Tag: media

The One True Ring of Evil

The Bucknell Bubble has inadvertently produced a series of right-wing dissidents:

Frequent Fox News guest Michael Malice stopped by The Milo Show this week where he discussed his experience at Bucknell University, an institution which he claimed was ripe with anti-intellectualism and elitist snobbery.

Malice lambasted Bucknell’s culture of anti-intellectualism, claiming that students and faculty rarely engaged with ideas that conflicted with their worldview during his time at the university. I highlighted this in February when I compared the warm embrace the university gave a guest speaker from the Black Panther Party who had a history of violent rhetoric with the reception received by the relatively harmless provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, whose visit inspired hostility from both faculty and students.

Malice partially attributed the culture of anti-intellectualism to the radicalism that dominated many of the university’s departments.  “The head of the economics department when I was there was a feminist Marxist, and one of her themes was ‘since the laws of economics were discovered by men, they are inherently sexist and need to be rediscovered by women.’”

Like many students, Malice expected his university experience to be intellectually stimulating. Always a skeptic, Malice hope to challenge his own views, as well as the views of others. Instead, Malice claims that his peers rarely ventured outside of their intellectual bubbles. “No critical thought. These are the same people who 30 years ago said ‘you’re eating raw fish, what is wrong with you?’ And now, ‘I’m a foodie, you gotta go to this place, they have the freshest stuff.”

Yiannopoulos and Malice discussed the series of dissidents that have passed through the gates of Bucknell University over the past 20 years. “What’s weird is that it seems there is a one true ring that gets passed down. Vox Day was there eight years before me. And then right between Vox Day and me was Evan Coyne Maloney, who was called the right-wing Michael Moore, he did a film called IndoctrinateU.”

“And now they’ve got Tom Ciccotta,” Milo added.

Yiannopoulos and Malice suggested that the university’s continued failure to provide a complete education will only give rise to more conservative and libertarian Bucknell dissidents. “I love the idea that the President of Bucknell is always between right-wing shitlords, is sitting there just wondering which of their fresh-faced intake is going to rear his head as the new evil monster,” Yiannopoulos said.

One of my professors informed me about fifteen years ago that BU’s crackdown on the Greek system, which began my sophomore year and picked up significantly the year after I graduated, had an unexpectedly negative consequence of reducing the average SAT scores among incoming freshmen. Apparently, all the “brilliant fuck-ups”, to use his description, who had once preferred what was then a party school like Bucknell to the uptight atmosphere of the Ivies, no longer saw any reason to attend what had been transformed into just another Ivy League wannabe with a pretty campus in the middle of nowhere.

It used to be a place for Ivy League rejects, rich and pretty Greek legacies, and smart kids who liked to party, but now only the rejects remain.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I know that I took one look at Princeton and was ready to leave after five minutes, even before our pompous tour guide waxed eloquent about all-male eating clubs. MIT was, of course, a complete non-starter; we made a perfunctory visit so my father could see his old stomping grounds. At Bucknell, a pretty sorority girl was my tour guide, and she invited me to come to a Kappa Kappa Gamma party. Easy choice. But if I was choosing a college these days, I doubt I’d even bother visiting Lewisburg. What would be the point? If you’re going to subject yourself to four joyless years of grim SJW indoctrination, you should at least be rewarded with a name-brand diploma with which you can torment SJWs saddled with lesser degrees.

There were some early signs of convergence taking place while I was there. I remember how weird I thought it was when the administration began pushing “diversity” in my junior year. Diversity? At Bucknell? What diversity? The only diversity to be found was in my sprinter-jumper-hurdler group and on the football team. We were innocents back then, and we had no idea what that signified at the time.

Anyhow, it amuses me that of my entire class, Doug Lebda and I are the two alumni deemed notable by Wikipedia. What a horrible embarrassment that must be for the university. Needless to say, I’ve never been invited back there to speak.

Nothing is sacred, nothing is safe

From SJWs. They insist on injecting their filth into EVERYTHING they encounter:

Kara Desiderio and her partner Kristina Wertz’s 13-month-old daughter loves Hello magazine for toddlers. The problem: The publication, which is owned by Highlights for Children, has yet to depict same-sex couples anywhere in its pages. So on Friday, October 14, Wertz took to the Highlights for Children Facebook page to express her concern.

“One of the reasons we appreciate Hello is the diversity represented — families of all races, interracial families and grandparents,” Wertz wrote. “We are consistently disappointed, however, in the complete lack of same-sex parents in Hello magazine. I think a lot about the things that create culture — the subtle and not so subtle messages that our kids get about how the world works. Since becoming a parent, I feel keenly aware of the messages kids’ books send to tiny minds.”

Wertz continued: “There is a deep need for books that positively reflect back the diversity of the world around us and I hope that Highlights embraces that diversity because we would like to keep it in our little one’s life as she grows.”

The Hudson, New York–based mom didn’t get the response she was hoping for. “We understand your wish to see your family’s situation represented in Highlights Hello,” wrote a Highlights for Children editor. “For much of our readership, the topic of same-sex families is still new, and parents are still learning how to approach the subject with their children, even the very little ones. We believe that parents know best when their family is ready top open conversation around the topic of same-sex families.” The staffer added: “We will continue to think deeply about inclusion — specifically, how to address it in developmentally appropriate ways for our broad audience.”

Needless to say, because the publisher was dumb enough to offer to “think deeply about inclusion”, that has only increased the SJW pressure on them. The excuse for targeting them is because they used the word “situation”. Nothing is too small or petty to justify a convergence campaign!

And if Highlights is foolish enough to cave and converge, it is going to quickly find out how much of their readership is not going to tolerate even a modicum of SJW filth, no matter how “developmentally appropriate” it is.

SJW delenda est. Never give them an inch. Never give them anything.

The national polls: stretch run

Notice something very informative about the wildly divergent national polls?

  • Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Quinnipiac Clinton 47, Trump 40, Johnson 7, Stein 1 Clinton +7
  • Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein IBD/TIPP Clinton 40, Trump 41, Johnson 8, Stein 6 Trump +1
  • Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Bloomberg Clinton 47, Trump 38, Johnson 8, Stein 3 Clinton +9
  • Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Economist/YouGov Clinton 42, Trump 38, Johnson 6, Stein 1 Clinton +4
  • Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Reuters/Ipsos Clinton 42, Trump 38, Johnson 6, Stein 2 Clinton +4
  • Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Rasmussen Reports Clinton 42, Trump 42, Johnson 7, Stein 1 Tie

The number of percentage points being allocated to Johnson and Stein is between 7 and 14. In 2012, the combined Libertarian/Green vote was 1.35 percent. In 2008, it was 0.96 percent.

Now, let’s be generous and pretend that the combined Libertarian/Green vote will be 2 percent, which would be a 48 percent increase from 2012 and 108 percent from 2008. That means that the national polls are, at a minimum, off by between 5 and 12 points.

I can’t say that there is evidence of a Trumpslide at this point. On the other hand, I can’t take seriously the evidence that suggests Hillary Clinton is going to win by Mondalean proportions either. The trick, I think, will be to watch what happens as the polls go into the final week. If they tighten dramatically, that means the pollsters have been playing games and are attempting to cover themselves, which suggests Trump will win. That’s what happened with Brexit.

If, on the other hand, the polls continue to indicate significant leads for Hillary, that means they are not concerned about their accuracy and will tend to suggest a Hillary win, albeit a little closer than they’re predicting.

UPDATE: Trump appears to have revived his momentum again. Remember, he pushes, then coasts, pushes, then coasts. It looks like he’s gearing up for the stretch run.

It’s too early to measure the impact of last night’s final presidential debate, but Republican Donald Trump now has a three-point lead nationally on Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey finds Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 40%. 

Fox News: Assange will be arrested soon

Fox News Just Reported That Julian Assange “Will Be Arrested In A Matter Of Hours”

Just watched the video. They did say it, although they may be getting it from the same 4chan source that I linked to yesterday.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?”
– Hillary Clinton, 23 November 2010

“Faced with the speculation of the last few hours, the Government of Ecuador ratifies the validity of the asylum granted to Julian Assange four years ago.  We reaffirm that his protection by the Ecuadorean state will continue while the circumstances that led to the granting of asylum remain.”
– Guillaume Long, Foreign Minister, Ecuador

It took them long enough

National Review finally comes around on Trump, in the form of a lengthy VDH article:

Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump’s sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters.

The Beltway establishment grew more concerned about their sinecures in government and the media than about showing urgency in stopping Obamaism. When the Voz de Aztlan and the Wall Street Journal often share the same position on illegal immigration, or when Republicans of the Gang of Eight are as likely as their left-wing associates to disparage those who want federal immigration law enforced, the proverbial conservative masses feel they have lost their representation. How, under a supposedly obstructive, conservative-controlled House and Senate, did we reach $20 trillion in debt, institutionalize sanctuary cities, and put ourselves on track to a Navy of World War I size? Compared with all that, “making Mexico pay” for the wall does not seem all that radical. Under a Trump presidency the owner of Univision would not be stealthily writing, as he did to Team Clinton, to press harder for open borders — and thus the continuance of a permanent and profitable viewership of non-English speakers.

Trump’s outrageousness was not really new; it was more a 360-degree mirror of an already outrageous politics as usual. One does not need lectures about conservatism from Edmund Burke when, at the neighborhood school, English becomes a second language, or when one is rammed by a hit-and-run driver illegally in the United States who flees the scene of the accident. Do our elites ever enter their offices to find their opinion-journalism jobs outsourced at half the cost to writers in India?

It sounds to me as if the conservative media is beginning to worry that they went too far and are beginning to understand that they have lost a significant portion of their audience. They preened and postured, and now, if Hillary wins, they will be tied to her like an anchor forever.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but as for me, they simply have no credibility as political observers. Their position never made one single iota of sense.

How the system is rigged

Pat Buchanan explains how the media is the driving force for globalism:

In what sense is the system rigged?

Consider Big Media – the elite columnists and commentators, the dominant national press, and the national and cable networks, save Fox. Not in this writer’s lifetime has there been such blanket hatred and hostility of a presidential candidate of a major party.

“So what?” They reply. “We have a free press!”

But in this election, Big Media have burst out of the closet as an adjunct of the regime and the attack arm of the Clinton campaign, aiming to bring Trump down.

Half a century ago, Theodore White wrote of the power and bias of the “adversary press” that sought to bring down Richard Nixon.

“The power of the press in America,” wrote Teddy, “is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk about and think about – an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins.”

On ABC’s “This Week,” Newt Gingrich volunteered on Sunday that, “without the unending one-sided assault of the news media, Trump would be beating Hillary by 15 points.”

On this one, Newt is right.

With all due respect, as adversaries, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not terribly formidable. Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism against those of Americanism.

I just finished editing Mike Cernovich’s MAGA Mindset, which Castalia House will be publishing soon. It is even better than Gorilla Mindset and it could not be more timely, because he not only reaches the same conclusion as Buchanan, but spells out how Trump used social media to fight the power of the Big Media. More importantly, he also explains the way Trump was able to develop his unique ability to use it so effectively.

You all know that Identity > Culture > Politics. But that is a strategic description. The tactical one, in this context, is Mindset > Media > Culture.

That is why the current cultural battle for the West is focused on social media. That is why Twitter and Facebook and Goodreads and Wikipedia are relentlessly policing their users. And that is why there is literally nothing more important, tactically, politically and culturally, that you can do than support AltTech organizations such as Gab and Brave and Infogalactic.

Strategically, of course, there are three very different priorities: Live a Christian life. Marry. Have white children.

Big money and the media power of the establishment elites and the transnationals may well prevail.

And if they do, Middle America – those who cling to their Bibles, bigotries and guns in Barack Obama’s depiction, those “deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic,” who are “not America” and are “irredeemable” in Hillary Clinton’s depiction – will have to accept the new regime.

But that does not mean they must love it, like it or respect it.

And losing the political battle, even permanently, does not mean losing the West. It merely means that the Age of Democracy is at an end. The West existed before democracy and it will survive the demise of democracy.

None can tell the difference

John Derbyshire awakes to the reality of the bifactional ruling party:

 I don’t know whether people nowadays still read George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm. It’s a bit of a Cold War piece. The Cold War did happen, though. And, as I’ve remarked elsewhere, it was a very big deal. It has lessons to teach; and Orwell was one of our best teachers.

The story of the novel is that the farm animals, under the leadership of the pigs, stage a revolution against the human owners of the farm. They drive out the owners and take the place over, again under the pigs’ leadership.

In the last chapter, though, an odd thing happens. The pigs start behaving like humans. One day, as the other animals are hard at work weeding the turnip field, the pigs invite a delegation of neighboring farmers—all humans, of course—to inspect the pig-owned farm. Then the pigs and their human guests have a party in the farmhouse.

The other animals hear laughter and singing from the farmhouse. They sneak up to look in through the windows at what’s going on. They see the pigs and the humans in happy concord, making flattering speeches and toasting each other. Last line of the novel:


The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Watching the GOP’s response to this media-manufactured outrage, I’ve feeling a bit like one of those farm animals. Do we really have two political parties, each representing a broad interest? Or is the current party system just a hoax on the rest of us by an Establishment who all fundamentally believe the same things?

The latter. Next question?

In the meantime, the Establishment has spoken. Voting is unnecessary. Hillary has already won the pre-election. Please to take your now-demoralized populism home and refrain from voting for the Literally Hitler Donald Trump on November 8th.

Actions have consequences

Jewish commentators are aghast that no one on the Left or the Right gives a damn about what they think or want anymore.

In a 2011 article published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, politically conservative Jewish radio host Benyamin Korn reflected upon the scores of Jews populating conservative new media, concluding:


Certainly there is another reason why Jews, per se, have attracted so little notice in the conservative new media: the change in American conservatism itself. Ethnically diverse and intellectually formidable, today’s conservatism is reliably pro-Israel, comfortably Judeo-Christian and for the most part promotes a nuanced social conservatism. In a movement that is credible and hospitable to American Jews, and from which the ethno-centrism of yore is largely absent, Jewish journalists will flourish.

At least until the rise of the alt-Right. Fast-forward five years and it would appear that conservative new media has turned on its own, with sites like Breitbart (whose former executive chairman now runs the Trump campaign) being used to weed out Jewish Republicans unwilling to toe the party line. Weird anti-Semitic memes like Pepe the Frog have trended among Trump supporters and an army of faceless anti-Semites has taken to Twitter and other social media outlets on Trump’s behalf. The anti-Semitism on the Right is so overwhelming in fact that many Jews have left the Republican Party altogether, receiving farewells that boil down to, Don’t let the door hit you in the tuchus on the way out.

Is the Alt-Right Borrowing Jihadist Propaganda Techniques? The Alt-Right and BLM are One and the Same

So, what of the political future of American Jewry? The one thing that 2016 has made clear is this: Jewish Americans are not welcome among the political elite on the Left or the Right. For the first time in my lifetime, Jewish Americans who make no bones about identifying as Jews, whether they are Orthodox in practice or Zionist in outlook, are being given the cold shoulder by the political establishment at large.

What is fascinating here is the total inability to connect the action with the consequence. The Alt-Right has risen to replace the conservative media because the scores of entryist Jews who filled it after William F. Buckley’s purge of the Birchers transformed the conservative media into something that is close to the polar opposite of what it once was. And, of course, because so many of those (((conservatives))) are prone to writing propagandistic fiction, as (((Susan Goldberg))) repeatedly demonstrates in this short piece.

  1. The Alt-Right is not the same as Black Lives Matter. That’s an insanely stupid lie.
  2. Pepe the Frog is not an anti-Semitic meme. Putting a swastika on Bugs Bunny doesn’t make Bugs Bunny an anti-Semitic meme. The medium is not the message.
  3. 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama in 2012. There weren’t “many Jews” in the Republican Party in the first place.
  4. The anti-Semitism on the Right is not overwhelming by any measure. If Goldberg thinks it’s overwhelming now, just wait until the next financial crash. If Jews were really as smart as they like to advertise, they would never have allowed Jane Yellen to be appointed Fed chairman, but would have insisted on the former head of the Chinese central bank taking the job, and the eventual fall. And they would have kept very, very far away from non-Jewish crooks like John Corzine

A conservatism that is pro-Israel instead of pro-American, “Judeo-Christian” instead of Christian, and “promotes a nuanced social conservatism” instead of promoting a staunch pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-child, pro-Western-civilization conservatism is of zero interest to pretty much everyone who isn’t named (((Goldberg))) or (((Shapiro))). Neither immigrants nor natives have any use for it.

Jews are no longer welcome among the political elite on the Left or the Right because both sides now realize that their primary motivation, “is it good for the Jews?”, is no longer of any benefit to the objectives of  either the Left or the Right. Perhaps more importantly in the long term, the transformation from ideology politics to identity politics means there is no longer any more place for Jews in the Christian American tribe than there is for Christian Americans in the Jewish tribe.

Judeo-Christianity was never anything more than propaganda, but even if you can’t understand that, you should be able to grasp that it is not a coherent political identity, being both anti-Semitic and anti-Christian.

However, it wasn’t until reading Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order that the fundamental problem of Jews in the West became clear to me. (This was a little ironic in that the book has not, in the first 300 pages, even discussed the Jews.) What happened is that the West abandoned the kinship rules that govern the rest of the world as a result of the Catholic Church’s actions in the early middle ages. But not being Christian, the Jews were unaffected by this transformation away from the extended family towards the nuclear family and the individual, and therefore they continued to play by the same kinship rules that the rest of the world has always played by.

These different rules, individual vs extended family, created an inevitable stress between the kinship and the non-kinship populations, which periodically flared up in the historical conflicts we all know. It may also explain the post-1965 attack on the nuclear family. So, the real problem now facing Jews in the West now is not anti-Semitism, the huge invasion of rival tribes that play by the same kinship rules, or even the way in which the non-kinship Westerners are beginning to abandon their traditional rules in favor of a synthetic kinship.

No, the real challenge for the Jews is going to be accepting the fact that their historical success primarily stems from playing the game on the easy coop level when everyone else with whom they were competing was going it more or less alone. In other words, what worked so effectively when the rivals were non-kinship Westerners is not going to work anywhere else in the world, and it is not going to work in a post-Christian West.

I’m not the first to figure this out, of course. The Learned Elders of Wye worked it out 10 years ago. And there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to fix this state of affairs or return things to how they were perceived to be. Once the percentage of the kinship share of the population rose beyond a certain level, it created an absolute necessity for everyone to begin playing by the same kinship rules whether they want to do so or not.

An interview with the BBC

I decided to violate my usual no-interviews policy today because the interview requested didn’t concern me, but rather, Donald Trump. BBC World was looking for Americans outside the USA who support Donald Trump, and a producer discovered my debate with Louise Mensch on Heat Street concerning the subject.

I don’t expect the interview to air, because if there is one thing the media does not want to hear right now, it is that a few remarks about women, however unpalatable, aren’t going to change any rational individual’s mind about Donald Trump. At worst, they indicate that Trump would be a president in the mode of Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy rather than Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

And while it may be true that having a President who is prone to bawdy banter would be bad for women, do you know what is really bad for women? Being raped by immigrants. And do you know what is even worse for women? Being nuked by Russian missiles.

As I told the host, there are only two issues that matter in this presidential election:

  • Immigration
  • War with Russia

On both issues, Donald Trump is the much, much better candidate than Hillary Clinton, who as Secretary of State laid the groundwork for the current war-by-proxy the US military is waging against Russia in Syria and Ukraine.

As I told him, if you are a European, if you are British, regardless of what you think of the man personally, you should not be hoping that Donald Trump is the next U.S. President, you should be praying that he is. Because neither immigration nor war with Russia will be to your benefit either.

So, yeah, I tend to doubt it will ever see air.

On a tangentially-related note, someone mentioned on Monday that a comprehensive list of anti-Trump Republicans would be useful going forward. Lo and behold, there is now a comprehensive list of anti-Trump Republicans available on Infogalactic.