#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
The Right Wing News releases its annual list of the 100 most popular Conservative sites:
1) Fox News: 158
2) Wall Street Journal: 214
3) The Drudge Report: 437
4) The Blaze: 565
5) New York Post: 889
6) Breitbart: 1,344
7) Newsmax: 1,729
8) WorldNetDaily: 2,103
9) Independent Journal Review 2,147
10) The Daily Caller: 2,24052) Vox Day: 27,594
I wouldn’t necessarily describe myself as a conservative, but then, I wouldn’t describe Fox News as conservative either.
Chris KluweVerified account @ChrisWarcraft
4:27 PM – 29 Apr 2014
“I’m talking, no one takes his money, sells him anything – nothing. Let’s see how racist he is when he can’t buy food.”
Apparently Zyklon B showers aren’t enough for him, as Sparklepunter openly seeks to shun and starve the Jew.
We see it in history and we see it in real-time. It’s not an exaggeration. Leftists literally want to kill those who possess undesirable opinions, and they never stop and think for a moment of the possibility that the consequences might run the other way. And yet, we can see that by their own reckoning, the worst IMAGINED excesses of the medieval Catholic Church of which they so often complain are more than justified.
Since Chris Kluwe is an anti-semite openly advocating the starving of Jews, summoning those ghastly images of emaciated men and women at Dachau and Auschwitz, I think it is obvious that the NFL commissioner has no choice but to impose a lifetime ban from the NFL on him.
As if the student loan scandal was not bad enough:
U.S. Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a possible 2016 White House contender, unveiled legislation on Wednesday to broaden the use of financial vehicles known as “income share agreements” that students can use to fund their higher education costs. Under the agreements, which are marketed as an alternative to traditional student loans, private investors or organizations provide students with financing for their education costs in exchange for a percentage of their future earnings.
Any Republican who dreams about a Rubio presidency is a fool. Rubio may actually be a worse candidate than John McCain was. This is nothing more than permitting young people to sell themselves into indentured servitude in exchange for a college degree.
While he’s at it, why not let men buy a percentage of a woman’s future sexual services in return for financing her education costs? If we’re going to let students peddle their futures, the least we can do is permit them to sell their bodies as well.
I wouldn’t have a problem with this if we lived in a genuine libertarian society. But in a bankster-ruled world where student loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, it is an EXCEPTIONALLY bad idea.
As viewed from the Left:
It was somewhat eye-opening to see the Mozilla defenders arguing that the hounding of Brandon Eich was justified by the fact that he was not only opposed to homogamy, but actually donated to the twin devils Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.
I was asked to reconsider my position on uninstalling Mozilla products and refusing to use them in the future:
You are probably here because you have been advised to consider reinstalling Firefox. You may, in fact, have uninstalled Firefox as a result of a recent campaign protesting either Brendan Eich’s being appointed CEO of Mozilla, or his supposedly being fired or forced by Mozilla to resign from that position as a result of a donation he made in favor of proposition 8. Brendan Eich did, in fact, resign; however, he did was not fired or forced to resign by Mozilla. Mozilla does not discriminate based on an individual’s personal political or religious beliefs. If you have been told otherwise, I encourage you to evaluate the evidence for yourself. First of all, I would like to point you to Mozilla’s official FAQ on Brendan’s resignation. I realize that some people will insist that this is just a cover story and that he was really forced to resign, in spite of whatever Mozilla may say to the contrary. So I would like to share some additional corroborating evidence. There are many inside sources who corroborate this, but the one I find particularly credible and compelling is Gervase Markham. He is in a unique position as an outspoken Christian and supporter of traditional marriage who works at Mozilla. Gerv has stated that he has it from sources he trusts that Brendan did step down of his own accord and was not forced out. You can read his full statement on his blog. Finally, I want to remind you of what Mozilla, and Firefox, truly stands for.
If you are still not convinced, I’d like you to consider one more thing. Consider for a moment, the possibility that Brendan really did step down of his own accord and is not interested in coming back. What more can Mozilla possibly do that would persuade you? Is there any further evidence that would change your mind? It makes sense to treat them with a good faith presumption of truthfulness unless and until there is evidence to the contrary. Why? Because if your mind can not be changed by anything, then they may as well ignore you anyway. There are always people who cannot be swayed by reason or any amount of evidence. Since their minds can’t be changed anyway, we all might as well ignore them and focus on those who can be persuaded by reason. If you are not open to any reasonable evidence, then you make yourself irrelevant to the debate. Don’t be do that. Evaluate the evidence fairly, and when in doubt, treat others with a good faith presumption of truthfulness. Then if evidence persuades you to change your position, it will mean something.
I read this. I read Markham’s piece. I have evaluated the evidence and I am fully informed concerning the relevant facts. And my answer is a staunch and resounding no. I reject Mozilla. I reject what it now stands for.
I am aware Eich stepped down of his own accord. I am aware he was not fired, that his resignation was not demanded by the Mozilla Board, and that fewer than 10 Mozilla employees publicly demanded his resignation.
I am also aware that Mozilla’s executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued this official statement on April 3rd: “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast
enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry.
We must do better.”
For what is she apologizing, precisely? To whom is she apologizing?
I am aware that Mozilla claims to “support equality for all.” This is a blatant lie on multiple levels. Mozilla might as reasonably proclaim that it supports unicorns for all or a chicken in every pot. Mozilla clearly does not support the Constitutional right of free association or the right of free speech on the part of those harboring views it considers incompatible with its mission statement.
I am aware that “Mozilla Supports LGBT Equality”. I don’t and I will not support any organization that claims to do so.
I am aware that Mozilla has ignored tens of thousands of negative comments from current and former Firefox users and has refused to provide any statement in response to them. I am also aware that it responded quickly and publicly to a much smaller amount of criticism that threatened much less damage to the corporation.
A supporter of the move to ostracize and oust Brandon Eich declared: “I do think that any individual is free to choose to resign their own job
or otherwise not conduct business with someone whom they know has taken
an action that they consider unjust.” I agree. That is precisely why I no longer want anything to do with Mozilla and I continue to recommend that everyone #uninstallfirefox.
Prior to the #uninstallfirefox campaign began, Mozilla Firefox represented 34 percent of the total pageviews here. That percentage is currently down to 20 percent, so based on last year’s traffic, Mozilla can expect to lose at least 1,835,637 pageviews from the readers here on this site alone, in addition to the pageviews those readers generate on all other sites and whatever pageviews my household machines generate on an annual basis.
Ross Douthat points out the moral defect being exhibited by a corporation and a university in the New York Times, which happens to be identical to that previously demonstrated by a writer’s organization:
In both cases, Mozilla and Brandeis, there was a striking difference between the clarity of what had actually happened and the evasiveness of the official responses to the events. Eich stepped down rather than recant his past support for the view that one man and one woman makes a marriage; Hirsi Ali’s invitation was withdrawn because of her sweeping criticisms of Islamic culture. But neither the phrase “marriage” nor the word “Islam” appeared in the initial statements Mozilla and Brandeis released.
Instead, the Mozilla statement rambled in the language of inclusion: “Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. … Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions. …”
The statement on Hirsi Ali was slightly more direct, saying that “her past statements … are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” But it never specified what those statements or those values might be — and then it fell back, too, on pieties about diversity: “In the spirit of free expression that has defined Brandeis University throughout its history, Ms. Hirsi Ali is welcome to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue about these important issues.”
What both cases illustrate, with their fuzzy rhetoric masking ideological pressure, is a serious moral defect at the heart of elite culture in America.
The defect, crucially, is not this culture’s bias against social conservatives, or its discomfort with stinging attacks on non-Western religions. Rather, it’s the refusal to admit — to others, and to itself — that these biases fundamentally trump the commitment to “free expression” or “diversity” affirmed in mission statements and news releases.
This refusal, this self-deception, means that we have far too many powerful communities (corporate, academic, journalistic) that are simultaneously dogmatic and dishonest about it — that promise diversity but only as the left defines it, that fill their ranks with ideologues and then claim to stand athwart bias and misinformation, that speak the language of pluralism while presiding over communities that resemble the beau ideal of Sandra Y. L. Korn.
It was precisely the same pattern of behavior with the SFWA. The rhetoric was fuzzy and muddled, and the accusations were incoherent. No actual reason was ever given for the purging of the nameless member; if I had not announced the identity of the expelled member on my blog, no one outside the inner circle of the organization would have even known who had been successfully targeted for removal by the SFWA president and his obedient Board.
The reason for the deceit is twofold; it is first necessary to preserve the self-conceit of the individuals involved. They do not wish to admit that they are hypocrites who are failing to live up to their professed ideals. It is no different than the reason priests who commit child abuse, teachers who have affairs with their students, and con men who perpetrate frauds are reluctant to confess to their misdeeds even after they are caught red-handed; they are ashamed of their idealistic failures and seek to hide those failures from the knowledge of those who will judge them for it.
And second, the self-deception is vital because admitting their failures means sacrificing the moral high ground in criticizing other organizations and losing their ability to hold other organizations accountable for doing the same thing they are doing.
Both reasons are why it is vital to continue to flaunt their actions in their faces, without mercy, until they admit what they have done and make an open and public choice between their supposed ideals and their ideological dogma. SFWA thought it was marginalizing me by purging me from its ranks, but instead, they elevated my stature, increased my readership, delineated the ideological lines in SF/F, and handed every critic of their dishonesty and dogma an effective weapon to use against them until they either a) come out of the closet concerning their ideology, or b ) correct their self-destructive course.
I think the interesting question to ask here is not why these organizations are behaving in this morally defective fashion, but rather, why now?
Strangely enough, we’re not hearing so much about those wonderfully inspiring purple fingers in the lead-up to the coming Iraqi elections:
Children in Iraq could be legally married before the age of nine under sweeping legislation tabled on Tuesday that introduces new religious restrictions on women’s rights. As almost its last act before elections at the end of the month, the Iraqi parliament looks likely to pass new marital rules for its majority Shia community with a draft law criticised by human rights activists as “legalised inquality”
The legislation has been approved by the governing coalition in an effort to attract support from Shia Muslims in the April 30 vote.
Current Iraqi law sets the legal age for marriage at 18 without parental approval and states girls as young as 15 can be married only with a guardian’s approval. It does not allow for special provisions according to sect. But the legislation, known as the Jaafari law, introduces rules almost identical to those of neighbouring Iran, a Shia-dominated Islamic theocracy.
That’s certainly an effective way to reduce the rate of illegitimate births by teenage mothers. Remember, we are reliably informed that representative democracy is the best possible form of government for all human population groups and sub-species. And since all morals and cultural norms are relative, on what basis can anyone complain about six-year old girls getting married, especially anyone living in a degraded culture where men can “marry” men, women can “marry” women, and female children are permitted to obtain contraceptives and abortions without parental consent.
It’s democratic progress, ergo inevitable. Relax and enjoy it.
Obviously the Firefox Input tool is not the only way in which people communicate their dissatisfaction with Mozilla. But by any measure, it should be readily obvious that the firestorm of criticism directed at Mozilla for forcing Brandon Eich’s resignation and the #uninstallfirefox movement, which is growing by the day, is considerably greater than the criticism aimed at the organization in response to Eich’s promotion to CEO.
It is both remarkable and telling that while Mozilla’s board and its employees were quite willing to speak out when their new CEO was supposedly a tremendous PR disaster, they have remained silent in the face of considerably greater public outrage. This is despite the Happy/Sad metric registering all-time highs and the number of messages running nearly 10x higher than normal and nearly all of them being negative.
Mozilla has made it clear that its values directly contradict those of Christians as well as everyone who believes in the separation of work and politics. As John C. Wright said: “No lover of liberty will continue to use Firefox after this day.”
If you haven’t switched yet, I encourage you to do so. Pale Moon works very well, and if that doesn’t work for you or if you are looking for greater privacy, I would recommend giving Epic Browser a look.
On this blog, Firefox use is already down by more than one-fifth, from 34 to 27 percent of readers. On Alpha Game, it is down by exactly one-fifth, from 30 to 24 percent.
In their efforts to force the unelectable Mitt Romney on the Republican grass roots in 2012, the rules lawyers of the Republica Party elite have created a serious procedural problem for the party’s nomination process in 2016:
Led by Romney loyalist and pitbull GOP lawyer Ben Ginsberg, the RNC made changes in the rules that would not only insure an orderly convention for the front-runner in 2012 but would make it extremely difficult—if not completely impossible—for an intra-party challenge to be mounted against a President Romney in 2016. Apparently, it never occurred to the majority of the Rules Committee that there might not be a President Romney in 2016 to protect….
Rather than only requiring a candidate to have a plurality of the delegates from five states in order to have one’s name placed into nomination, the rule was changed to require a candidate to have a majority of delegate votes in at least eight states as a prerequisite to nomination.
Under the new rule, only Mitt Romney would meet the test for nomination assuring that there would be no Ron Paul problem.
While this might worked out nicely for those controlling the GOP convention in 2012, the amended rule now poses a serious change in how the game is to be played in 2016. What’s more, given that the rule cannot be changed until the next round of delegates arrive at the convention in 2016 and the Rules Committee convenes to establish the new rules of the convention, the Republicans are stuck with what they have wrought in 2012.
And that represents a very significant problem for anyone who believes the voters should have something to say about their party’s nominee or those who don’t favor a convention where the bosses and delegates get to decide who is the nominee, irrespective of what home state Republicans might have to say.
Based on the RNC issued memo in 2011 ruling that ‘winner-take-all’ elections will only be permitted when a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast in the primary battle, and given the deep bench of candidates likely to seek the 2016 GOP nomination, it seems unlikely that there are going to be a whole lot of states producing majority wins for candidates.
Thus, a Republican candidate who receives 49 percent of the vote in a “winner-take-all” state will not be permitted to get 100 percent of the state’s delegates. And that means it is an almost certainty that there will not be a candidate walking into the GOP convention with the requisite eight states producing a majority of delegates supporting a candidate now required to have one’s name placed into nomination.
And you think that these breathtakingly dishonest idiots are going fix everything that Obama has wrought? Or anything, anything at all? The odds are very good that they’ll make things considerably worse, as was the case with the Bush administration. Don’t vote Republican if you value freedom, small government, or the Constitution. Don’t be under the illusion that Republican rule will make things any better at all. Republicans are every bit as guilty of the destruction of the United States of America as their Democratic partners in crime.
I was a little surprised to see that. I already knew that a fair number of people whose names you might recognize have the blog in their regular rotation, as sometimes they send me email, but I had no idea that Chris Muir did.
And speaking of the new intolerant standard for American business, here is a way to let Mozilla know your opinion directly on their feedback page. As per Conservative Intelligence Briefing: “If Mozilla was hoping to avoid controversy by edging out former CEO Brendan Eich, the company has most certainly failed. The graph below comes from the feedback page on their site. This chart goes back to when the comment system was adopted, and the highest number of “sad” comments is today, by a factor of about two. The second highest number came yesterday.”
A sample of the comments posted:
It will be informative to see how long it takes before Mozilla shuts down their feedback page. Like many supporters of the gay rights agenda, they appear to have badly miscalculated the demographic math.