Tag: SJW

Quality customer service

Making a list, checking it twice… and then we send in our report to Amazon requesting a formal investigation of the concerted, ongoing, three-year attempt to manipulate reviews of books published by Castalia House. You see, getting Mr. Kalsi’s book back up repeatedly wasn’t the only thing I discussed with Amazon, as they are now increasingly aware that there are serious shenanigans concerning policy-violating attacks on Castalia House and other publishers.

We understand that you may have manipulated product reviews…. Amazon tries to maintain customer trust and provide the best possible shopping experience. For this reason, Amazon investigates if it learns that sellers, vendors, or others have attempted to manipulate reviews. 

We’ve compiled a comprehensive list of well over 250 accounts dating back to 2014, many complete with names and addresses. For example, 23 of the 28 one-star reviews of SJWAL are fakes. 5 of the 5 one-star reviews of Cuckservative are fakes. 5 of the 9 one-star reviews of ATOB are fakes. 2 of the 5 one-star reviews of Somewhither are fakes. There are already 14 fake reviews of Corrosion.

And this doesn’t even begin to get into the fake reviews on Goodreads, which Amazon owns. Anyhow, if you’d like to add your account to the list, please feel free to post a fake review on a Castalia House book today.

Interestingly enough, many of the recent fake reviewers are from Massachusetts. But we also have Urbana and Chicago, Arlington, and even London. And one from Ohio. Hmmmm.

This was amusing. From File 770:

rochrist on March 22, 2017 at 10:40 pm said:
I made the mistake of making a snarking comment in one of the fake reviews. The fellow immediately tracked me down in RL. He assures me though that it will be Vox himself I hear from. He is just a dutiful minion.

It’s just good customer service to get in touch with unhappy customers. We would be severely derelict in our duties were we to fail to get in touch with unsatisfied customers. Castalia House is committed to customer service, and those who have had trouble downloading or reading our books can testify that we always attempt to resolve their problems in a timely manner. I certainly appreciate the efforts of the public to help Castalia continue to provide such excellent customer service.

UPDATE: Strange. One of our dedicated, albeit self-appointed, customer service representatives called a dissatisfied customer this morning. He seemed very upset to be receiving such excellent customer service, claimed he was not a customer, and insisted that he had neither purchased nor read the book despite having posted a Customer Review. Sadly, he hung up before the helpful service representative could ascertain the precise nature of his dissatisfaction with our product.

It seems he was not happy about being recorded for quality control, particularly when he was informed that he was living in a one-party consent state in which his permission was not required.

UPDATE: Despite the best efforts of SJWs to inhibit sales by frantically posting fake reviews, the Amazon rank continues to climb. It’s like they’ve never heard of the Streisand Effect. Now it’s up to 666. How very, indeed.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, the fake reviewers should probably pace themselves. Corrosion will be available on iBooks, Barnes & Noble, and other platforms soon.

Here come the fake reviews!

Like clockwork…. SJWs are nothing if not predictable.

Meanwhile, in a classic SJW Narrative spiral, iO9 has picked up the fake news from File 770. This is a beautiful example of how the SJW Narrative spiral works to create fake history in line with the Narrative:

  1. File 770 publishes fake news
  2. SJWs run with the fake news and offer various false theories and rumors
  3. Larger SJW-converged media sites pick up the fake news and spread it
  4. Wikipedia cites these “reliable sources” and enshrines the fake news as false facts.

We’re already at point 3, obviously. Note that both iO9 and File 770 have conveniently omitted to mention the fact that John Scalzi was proudly involved with Alexandra Erin’s parody of my #1 Political Philosophy bestseller, SJWs Always Lie, two years ago. Scalzi narrated the audiobook. SJWs are always so mystified that people don’t respond better to them crying “no fair, he hit me back!”

UPDATE: And we’re up again. Also, Chapter One of SJWADD just wrote itself.

UPDATE: I discuss the latest Corrosion-related developments on tonight’s Darkstream.

UPDATE: Corrosion is no longer inappropriately excluded from the Amazon Associates program.

SJW convergence at Disney

Not that we didn’t know Disney was among the most evil and SJW-converged corporations on the planet, but it’s still a little remarkable that they’d rather not show the movie at all than sacrifice a few seconds of homosexual propaganda aimed at children:

Walt Disney has shelved the release of its new movie “Beauty and the Beast” in mainly Muslim Malaysia, even though film censors said Tuesday it had been approved with a minor cut involving a “gay moment.”

The country’s two main cinema chains said the movie, due to begin screening Thursday, has been postponed indefinitely. No reason was given.

Film Censorship Board chairman Abdul Halim Abdul Hamid said he did not know why the film was postponed as it was approved by the board after a minor gay scene was axed. He said scenes promoting homosexuality were forbidden and that the film was given a P13 rating, which requires parental guidance for children under 13 years of age.

“We have approved it but there is a minor cut involving a gay moment. It is only one short scene but it is inappropriate because many children will be watching this movie,” Abdul Halim told The Associated Press.

He said there was no appeal from Disney about the decision to cut the gay scene.

You literally cannot exaggerate an SJW’s commitment to convergence uber alles. It rivals on religious fanaticism, probably because it is, for all intents and purposes, their religion.

Antifa targeting Ivan Throne

This is a direct result of Castalia House author Ivan Throne staring down dozens of hapless antifa by himself. This is how you know that Ivan is making a difference, merely by daring to stand in silent opposition to them in public.

Do you know why all of the SFWA stuff started in the first place, after I had been a member in good standing for nearly a decade without incident? It was because I dared to question the SF-SJW Narrative in passing, in a single paragraph of an otherwise unrelated paragraph, in public.

The mental pollution of feminism extends well beyond the question of great thinkers. Women do not write hard science fiction today because so few can hack the physics, so they either write romance novels in space about strong, beautiful, independent and intelligent but lonely women who finally fall in love with rugged men who love them just as they are, or stick to fantasy where they can make things up without getting hammered by critics holding triple Ph.D.s in molecular engineering, astrophysics and Chaucer.

That’s what launched the Nielsen Haydens’ eight-year campaign against me, which McRapey and many other SF-SJWs hastened to join. You can read that column, and 227 others, in the first volume of my Collected Columns, Innocence & Intellect, 2001-2005. And if you want to learn more about how Ivan Throne, a man who has overcome much more serious challenges than most of us have ever had to face in our lifetimes, possessed the fortitude to face down dozens of screaming, shrieking antifas, you should read The Nine Laws.

There is nothing antifa and the SJWs fear more than the evidence of public opposition, because it emboldens others. That is why they always try so hard to stamp it out as viciously, and in as threatening a manner, as possible. Because they know that men like Ivan and me neither fear nor respect them, and they are terrified that our lack of fear and respect will prove contagious as the Alt-Right grows.

SJW thugs injure professor

Violent anti-speech SJWs attack Charles Murray and Middlebury College professor:

Middlebury College Professor Allison Stanger was injured by protesters Thursday evening as she was escorting a controversial speaker from campus. She was treated at Porter Hospital and released.

Charles Murray, a political scientist who has been criticized for his views on race and intelligence, was invited to speak on campus by a student group. He was greeted late Thursday afternoon outside McCullough Student Center by hundreds of protesters, and inside Wilson Hall, students turned their backs to him when he got up to speak.

College officials led Murray to another location and a closed circuit broadcast showed him being interviewed by Stanger, the Russell J. Leng ’60 Professor of International Politics and Economics.

As Stanger, Murray and a college administrator left McCullough Student Center last evening following the event, they were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protestors,” according to Bill Burger, the college’s vice president for communications and marketing

Burger said college public safety officers managed to get Stanger and Murray into the administrator’s car.

“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.

This almost makes me want to do a college speech tour, accompanied by dozens of armed, trained VFM. The Right needs to stop playing victim and start imposing its will. Remember, if they’re not calling you Hitler, you’re not even trying.

Do what we want and we promise to be nice

Do they really think the God-Emperor is likely to fall for what has to be the third-oldest card in the SJW deck?

For about the thousandth—or is it the millionth?—time, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has attacked Donald Trump. But this time there’s a twist. The Journal’s latest hit-piece targets Trump’s top advisers, Stephen K. Bannon and Stephen Miller, both champions of the populist nationalist policies that propelled Trump to victory.

In their February 27 editorial, the Journal’s editorial board argues that President Trump is acceptable only if he supports the Journal-approved agenda of tax cuts and deregulation, which Trump does. However, Trump’s signature issues of economic nationalism and border security are most definitely not acceptable. The Journal calls these positions “Bannonism”—and that’s not meant as a compliment to Steve.

In reality, the Journal knows that “Bannonism” is really just “Trumpism.” Trump embraced economic nationalism and border security long before he ever met Bannon or Miller, whom he refers to as “my two Steves.”  Of course, that’s why the Journal’s editorialists have opposed Trump all along. But now they’re pretending that Trump could be forgiven for his populism, if only he rids himself of his two Steves.

What is funny is when you find yourself on both sides of this wheedling offer. SJWs were trying to get me to disavow Roosh at the same time others were trying to get Milo and Mike Cernovich to disavow me.

Needless to say, no one bit. The Left clearly thinks our memories are regularly erased on the same short-term schedule as theirs are.

The US belongs to all nations

Not to Americans, or to the natives of the land:

Iran’s former hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter Sunday to President Donald Trump, striking a somewhat conciliatory tone while applauding immigration to America and saying it shows “the contemporary U.S. belongs to all nations.”

It isn’t the first dispatch sent by Ahmadinejad, who has counted U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama among his pen pals.

But this letter, weighing in at over 3,500 words, comes as criticism of Trump over his travel ban affecting seven Muslim-majority countries including Iran mounts in Tehran. It also may serve to burnish Ahmadinejad’s image domestically after the nation’s Supreme Leader warned him not to run in Iran’s upcoming May presidential election.

In the letter, published by Iranian media outlets, Ahmadinejad noted Trump won the election while he “truthfully described the U.S. political system and electoral structure as corrupt.”

Ahmadinejad decried U.S. “dominance” over the United Nations, as well as American meddling in the world that has brought “insecurity, war, division, killing and (the) displacement of nations.”

He also acknowledged the some 1 million people of Iranian descent living in America, saying that U.S. policies should “value respect toward the diversity of nations and races.”

“In other words, the contemporary U.S. belongs to all nations, including the natives of the land,” he wrote. “No one may consider themselves the owner and view others as guests or immigrants.”

One would think that the fact that foreigners from Portugal, Libya, and Iran, from Hoyt to Gaddafi to Ahmadinejad, so fervently endorse the concept of American civic nationalism, would give the American adherents of the Zeroth Amendment, Magic Dirt, the Melting Pot, Proposition Nationalism, and the sacred teachings of Judeo-Christ a moment’s pause.

But, of course, it doesn’t. Because what passes for the civic nationalist’s reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with reason, much less the copious and well-documented facts of history. The basis for the civic nationalist’s civic nationalism is nothing more than wanting to believe that they are a good person, as defined by their adherence to the false historical propaganda of self-serving foreigners. And that submission to the false historical narrative is their gateway drug to the complete abandonment of the truth that is social justice convergence.

What was Gaius Julius Caesar but a Celt born in Rome, after all?

“We all bleed red,” the President, himself a civic nationalist, says. But kangaroos and buffalo also bleed red, which makes it a nonsensical metric for defining marsupials, mammals, or Americans. It is, of course, nothing more than rhetoric designed to appeal to the unthinking civic nationalists and make them feel good.

When Ahmadinejad says that “the contemporary US belongs to all nations”, he is stating openly that there is no American nation. Interestingly enough, and unlike most civic nationalists, he is precise enough to distinguish between America 1.0 and America 3.0. But the reason that he, and various other enemies of America, have so eagerly adopted the universalist idea of “everyone is an American” is because it harms the actual American nation, which is already fragmented and unable to  clearly distinguish between itself and the rest of the world.

The 100-year psychological destruction of the American nation is one of the greatest psychological operations in history, and if you are a civic nationalist, then you need to know that you are an active participant in the destruction of the very nation and the very society that you claim to love.

A cannot be Not-A. American can never be Not-American. That is reason. That is logic. That is historical fact. To claim otherwise is to take the first step into the illogic that leads to madness, habitual dishonesty, and self-delusion.

Guilt is the SJW engine

Two psychologists have determined that moral outrage is self-serving and is a means of attempting to assuage guilty feelings:

For each study, a new group of respondents (solicited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk program) were presented with a fabricated news article about either labor exploitation in developing countries or climate change. For studies using the climate-change article, half of participants read that the biggest driver of man-made climate change was American consumers, while the others read that Chinese consumers were most to blame. With the labor exploitation article, participants in one study were primed to think about small ways in which they might be contributing to child labor, labor trafficking, and poor working conditions in “sweatshops”; in another, they learned about poor conditions in factories making Apple products and the company’s failure to stop this.
After exposure to their respective articles, study participants were given a series of short surveys and exercises to assess their levels of things like personal guilt, collective guilt, anger at third parties (“multinational corporations,” “international oil companies”) involved in the environmental destruction/labor exploitation, desire to see someone punished, and belief in personal moral standing, as well as baseline beliefs about the topics in question and positive or negative affect. Here’s the gist of Rothschild and Keefer’s findings:

  1. Triggering feelings of personal culpability for a problem increases moral outrage at a third-party target. For instance, respondents who read that Americans are the biggest consumer drivers of climate change “reported significantly higher levels of outrage at the environmental destruction” caused by “multinational oil corporations” than did the respondents who read that Chinese consumers were most to blame.
  1. The more guilt over one’s own potential complicity, the more desire “to punish a third-party through increased moral outrage at that target.” For instance, participants in study one read about sweatshop labor exploitation, rated their own identification with common consumer practices that allegedly contribute, then rated their level of anger at “international corporations” who perpetuate the exploitative system and desire to punish these entities. The results showed that increased guilt “predicted increased punitiveness toward a third-party harm-doer due to increased moral outrage at the target.”
  1. Having the opportunity to express outrage at a third-party decreased guilt in people threatened through “ingroup immorality.” Study participants who read that Americans were the biggest drivers of man-made climate change showed significantly higher guilt scores than those who read the blame-China article when they weren’t given an opportunity to express anger at or assign blame to a third-party. However, having this opportunity to rage against hypothetical corporations led respondents who read the blame-America story to express significantly lower levels of guilt than the China group. Respondents who read that Chinese consumers were to blame had similar guilt levels regardless of whether they had the opportunity to express moral outrage.
  1. “The opportunity to express moral outrage at corporate harm-doers” inflated participants perception of personal morality. Asked to rate their own moral character after reading the article blaming Americans for climate change, respondents saw themselves as having “significantly lower personal moral character” than those who read the blame-China article—that is, when they weren’t given an out in the form of third-party blame. Respondents in the America-shaming group wound up with similar levels of moral pride as the China control group when they were first asked to rate the level of blame deserved by various corporate actors and their personal level of anger at these groups. In both this and a similar study using the labor-exploitation article, “the opportunity to express moral outrage at corporate harm-doing (vs. not) led to significantly higher personal moral character ratings,” the authors found.
  1. Guilt-induced moral outrage was lessened when people could assert their goodness through alternative means, “even in an unrelated context.” Study five used the labor exploitation article, asked all participants questions to assess their level of “collective guilt” (i.e., “feelings of guilt for the harm caused by one’s own group”) about the situation, then gave them an article about horrific conditions at Apple product factories. After that, a control group was given a neutral exercise, while others were asked to briefly describe what made them a good and decent person; both exercises were followed by an assessment of empathy and moral outrage. The researchers found that for those with high collective-guilt levels, having the chance to assert their moral goodness first led to less moral outrage at corporations. But when the high-collective-guilt folks were given the neutral exercise and couldn’t assert they were good people, they wound up with more moral outrage at third parties. Meanwhile, for those low in collective guilt, affirming their own moral goodness first led to marginally more moral outrage at corporations.

These findings held true even accounting for things such as respondents political ideology, general affect, and background feelings about the issues.

Instead of repenting or going to confession, SJWs act out about their moral outrage. Which, of course, explains their quasi-religious fanaticism. As well as all the white people waxing outraged about “white privilege” and genuflecting before “Black Lives Matter”.

Allegations are enough

This situation is either an argument against immigrants or against women in tech. Regardless, I think we all know that white men are to blame.

Amit Singhal has left his job at Uber as its SVP of engineering because he did not disclose to the car-hailing company that he left Google a year earlier after top executives there informed him of an allegation of sexual harassment from an employee that an internal investigation had found “credible.”

Singhal was asked to resign by Uber CEO Travis Kalanick this morning.

Uber execs found out about the situation after Recode informed them of the chain of events between Singhal and the search giant this week.

Sources at Uber said that the company did extensive background checks of Singhal and that it did not uncover any hint of the circumstances of his departure from Google. Singhal disputed the allegation to Google execs at the time.

In a statement to me, Singhal denied the allegation again, although he did acknowledge the dispute with Google.

Now, it’s entirely possible that Singhal is guilty of sexual harassment. But the idea that an allegation deemed “credible” by the witch hunters of human resources is something that needs to be proactively disclosed seems a little crazy, especially in light of the fact that most companies will not even reveal their reasoning for firing someone for fear of being sued.

The reality is that at least 20 percent of the workforce could be fired at any given time for violating the various corporate rules against sexual harassment and fraternization. However, as usual, the SJWs are selectively applying the rules where they find them advantageous and ignoring them wherever they don’t.