” and “cuckservatives.”

In addition to being a derogatory, insulting slur, the word provides aid and comfort to the trolls whose tweets I’ve posted above. Just as bad, it enables and feeds the Left’s own engine of racial grievance.

Conservatives should reject those on both extremes of the spectrum. We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, “All are one, in Christ Jesus.” Shunning the slur disempowers the trolls and forces the radical Left to confront the race hatred that fuels its own rage.

Look, this isn’t that difficult. Now that whites are no longer an overwhelming majority in America, they have to play the same racial politics game that everyone else in every other heterogeneous country has had to play for centuries. It’s not an accident that people like David French and Jonah Goldberg, decent conservatives who genuinely subscribe to the now-outmoded abstract ideals that the Left rejected in the Sixties, haven’t grasped the fact that the demographic changes to the United States have not only changed the way the political game is played, but have changed the game itself.

It’s rather amusing to see French attempt to play the Christian card in the secular context of U.S. politics. Yes, all are one in Christ Jesus, does that mean French supports expelling all non-Christians from the USA? If not, then what is the relevance of spiritual equality among Christians to the culture in which white Americans would prefer to live?

Diversity+Proximity=War. What used to be, and what French still believes is, virtue-signaling, in a mostly homogeneous white majority culture is now increasingly despised in a much more heterogeneous culture. What was praised 20 years ago may well get people killed 20 years from now. Just look at how the culture of Rhodesia has changed as a direct result of the changing racial demographics. Cuckies don’t understand that non-whites have never played by white rules except when forced to do so, and they never will do so by choice.

What is feeding the Left’s engine of racial grievance is the increasing size and number of competing racial identities. Trying to play the now-irrelevant “colorblind” game is as pointless as playing by touch-football rules in the NFL.

While it is true that race is not culture, neither are the two distinct concepts entirely unrelated. And culture certainly is much more intertwined with race than it is with geography; it’s more than a little ironic that those who claim race has nothing to do with culture also assert their belief in the culturally transformative qualities of magic dirt.

Moreover, the idea that it is the Alt-Right that is somehow feeding the Left is ridiculous, when the cuckservatives are attacking the same people, using the same tactics and terms, that the Left does. We all know why self-styled conservatives hate being called cuckservatives. It’s because the term strikes too close to home and cuts too deep.

It’s not the word “cuckservative” that has to go. It’s National Review cuckservatism. Isn’t 60 years of unmitigated failure enough to conclude that it isn’t working?

Pseudo-dialectic posturing

It’s more than a little bizarre to see a professional rhetorician at the New York Times affecting dialectic in attempting to criticize Donald Trump’s superior rhetoric that has dominated this election campaign to date:

What did Trump think of something mean that someone else on the stage had said about him? What did someone else think about something nasty that Trump had said about him or her?

Trump had insulted Jeb Bush’s wife: Discuss! Trump had insulted Carly Fiorina’s business career: Respond!

So it went, somewhat tediously and surreally, for many stretches of the debate on Wednesday night and especially for the first half-hour, during which Rand Paul took the precise measure of — and raised the correct question about — the egomaniacal front-runner.

“Do we want someone with that kind of character, that kind of careless language, to be negotiating with Putin?” Paul asked.

“I think really there’s a sophomoric quality that is entertaining about Mr. Trump, but I am worried,” he added, and I nodded so vigorously at the “worried” part that I’m going to need balm and a neck brace tomorrow.

Paul went on to single out Trump’s “visceral response to attack people on their appearance — short, tall, fat, ugly. My goodness, that happened in junior high. Are we not way above that?”

No, we aren’t. Or at least Trump isn’t. And “junior high” is too easy on him, too kind. Trump comes from, and belongs in, the sandbox, as he demonstrated the second that Paul paused and Trump fired back: “I never attacked him on his look, and believe me, there’s plenty of subject matter right there.”

How lovely. And how adult.

I look forward to Frank Bruni’s next columns: WE MUST DO X BECAUSE I AM GAY AND I AM SAD. Followed by WE MUST DO Y BECAUSE WOMEN ARE UNHAPPY and WE MUST DO Z FOR THE CHILDREN.

You know, communicating the way adults do.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump will review Bruni’s column, smile, and promptly announce that the New York Times has declared him the official frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

Facebook moves into speech policing

I don’t even use it, but I’m shutting down my Facebook account. This is why:

Facebook pledged Monday to combat racist hate speech on its German-language network amid an upsurge in xenophobic comments online as Germany faces an unprecedented influx of refugees.

The US social media network said it would encourage “counter speech” and step up monitoring of anti-foreigner commentary, as company representatives were due to meet German Justice Minister Heiko Maas later Monday.

Facebook said it would work with other organisations in Germany “to develop appropriate solutions to counter xenophobia and racism and to represent this online”.

It also urged users to report offensive postings and announced a partnership with the group Voluntary Self-Monitoring of Multimedia Service Providers (FSM).

As Germany faces a record influx of refugees and a backlash from the far right, social media such as Facebook have seen an upsurge of hateful, xenophobic commentary.

Big Brother being corporate rather than government doesn’t make it any better. This is Orwellian in the extreme.

Doxxing and outing is bad

Unless the SJW-infested media does it to an anti-SJW. Then it’s news.

 ‘Julia Caesar’, an anonymous right-wing blogger who has blasted Swedish journalists for writing an “epoch of lies” about the benefits of immigration, is herself a former reporter for Sweden’s biggest broadsheet, Dagens Nyheter, according to a Swedish tabloid.

The controversial writer, who has sought to keep her identity secret, has been causing a huge stir on social media since 2010. Her blog posts lay into mainstream politicians and what she describes as “the corrupt media” for promoting what she argues is an “epoch of lies” about immigration. They also praise the rise of the nationalist Sweden Democrat Party.

“It simply isn’t possible to lie about the blessings of multiculturalism or mass immigration forever when citizens clearly see with their own eyes how their country is being dismantled in front of them,” reads one of her recent posts, which has also been translated into English on a separate blog by one of her supporters.

On Wednesday, Sweden’s Expressen tabloid revealed that the blogger – who has also published three books – is herself a former journalist for Dagens Nyheter (DN), a Swedish newspaper.

The reason SJWs are always so desperate to out and doxx people is because they want to be able to exert social pressure on them, discredit them, and disemploy them. This is why the protection of anonymity is vital, and why it is always a wise idea to establish more than one online identity if you are going to stand up against SJWs in any context.

And this is also why it is very important to offer public support to those the SJWs have successfully identified and targeted. Not everyone is psychologically suited to deal with direct targeting, but as for me, I laugh every time I see my given name “revealed” again in a blog post or news article.

I always wonder how the writer justifies it in his head. Does he ever refer to Bono as Paul Hewson? Or 50 Cent as Curtis Jackson? Or Brianna Wu as John Flynt? It’s useful, though, as whenever I see my given name appear, I know the writer is an SJW who is hoping to increase the social pressure on me, as if just a little more will finally do the trick.

Drowned kiddy propaganda

I don’t give a damn about drowned invaders, no matter what their age, and you shouldn’t either. It’s just globalist media rhetoric intended to manipulate your emotions. The father of the drowned kid that the media has been using to try to win support for the Islamic migrants is a human trafficker:

Zainab Abbas said Abdullah Kurdi had lied to the world after the image of his dead three-year-old son on a Turkish beach sparked a global outpouring of support for Syrian refugees.

“Yes, it was Abdullah Kurdi driving the boat,” Ms Abbas told Network Ten through her cousin Lara Tahseen today. Ms Abbas also lost two children when the boat capsized shortly after leaving Bodrum for the Greek islands.

After the tragedy, Mr Kurdi told the media he took over steering the boat after the captain panicked and jumped ship. But Ms Abbas said Mr Kurdi was the driver of the boat, and the man she paid to book her passage told her it would be safe because the driver was taking his wife and two children.

“When I lost my kids, I lost my life, how can he lie to the media?” her cousin Ms Tahseen said, translating for Ms Abbas.

“He said, ‘Please don’t dob me in.’ That was in the water.”

Ms Abbas said Mr Kurdi was speeding in the overcrowded boat, which did not have enough life jackets.

Deport them all. Before the ultras take power, as they will if this invasion is permitted to stand, and do something worse.

Interview with Vox Day

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents interviewed me last night. The MP3 is available there of our discussion, which he summarized as follows:

Greg Johnson talks to video game designer, musician, blogger, novelist, and publisher Vox Day. Topics include:

  • His political outlook and its formation
  • Why he is no longer a Libertarian
  • “National libertarianism”
  • The necessity of borders
  • The European refugee crisis
  • Why nationalism and tribalism are unstoppable forces
  • Illegitimate forms of identity politics
  • The problem of white identity in the United States as opposed to European national identities
  • His new book SJWs Always Lie
  • Why they always lie
  • Advice to those who wish to roll back political correctness
  • A preview of coming attractions

I think the most interesting part of the interview was when we discussed the problem of “white identity”. I think “whites” are inclined to significantly underperform in identity politics for much the same reason that “Hispanics” and “Asians” do, which is that most people who qualify as white don’t primarily identify as White in the same manner that more cohesive minorities such as Blacks, Jews, Gays, and Women (which actually means Feminists) do.

Ask a “Hispanic” what he is and he’ll tell you he is Mexican or Guatemalan. Ask an “Asian” what he is and he’ll tell you Chinese or Thai. Ask a “white” and he’ll tell you “mostly German” or “half-this, half-that”. You will almost never hear anyone self-identify as White, nor would you have 30 or 40 years ago. And a man who identifies as “Italian-American” is simply not going to see another man who identifies as “Irish” or “Scandinavian” or “German” as his goombah and proactively engage in nepotistic favoritism on his behalf.

There is no nationalism without a cohesive nation and there is no tribalism without identification with the specific tribe.

Social Justice Convergence in action

ESPN is “in a panic”:

  • Disney Stock Tanks as Cable Revenue Disappoints – The Street
  • Disney stock hit on ESPN fears – CNN
  • Disney Falls as Revenue Misses, Cable Profit Outlook Darkens – Bloomberg

The table was set for this bad news in May, and internally, ESPN has been in a panic for quite some time. The cord cutting fears have gone from “potential problem” to “very real problem” faster than anyone imagined. When it became clear Keith Olbermann was leaving in early July, we explored the increasing cord cutting phenomenon, and reported how ESPN is under orders from Disney to pull a total of $350 million out of the budget in 2016 and 2017.

Mark St. Cyr explains one likely reason for the “cord cutting” at Zerohedge:

Why wouldn’t ESPN™ (or Disney™ its parent company) go to great efforts to include or push the narrative that “cord cutting” doesn’t necessarily mean “all” that cut have tuned off? In other words: why aren’t numbers from alternative viewing sources highlighted as to show they might not be viewing there – but they are over here? Unless – they aren’t.
And if they’re not – why not? After all, there’s probably no other content infringement policing company for copyright and other applicable ownership rights than Disney and all its subsidiaries. You aren’t going to see it for free or on alternative platforms unless they want or allow for it. Period.

This would also imply if they allowed it (anywhere) it would be accounted for ( i.e., click views, etc.) in some manner of form from across the internet to help take the edge off. i.e., Sure we lost millions from cable, but as you can see here, they’ve just migrated over to this service/platform as an alternative. Monetizing the alternative is a work in progress. etc., etc.

However, that seems not to be the case. The case appears – they’ve not only cut: they’ve tuned out or turned off the programming entirely. Why?

It’s hard to say. However, if I use myself as an example, I believe I know a large part of the underlying reason:

ESPN (like a few notable others such as NBC™) has seemingly transformed at near hyper-speed from sports reporting – to political sports reporting. The political edge now rampant throughout the shows, games, interviews, et al is overbearing, overburdening, and overdone.

From SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police:

The public schools can no longer educate, so people are turning to homeschooling. The universities can no longer provide liberal arts educations, so people are becoming technology-assisted autodidacts. The banks no longer loan, the state and local governments no longer provide basic public services, the military does not defend the borders, the newspapers no longer provide news, the television networks no longer entertain, and the corporations are increasingly unable to provide employment.

Even as the institutions have been invaded and coopted in the interests of social justice, they have been rendered unable to fulfill their primary functions. This is the great internal contradiction that the SJWs will never be able to positively resolve, just as the Soviet communists were never able to resolve the contradiction of socialist calculation that brought down their economy and their empire 69 years after Ludwig von Mises first pointed it out. One might call it the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence; no man can serve two masters and no institution can effectively serve two different functions. The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function.

In praise of Sam Harris

In case you’re interested, I was a guest on the first podcast of Challenging Opinions Episode One – Education, Religion and Liberty. Give it a listen if you’re so inclined. A brief selection from the transcript:

Vox argues that Sam Harris is the worst Atheist debater around, but he is willing to give him a little praise:

William: You can very easily accuse people on the liberal wing, on the left, of being too tolerant of fundamentalist Islam, and Sam Harris stands up to the intellectual inconsistencies of some people on the left such as noted philosopher Ben Affleck;  that tendency does exist and he does challenge it, isn’t that true?

Vox: That’s absolutely true, and I would go even further and praise Sam Harris for biting the bullet, for addressing one of the most important flaws of the atheist secular humanist perspective, which is their discomfort with the obvious difference between “what is” and “what could be”.”

That’s what I find fascinating about Sam Harris. On the one hand, he is intellectually careless and the most intrinsically incompetent debater I have ever observed. His idea of defending his ideas is to make an assertion with obvious flaws, then attempt to deal with the straightforward criticism of those flaws by claiming that what he very clearly wrote or said isn’t what he really meant. He does this in every single debate!

On the other hand, he doesn’t hesitate to take the giant conceptual bull by the horns and wrestle with it. In The Moral Landscape, Harris recognized that the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought” is a tremendous problem for secular humanism. The fact that he utterly failed in his attempt to use science to equate the two doesn’t mean that we should not praise him for embracing the philosophical challenge and giving it his best shot.

Why we need to replace Wikipedia

This technological innovator’s experience is far from the only one of its type, and demonstrates that the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence renders Wikipedia unfit for purpose:

My primary reasons for writing this article are to record a bit of personal history, describe programming before the personal computer, and reminisce a bit. But I have another reason — some of my regular readers know there’s an article about me on Wikipedia, but that article is likely to be deleted (update: it’s gone — see below). The stated reason for deleting it is because it doesn’t have enough references for its claims — for example, that I wrote a solar system model that was used by JPL during the Viking lander mission. Wikipedia rightly requires documentation for any claims made in its articles, and until this article, the article you’re reading, that claim wasn’t documented. It is now, by this article and by its attached correspondence. Nevertheless, once I saw that the article was being considered for removal, I added my own vote in favor of deletion. Why? Because it had become a cheap sounding board for people annoyed at my positions on controversial topics, particularly psychology and stockbrokers.

That’s the real reason the self-appointed editors over at Wikipedia moved to delete the article (remember that anyone can sign up and edit Wikipedia articles). I’ve been tracking the article since it first appeared in 2006, and there have been any number of efforts to delete or destroy the article by people of varying levels of skill. One of the cleverer tactics has been to delete the list of references, wait 24 hours, then argue for the article’s deletion on the ground that the article’s claims have no references — that’s been tried several times.

What’s behind this? Why does anyone care so much about a short article that describes my activities? Well, I’ve noticed a correlation between my publishing something about psychology (I’m a critic of psychology’s theoretical basis and practice, example: The Trouble with Psychology) and a subsequent effort to delete the Wikipedia article. Apparently some psychologists or fans of psychology think it’s an appropriate response to criticism of their field — not to debate the issues honestly in public forums — but to try to remove any references to the critic.

The single best thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. That’s also the single worst thing. It was my hope that a Wikipedia editor, one who doesn’t care that I’m a psychology critic, would add a footnote reference to this article’s documentation in the Wikipedia article, thereby removing an excuse to delete the article. That wouldn’t have solved the problem, because I plan to continue criticizing psychology, but it woiuld have made it harder to justify future attacks.

Update: Through a combination of my efforts and that of others, and since I couldn’t protect it from vandalism, the Wikipedia article has been deleted. During my research on this topic, I encountered this almost identical incident:

    Seth Finkelstein reported in an article in The Guardian on his efforts to remove his own biography page from Wikipedia, simply because it was subjected to defamation:

        “Wikipedia has a short biography of me, originally added in February 2004, mostly concerned with my internet civil liberties achievements. After discovering in May 2006 that it had been vandalised in March, possibly by a long-time opponent, and that the attack had been subsequently propagated to many other sites which (legally) repackage Wikipedia’s content, the article’s existence seemed to me overall to be harmful rather than helpful. For people who are not very prominent, Wikipedia biographies can be an “attractive nuisance”. It says, to every troll, vandal, and score-settler: “Here’s an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won’t be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia.”

    In the same article Finkelstein recounts how he voted his own biography as “not notable enough” in order to have it removed from Wikipedia.

As explained above, once I saw how often opponents of my views on psychology tried to rewrite or delete my Wikipedia article, I took the same action for the same reason. Those who want to read a short biographical note, one not subject to controversy or vandalism, may click here.

What does this mean about Wikipedia? It means that controversial issues and people won’t be described fairly, or sometimes at all. The idea behind Wikipedia is that it’s a people’s encyclopedia, not an ivory tower production. The problem with this egalitarian ideal is that special interests can, and do, struggle to see their particular outlook become the only outlook in the pages of Wikipedia. And, since my view of psychology is quickly becoming the majority view, psychologists found themselves unable to argue against that position using reason and fair tactics. So, just as when they chose to study psychology in college, they took the low road, the easy path — they resorted to gangster tactics.

We’re going to do this, the only questions are a) when, b) how much will it cost, and c) who is with me? I’ve had much the same experience. The three most notable and significant things I have done are completely absent from Wikipedia despite my being deemed notable by the editors and those three things being documented by reliable sources. And I’m far from alone in that.

The media wanted a race war

It looks like they’ve got a budding one on their hands:

Authorities have charged a 30-year-old man with capital murder, after they say he ambushed a Texas county sheriff’s deputy at a suburban Houston gas station in an attack motivated by “absolute madness.”

Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman identified the man in a news conference Saturday afternoon as Shannon J. Miles, who is in police custody.

Miles — who has a criminal history that includes convictions for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct with a firearm — was arrested less than 24 hours after authorities said he ambushed Darren Goforth, a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, at a suburban Houston Chevron station.

“I am proud of the men and women that have worked swiftly to apprehend the responsible person who posed a significant threat to both law enforcement and the community at large,” Hickman told reporters Saturday. “Our deputies return to the streets tonight to hold a delicate peace that was shattered last evening.”

Hickman said the motive for the killing had not been determined but investigators would look at whether Miles, who is black, was motivated by anger over recent killings elsewhere of black men by police that have spawned the “Black Lives Matter” protest movement. Goforth was white.

Somehow, the news media doesn’t seem quite as enamored of how this race war is going as one would have expected considering all that they’ve done to bring it about. I guess they were expecting for white Republican suburbanites to be the targets rather than white reporters, white cameramen, and white cops.