Tag: SJW

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.

Mailvox: WAR

This is not a book review by me, but rather, by an author who prefers to remain anonymous.

WAR by Janne Teller

If you want a relationship to last, one of the most important pieces of advice I can give you is this: never use emotional blackmail.  Saying ‘if you love me, you’ll do [whatever]’ is not a sweet romantic gesture, but an attempt to use someone’s emotions as a weapon.  Used repeatedly, it convinces the victim that you only care about his emotions insofar as you can manipulate him to get what you want.  In the end, it causes pushback – the victim decides that he doesn’t care what you think or feel any longer.

On the larger scale, emotional blackmail has been replaced by ‘weaponised empathy.’  This is probably best described as an attempt to wring the public’s heartstrings to get them to support a policy that is almost certainly unwise.  (The proof it is unwise lies in the failure to put forward a coherent argument that doesn’t rely on de facto emotional blackmail.)  Those who choose to oppose the policy are blasted as heartless monsters, causing others who might agree with them to shut up in a hurry.  Again, it causes pushback – in many ways, growing resistance to weaponised empathy helped fuel the rise of Donald Trump.

War is a piece of emotional blackmail that, in the end, is an unconvincing read.

It follows the story of a British refugee who has to leave his country and take up residence in the Middle East, following the collapse of British society.  One of the minor annoyances in this book is the lack of a coherent rational for either the collapse or war with Denmark – Denmark!  Doesn’t anyone know Britain’s historical enemies are the French? So far, so good – the author does a good job of making us feel for him and his family.  But, like so many other pieces of weaponised empathy, it only works by removing nuance from the equation.  The refugees are painted in a saintly light.  Cold experience tells us that this isn’t true.

Yes, it is easy to feel sorry for people who are forced to flee their homes.  But that does not excuse bad behaviour in the host countries.  The author barely nods to this – she admits the existence of inter-refugee scrabbles, but not the epidemic of thief, assaults, rape and outright murder that has plagued Europe since the refugee crisis began.  It is easy to understand, even in the author’s limited presentation, why the local Egyptians might begin to tire of the British presence, perhaps even want them driven back to Britain.  And who could possibly blame them?

The author could, of course.  She is, like so many others of her ilk, safe and protected – to use Peggy Noonan’s term – from the realities of the world.  When they meet the ‘Other’ – if I can borrow an SJW term – they meet someone educated, someone polished in the way of the world – someone cosmopolitan in the truest possible sense.  They do not meet people with medieval ideas on women, people who believe that a woman who wears a short skirt is a whore who’s just asking for it.  Even with the best will in the world – and that is lacking – the cultural clash alone would cause far too much disruption.

The blunt truth is that sympathy has its limits.  It tends to fade – and vanish altogether – when someone feelings exploited.  Imagine, for the sake of argument, that you give your friend a loan to help him get back on his feet after a personal crisis.  How pleased are you going to be when you discover he’s wasting the money on booze, hookers and drugs?  And are you going to give him more money when he comes crawling back to you?

So-called ‘refugees’ – economic migrants would be a better term – in Europe have behaved badly, very badly.  If you happen to be dependent on someone, it is sheer insanity to alienate them.  And yet, they have managed to alienate vast numbers of the host population.   Just because someone got the short end of the stick, as SM Stirling put it, doesn’t mean they’re automatically the good guys.

If I had to flee my country – God forbid – and go to a refugee camp, desperate to avoid returning home until it was safe, I like to believe that I would find a way to be useful.  I would hate the idea of doing menial work, but I would do it because I wouldn’t have a choice.  The idea of just sitting around – or turning into a criminal – is absurd.  I have lived in a couple of very different countries to my own.  It isn’t that hard to avoid making myself unwelcome.

Why, then, should bad behaviour be tolerated?

The current problem now is that vast numbers of Europeans believe – and they might not be wrong – that a significant fraction of the migrants are moochers, looters, rapists, terrorists or generally unpleasant scumbags.  This alone would be bad enough.  But even worse, they have also become convinced that the governments are either unable or unwilling to address the crisis, when they’re not causing it.  Virtue-signaling by multi-millionaires like JK Rowling does not convince them they’re wrong.  They know that such millionaires are protected from the world.

BREXIT and Donald Trump – and the rise of nationalism across Europe – is a direct response to weaponised empathy.  No one feels sorry for refugees any longer.

In short, War is a piece of propaganda.  And a bad one.

Breaking the circle of lies

This is why it is always VITAL to tell the truth one observes when it violates the establishment Narrative:

A Swedish detective who has triggered a row by blaming violent crime on migrants has gone one step further and accused politicians of turning a blind eye to the problem because of ‘political correctness’.

Earlier this month Peter Springare, who has spent more than 40 years in the police, aired his anger on social media when he was told not to record the ethnicity of violent crime suspects. Springare, 61, who is based in the central city of Orebro, wrote: ‘Countries representing the weekly crimes: Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown, unknown country, Sweden.

‘Half of the suspects, we can’t be sure because they don’t have any valid papers. Which in itself usually means that they’re lying about your nationality and identity.’

Prosecutors launched an inquiry, suggesting he had incited racial hatred, but later dropped the charges.  Now Springare has told The Sunday Times: ‘The highest and most extreme violence – rapes and shooting – is dominated by criminal immigrants. “This is a different criminality that is tougher and rawer. It is not what we would call ordinary Swedish crime. This is a different animal.”

In his Facebook post Springare wrote: ‘I’m so f***ing tired. What I will write here below, is not politically correct. But I don’t care. What I’m going to promote you all taxpayers is prohibited to peddle for us state employees. Here we go; this I’ve handled Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, off of, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, Rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment.

‘Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christopher… what is it true. Yes a Swedish name snuck on the outskirts of a drug crime, Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.’

Springare said he was due to retire soon and therefore no longer feared the disciplinary proceedings which might be brought against a younger officer for disobeying their superiors and raising the issue.

The Narrative depends upon silence. This is why those who know the truth are threatened with retribution, and those who dare to tell the truth about it are attacked with such vehemence.

The Circle of Lies is when the Narrative is established by the media, who then quote those who support the Narrative in order to attack those who question the Narrative. We saw it when they attacked Trump for questioning the Narrative about Sweden, and quoted Swedish politicians who had no idea what possible problem with immigration was being referred to. Now they’re lying about this Swedish policeman, whose observations offer support for the God-Emperor’s comments.

And it’s lies all the way down. Because what they sell isn’t just fake news, it is a false Narrative.