Evading the Obvious

It’s always amusing to see how SJWs set their projects up for failure, then do their best to hide the obvious reason for the failure from everyone. This year’s Strictly Come Dancing premier, which is one of the most popular British television events, mysteriously lost 16 percent of its ratings from last year’s premier, and is down nearly one-quarter from its 2016 peak viewership. A plethora of reasons for this decline have been suggested.

Strictly’s launch night scored its lowest ever viewing figures on Saturday – with the low numbers said to be down to good weather, line-up and anti-vaxx controversy.

The BBC show attracted an audience of 7.2 million viewers for the inaugural show over the weekend, and while those numbers remain broadly impressive, they still represent a significant drop from last year’s 8.6 million.

While insiders remain positive over a rise when live shows return, prior to the launch airing fans insisted they were less than impressed with the line-up and Covid claims surrounding the show, while sources said the good weather was to blame.

Other users grumbled over the absence of Janette Manrara and insisted the show peaked with last year’s winner Bill Bailey. The Twitter users in question penned: ‘Why is janette not dancing this year? I love watching her. It’s not the same on ITT… I’m not even watching it this year, Bill was peak Strictly for me, cannot be beaten’.

Another claim was that the weather was a key factor in explaining the figures.

The TV source told the Sunday Mirror newspaper: ‘Lots of people had been out and about enjoying the early autumn sunshine and will probably watch on catch-up today.’

Other concerns surround the news of a ‘no jab, no jive’ row, over the refusal of two of its dancers to be vaccinated.

Of course, while the real reason is mentioned, it is not mentioned in the context of being responsible for the near-textbook ratings loss, which I would anticipate will end up being around the usual 20 percent first-year convergence-related decline described in Corporate Cancer.

Craig Revel Horwood has tipped John Waite and Johannes Radebe to win this year’s ‘Strictly’. The duo have formed the first ever all-male pairing on the show, and Craig views them as the frontrunners in this year’s competition.

Yeah, it’s probably the weather. Right. The reality is that the better the offensive all-male pairing does on the show, the more the ratings will decline. It doesn’t matter whether the subject is sports, video games, or female-focused television, convergence always kills. And those pushing and/or defending the convergence never, ever learn from all of the previously documented examples of the phenomenon.

DISCUSS ON SG


Get Off The Cloud

Amazon Web Services is going to start following the lead of Twitter, Youtube, and Google, and use its tech platform to play thought police:

Amazon.com plans to take a more proactive approach to determine what types of content violate its cloud service policies, such as rules against promoting violence, and enforce its removal, according to two sources, a move likely to renew debate about how much power tech companies should have to restrict free speech.

Over the coming months, Amazon will expand the Trust & Safety team at the Amazon Web Services division and hire a small group of people to develop expertise and work with outside researchers to monitor for future threats, one of the sources familiar with the matter said.

It could turn Amazon, the leading cloud service provider worldwide with 40% market share according to research firm Gartner, into one of the world’s most powerful arbiters of content allowed on the internet, experts say.

AWS does not plan to sift through the vast amounts of content that companies host on the cloud, but will aim to get ahead of future threats, such as emerging extremist groups whose content could make it onto the AWS cloud, the source added.

A day after publication of this story, an AWS spokesperson told journalists at Reuters that the news agency’s reporting “is wrong,” and added “AWS Trust & Safety has no plans to change its policies or processes, and the team has always existed.”

A spokesperson for our partner news agency Reuters said it stands by its reporting.

Amazon made headlines in the Washington Post on Aug. 27 for shutting down a website hosted on AWS that featured propaganda from Islamic State that celebrated the suicide bombing that killed an estimated 170 Afghans and 13 US troops in Kabul last Thursday. They did so after the news organization contacted Amazon, according to the Post.

The discussions of a more proactive approach to content come after Amazon kicked free speech app Parler off its cloud service shortly after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot for permitting content promoting violence.

Amazon did not immediately comment ahead of the publication of the story on Thursday. After publication, an AWS spokesperson said later that day, “AWS Trust & Safety works to protect AWS customers, partners, and internet users from bad actors attempting to use our services for abusive or illegal purposes. When AWS Trust & Safety is made aware of abusive or illegal behaviour on AWS services, they act quickly to investigate and engage with customers to take appropriate actions.”

Remember, SJWs at Amazon actually deleted Castalia’s account for about 18 hours two years ago. So what this signifies is that similarly-minded individuals have now reached positions of sufficient power to override the laissez faire attitude of the market-focused corporatists who previously ran the organization.

If you’re on the cloud, you’d better get off it and back onto your own metal as soon as possible. Putting your own data on other people’s machines and relying on the kindness of strangers was always a hideously stupid idea.

DISCUSS ON SG


How the vaxxed view the fate of the unvaxxed

McRapey waxes philosophical on how he and his fellow vaxxed should feel about the death of unvaccinated individuals:

So when your cousin/high school friend/neighbor and people like them who choose not to get vaccinated contract COVID and die, while the temptation is to be all, welp, what did you expect, you fucked around and found out, entertain the notion that, alongside anything else about the situation, they have been victimized by people who largely knew better. There are people who know that a virus doesn’t care about politics, but decided to frame it as a political issue because doing so ultimately allows them to sell pillows and nutritional powders and reverse mortgages and gold coins and whatnot to the people they terrified and made angry and ignorant, and because they think that in the authoritarian future they are working so hard to bring about, somehow they will be the ones wearing the boots instead of being crushed under a heel like everyone else.

Indeed, here in the second half of 2021, how bad should we feel about the COVID-related death of anyone who still chooses not to get vaccinated — with the full knowledge of the consequences of contracting COVID, and the spread of the rather-more-infectious Delta variant of the disease, and the ease of acquiring a shot (which here in the US is free to get, incidentally)? Is there a certain point where one throws up one’s hands, says, “well, you knew better, didn’t you?” and washes one’s hands of them?

As with so many things in this world, I think it depends.

Let’s begin by acknowledging a moral hazard inherent here. Mainly: there’s a difference between wondering how badly one should feel about the willfully unvaccinated dying of COVID, and hoping that they do. If you are in the latter camp, remember that wishing death on people almost always makes you the asshole in the scenario. I personally make an effort not to wish people dead, even as I acknowledge I have a list of people I think the planet would be better off without. I won’t mourn their sorry asses when they’re gone. I’m not going to hope they get pushed in front of a bus, however. And I’m not going to do any of that pushing myself.

With that acknowledged, I think we can separate the currently unvaccinated into three major categories:

1. Those who legitimately cannot be vaccinated: Children under the age of 12, and those over that age who have medical reasons that keep them from being vaccinated are generally blameless if they catch the virus. You should feel bad for them if they die, and if you additionally feel a bit pissed off that the willfully unvaccinated made their lives harder by not being vaccinated when they easily could be, then that’s perfectly all right. Because they did! And that’s an asshole thing to do.

2. Those who could be vaccinated but aren’t because they’re ignorant and/or have a head full of bullshit: This is the largest group, and personally I have some sympathy for them. Look, it’s hard to remember this sometimes, but lots of people don’t feel obliged to follow the news of the day with any assiduousness. When they do, they often get it from sources that a) have trained them over years to mistrust information that does not come from them, b) are lying to them because they have a financial motive for doing so. This informational ecosystem of bullshit has gone out of its way to frame a viral pandemic as just another political issue, which it’s fundamentally not. A virus doesn’t give a shit about your politics, only whether it can gain a foothold in your body.

But for millions of people, that framing has taken hold and at this point it’s impossible to shake. Your cousin/high school friend/neighbor railing about masks and “vaccination passports” on Facebook has been fed bullshit and accepts the idea that only the people feeding them bullshit are truly “objective” and trustworthy. We can go on and on about how that happened and the ultimate culpability of your cousin/high school friend/neighbor in their own ignorance and pleasure in pouring bullshit into their own head. But, for the moment, accept that they have been lied to, and are unfortunately not particularly well-equipped to break out of the framing that’s been reinforced to them, over and over, by the media figures and politicians they trusted (mind you, they will likely be furious if you point out the latter bit to them; they’re the free-thinkers, you see).

You can be sorry that because a vast right-wing propaganda machine thought it was more important to grasp toward power than to value human life, your cousin/high school friend/neighbor/whomever is now dead. Hopefully you will be motivated to avenge their death.

(There are people out there in the US not attached to the right wing who are also steering people away from vaccines, which I am noting here simply so people don’t bring up the point in the comments. Sure, they exist. With that said, let’s not pretend that the high correlation between the parts of the US that are deemed “vaccine hesitant,” and which parts of the US that voted for Trump in 2020, is some sort of wild coincidence).

3. Those who could have been vaccinated but weren’t because they were busy selling the lie: Dick Farrel, by all appearances, falls into that category. Not only did he apparently dine on the bullshit, he was also serving it up on his radio show and on (ugh) Newsmax. He was actively demonizing health experts and encouraging people not to get vaccinated. Who knows how many people found themselves infected, hospitalized, and dead because of his actions, and the actions of others like him in media and politics reinforcing each others’ bullshit. He went out of his way to peddle a lie and endanger the health of others, because among other things he thought there was some coin in it. I hope he brought a couple of coins for the ferryman when he went. That’s all the benefit he’s going to get out of them at this point.

My reaction to the Dick Farrels of the world is: I’m sorry their friends lost a friend, and I’m sorry for all the people they fed bullshit to who are currently in danger of contracting a dangerous but easily preventable virus because he encouraged them not to protect themselves with a simple, safe and efficient vaccine. If his death and deathbed conversion to the efficacy of vaccines serves as a useful rebuttal to all his previous bullshit on the subject, so much the better. Beyond that, I wouldn’t have wished him dead, and I’m glad he’s no longer able to tell other people not to get vaccinated. It’s too bad the former was required for the latter, but, well. Here we are. If it takes more deaths like his for it to sink in, at least they will not be entirely useless deaths. This is about as kindly as I can put that.

Now, it will be absolutely fascinating to observe how this slightly smug perspective begins to transform once the vaccinated population begin to realize that they are actually far more likely to die, either of Covid itself or of one of the many adverse vaccine effects, and worse, begin to suspect that they may have sterilized their children as well.

I just hope their understandable fear, rage, and violence is directed toward deserving targets, namely, toward the scientists and politicians and journalists who have done this to them, rather than toward innocent parties who were intelligent and aware enough to avoid stepping into the diabolical trap laid by the wicked.

“In many instances Stage 2 testing of the mRNA “vaccines” produced immune system failures within 6 to 18 months.”

Regardless, it would be wise to remember how they felt about the prospect of your death when they succumb to corona-chan or the adverse effects of their fourth booster shot.

Discuss on SG.


Thou shalt not notice

An English comedian is cancelled for telling jokes about Africans missing penalties:

A string of venues have cancelled shows with comedian Andrew Lawrence after he made racist ‘jokes’ on Twitter about England’s football stars.

The comedian faced widespread condemnation after making the comments in the aftermath of England’s heartbreaking penalty shoot-out defeat to Italy last night.

In one comment the 41-year-old, who has previously featured on the BBC, said he was ‘sorry that black guys are bad at penalties’.

And in reference to the anti-poverty campaigning of Marcus Rashford – one of those to miss a penalty last night – he said he’d: ‘Rather he’d (Rashford) practised his penalties and the kids had gone hungry.’ 

Today, following a backlash on Twitter, venues have begun pulling planned shows with the comedian.

Meanwhile, Lawrence’s agents also revealed they had cut ties with the comedian. 

How dare he! After all, no one has ever criticized anyone who missed a penalty before, right? 

How long will it be before not applauding is sufficient cause for cancellation? Or even being the first to stop applauding…. 


Build your own platforms

And exclude the temporizers and inclusionaries if you want to keep it. The Boy Scouts failed, perhaps Trail Life will do better.

A youth scouting group formed in response to the controversial changes within the Boy Scouts of America has reported an increase in the number of chapters during the pandemic.

Trail Life USA, launched in 2014 and headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina, is reporting dozens of new chapters and more than 30,000 members.

Trail Life USA CEO Mark Hancock told The Christian Post that 65 new troops have been created thus far in 2021, with over 100 in the process of being chartered.

“So far this year, we have seen a 70{cc08d85cfa54367952ab9c6bd910a003a6c2c0c101231e44cdffb103f39b73a6} increase in new members over this time last year and a 30{cc08d85cfa54367952ab9c6bd910a003a6c2c0c101231e44cdffb103f39b73a6} increase over the same period the prior year,” explained Hancock.

“Just this year, we have seen over 65 new troops started as men across the nation have stepped up to lead and make a difference in the lives of boys in their churches, their families, and their communities.”

The launching of Trail Life USA came partly in response to the Boy Scouts voting in 2013 to allow openly gay males to become scouts while maintaining the organization’s ban on openly gay scout leaders.

This change prompted many churches — a significant source of support for the Boy Scouts — to sever their ties with the prominent scouting organization.

Remember, the Boy Scouts once required a vow to be morally straight. Now they are infested by pedos. Forget who you are, permit outsiders to take positions of leadership, and your organizations will first be converged, then destroyed. 

And remember, the first stages of convergence always look innocuous, and are cloaked in the false virtues of equality, outreach, and inclusion.


Children’s books are canceled

 Back when #GamerGate started, I warned everyone that it wasn’t going to stop with video games. SJW cancel culture is going to invade every single aspect of your life. Don’t think it won’t:

Prolific children’s writer Enid Blyton’s work has been linked to ‘racism and xenophobia’ by English Heritage after a review of its blue plaques following last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests.

The celebrated English children’s author has enchanted millions of young readers for a century with tales of adventure, ginger beer and buns, selling 600milllion books in 90 languages.

But Ms Blyton, whose novels have been among the world’s best-sellers since the 1920s, has been linked to racism in updated blue plaque information produced by charity English Heritage on its website and app. 

It says: ‘Blyton’s work has been criticised during her lifetime and after for its racism, xenophobia and lack of literary merit. In 2016, Blyton was rejected by the Royal Mint for commemoration on a 50p coin because, the advisory committee minutes record, she was ‘a racist, sexist, homophobe and not a very well-regarded writer’.

This is what YOUR submission to “equality” and “diversity” and “tolerance” has wrought. Every single time you said “I’m not racist, but….” or “I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of result” or  “I have lots of [fill-in-the-blank] friends” or “they just want the same chance for love and respect that everyone else does”, you helped make this possible.

Words matter. Ideas matter. Yes, insane “leftists” and “liberals” drove the process, but conservatives and Christians and nice people were required to accept the lies in order to make it work.

You cannot be what the world considers to be a “good person”, let alone a “nice person”, and stand against the swamp of lies with which evil engulfs the world. Every single little compromise you make, every single little dishonesty to which you submit, contributes to the sum total of evil in the world.

Remember, convergence requires the universal submission of every individual and organization.


Corporate cancer kills quickly

Nickelodeon proudly leaned into the predatory market and managed to lose more than 70 percent of its audience:

A bigger hole is forming for Viacom, however. Whereas Paramount+ is growing slowly, their children’s programming platform, Nickelodeon, is imploding. That’s not an overstatement.

Since July of 2017, Nickelodeon’s viewership has dropped from 1.3 million average viewers per week to a June of 2021 average of only 372,000. In only four years, Nickelodeon has dropped more than two thirds of its audience. That is catastrophically bad for the cable channel, but with cable on the way out, maybe it’s not so bad? The catch here is that it is, in fact, that bad and perhaps worse, simply because Nickelodeon seems to be the primary driving force behind new subscribers to Paramount+.

It’s thus easy to see why Viacom is leaning so heavily into older Nickelodeon content. Perhaps hoping to capitalize on what once worked versus what is rapidly losing audience, the company has resurrected Rugrats and iCarly (among other shows) to try to drive nostalgic fans to the service. But there are signs that Viacom has not learned any lessons and is retrofitting these old shows with the same principles that have resulted in Nickelodeon’s huge loss in ratings…. 

Nickelodeon’s latest fiasco was a Pride Month video that you can see above. Featuring a drag queen singing to prepubescents, the YouTube version was downvoted to such a degree that they’ve now hidden the ratio.

That’s an impressive collapse. Keep in mind the massive dropoff was before the ongoing Pride Month fiasco; it may be more than 80 percent by July 2021. But the sooner these awful organizations die off, the better. Don’t watch them. Don’t support them. And don’t let your children’s minds be polluted by them.

However, note that once more, conservatives would rather complain about the wicked than celebrate – or even mention – that which is good. How many “conservative” individuals and outlets that have complained about the entertainment industry have so much as mentioned Arktoons?


Silicon Valley belatedly recognizes the cancer

But instead of taking action to excise it, they’re looking for a “third-way” that only guarantees failure.

In Silicon Valley, 17 years later, another kind of revolution is taking shape. A handful of founders and CEOs—Brian Armstrong of Coinbase, Jason Fried of Basecamp, Shopify’s Tobias Lütke, Medium’s Ev Williams—have said the unsayable. In the face of shop-floor social-justice activism, they’ve decided, business owners should resolve to stick to business.

No hashtag coders. No message-board threads about anti-racism or neo-pronouns. No open letters meant to get someone fired for a decade-old tweet. No politics. As Armstrong put it in his famous (or infamous) September 27th, 2020 blog post, business should be “mission focused.” A software developer explained that the conciliatory approach has become too costly: “The Slack shit, the company-wide emails, it definitely spills out into real life, and it’s a huge productivity drag.”

In October, a pseudonymous group inspired by Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong came together under the banner “Mission Protocol,” with the aim of getting other companies to start “putting aside activities and conversations” outside the scope of their professional missions. (“Mission focus doesn’t mean being apolitical,” they note. “It means being political about the mission. This mission is what you came together to accomplish, and this mission is what you’re fighting for in your work on the project.”) Paul Graham, a famed venture capitalist and “hacker philosopher,” tweeted his support to 1.3 million followers. Melia Russell, who covers the startup beat for Business Insider, noted that startups were jumping into the Mission Protocol threads “with a hell yes.”

Some founders, venture capitalists, and angel investors are now refusing to speak with legacy-media journalists who infuse their reporting with a social-justice slant. “What’s the point [of talking to reporters]?” a developer said. “They hate us, and we think they know nothing about the way the world works outside their woke, east-coast bubble.” Instead, mission-focused players are embracing alternatives such as Clubhouse and Substack. A software developer, Slava Akhmechet, is building a social-media platform (now in its beta phase) that grants influencers anonymity, with an eye toward encouraging the kind of candid conversation that is mostly verboten on, say, Twitter or Instagram. And then there’s the promise of blockchain—still in its infancy—and “decentralized media,” as Balaji Srinivasan, Coinbase’s former chief technology officer, calls it.

This Silicon Valley movement overlaps with a growing cadre of politically diverse writers and podcasters—such as Glenn Greenwald, James Poulos, Alex Kaschuta, and Aimee Terese—collectively creating an opening for a more incisive, wider-ranging conversation about technology, politics, and America itself. Default Friend, an After the Orgy podcast co-host and pseudonymous Substacker whose newsletter focuses on the Bay Area, says “this new group is like, ‘Okay, the wokeness thing definitely isn’t right. There must be some third way.’ They’re agreed on what they oppose.”

Between President Trump’s failure to successfully defeat the Deep State and Silicon Valley’s unwillingness to cut out the corporate cancer, it should be obvious to the intelligent observer that half-measures are not enough. You can’t negotiate with SJWs. You can’t lecture them. You can’t wag your finger and issue dire warnings.

If you’re not going to act, and act decisively, you’re simply reducing the rate at which you lose.



Canceling biology

Richard Dawkins certainly never saw this coming. I warned him, and everyone, that post-Christianity is not compatible with science, indeed, that Christianity was not only necessary for scientody, but is arguably necessary for a functional scientistry as well. Now we’re learning that even the history of science is being canceled:

A university has been slammed by academics for putting Charles Darwin on a list of ‘racist’ scientists as part of a guide to ‘decolonise’ its biology curriculum. 

Sheffield University has created a handbook for students and lecturers in its science department to help ‘tackle racial injustice’ by ‘reflecting on the whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science’.

As part of the guide, the department created a list of 11 ‘problematic’ scientific figures – including Darwin – whose views ‘influenced the type of research they carried out and how they interpreted their data’. 

An explanation next to the 19th century naturalist’s name says that Darwin ‘believed that his theory of natural selection justified the view that the white race was superior to others’.

With the exception of James Watson, the list of problematic scientific figures reads like a who’s who of atheist heroes. Atheists have falsely claimed that science and Christianity are incompatible for decades, but what they’ve learned in just three short years is that it is science and social justice which are totally incapable of coexisting.

Ronald Fisher

Known for: Pioneered the application of statistical procedures to the design of scientific experiments. He was a Professor in the Eugenics department at University College London.

Sheffield’s view: He believed that races differed ‘in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development’.

One of his works, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, ‘endorses colonialism, white supremacy, and eugenics and discusses his belief in the higher and lower genetic value of people according to their race’.

Carl Linnaeus

Known for: Formalising the modern system of naming organisms

Sheffield’s view: He applied his system of classification to position human races, with white Europeans at the top, and black, indigenous, and other people of colour groups gradually descending his hierarchy.

James Watson 

Known for: Proposing the double helix structure of the DNA molecule with Francis Crick

Sheffield’s view: The 93-year-old has previously made outwardly racist public comments about the innate inequality of people from different races, particularly with regards to intelligence.

Thomas Henry Huxley 

Known for: Supporting Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and proposing connections between development of organisms and their evolutionary histories.

Sheffield’s view: Huxley’s belief that ‘no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes, that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man’ was used as justification for segregation. 

Francis Galton

Known for: Coining the term ‘eugenics’, he was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences.

Sheffield’s view: He was obsessed with a eugenic ‘utopia’ in which the genetic elite were encouraged to breed, segregated from the sterilised underclass. It has been said that his work ‘invented racism’.

Karl Pearson

Known for: Pioneering work in mathematical statistics and creating a methodology to identify correlations.

Sheffield’s view: He believed strongly in racial segregation and that races other than his own were inferior. 

Alfred Russell Wallace

Known for: Co-developing the theory of natural selection and evolution with Charles Darwin, something Darwin is most often credited for.

Sheffield’s view: He carried out all of his field observations in a colonial environment. In a similar concept to the ‘Wallace line’ separating biological realms, he drew a boundary line between what he classified as different ethnic groups in the colonial Dutch East Indies.

Henry Walter Bates

Known for: Expeditions of the Amazon rainforests where his studies led him to propose the idea of mimicry in unrelated animal species. 

Sheffield’s view: Like Darwin and other explorers, he travelled and collected specimens from colonial South America and was a proponent of colonialism in the Amazon.

Julian Huxley

Known for: Supporting the theory of natural selection, he also worked for the Zoological Society of London and was the first director of UNESCO. His brother was the writer Aldous Huxley.

Sheffield’s view: He was a prominent figure in British Eugenics Society and believed that the lower classes were genetically inferior and should be prevented from reproducing and even sterilised.

JBS Haldane

Known for: Introducing the ‘primordial soup theory’, which became the foundation for the concept of the chemical origin of life.

Sheffield’s view: He published a book in 1924 describing the use of in vitro fertilisation for eugenics purposes.