Tag: SJW

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.

Fake reviews and reprisals

Happy napping
By dab2525 on February 24, 2017
This book was typically poor Day writing. Someone buy him a grammar book. Otherwise, it was dull enough to induce sleep.

Author writes like an 8th grader 
By dab2525 on February 24, 2017
Writing was juvenile, thoughts were trite, just a fraudulent trap to quench haters’ desire to feed.

I find it incredible when people try to defend these fake reviews and suggest that they might be genuine. “How can you be sure they’re not real,” they demand. Because it’s absolutely obvious when someone hasn’t bought the book, hasn’t read the book, relies entirely upon generic criticisms, uses emotionally charged language, posts several reviews on the same day, and hasn’t convincingly reviewed anything else.

I was a professional reviewer. I can spot a fake review as easily as a professional art restorer can spot a painted forgery. There are literally dozens of potential tells. Of course, it’s even more obvious when they make their political motivations unmistakable.


This literally smelled like someone got a bunch of flowers to try and
By dab2525
This literally smelled like someone got a bunch of flowers to try and hide a used feminine cleansing product. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY!


I’d rather rid the country of ALL of the people who are prejudice against other legal American ethnic/religious groups, women, and gays. As a white male, I fully expect there would be many, many white males in that group that should be exiled. Great idea!
– dab2525

Now, if you want to try to convince yourself that this individual actually read two of my books after buying Ivanka Trump’s perfume, feel free to do so. But you’re an idiot.

This is why posting reviews on places like Amazon is important. The SJWs engage in this manipulative vandalism in order to try to prevent people from supporting those they perceive as the enemy by establishing a false narrative about them. There is a reason that you don’t see fake reviews like this littering the listings of of every book by SJWs and moderates; they pose zero danger to the SJW Narrative. What I’d ideally like to see is for 10 positive reviews to be posted by verified purchasers for every attack single review that appears on a Castalia House listing.  I suspect that would serve as sufficient disincentive to engage in the activity.

As the God-Emperor says, now is the time to act.

UPDATE: Three hours and 27 minutes to locate and profile David Arthur Burcher? VFM, your sloth makes your Dark Lord sad. I will grant that it is Saturday and I did post before most of you were awake, but this is simply not the extreme performance I expect out of my most rabid and loyal servitors!

No flesh or blood with your SJW bones tonight. Let that be a lesson to you.

UPDATE: I sent Mr. Burcher the following email:

I was very sorry to learn that you were so disappointed with two of my books that you recently reviewed. As Castalia House always hopes to satisfy our customers, I would be pleased to offer you two alternative Castalia House ebooks that you might find more to your taste. We have a number of excellent authors from whom to choose.


Our catalog is below. If you will let me know which two books are of interest to you, I will be happy to send you the epubs.


With regards,


Vox Day

Black Bloc cries

Antifa isn’t so tough when the authorities aren’t amenable and they have to actually face the consequences of their criminal actions:

A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday indicted more than 200 people arrested during the presidential inauguration on felony rioting charges, spotlighting their intent to sabotage peaceful protests with violence and destruction.

Called out for individual acts of vandalism, violence and destruction, prosecutors alleged Tuesday that 214 protesters engaged in “black bloc” tactics on Jan. 20 during President Donald Trump’s swearing-in, causing damage to vehicles and property. Six police officers were also hurt during the riots as they exchanged flash-bang explosives with protesters hurling rocks and firecrackers at them.

D.C. police have stressed that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful, but that these 214 people — the other 17 people arrested during the inauguration were released from custody — showed up specifically to disrupt the event.

“Black bloc” protest tactics, which have been used by some protesters for decades, include dressing in black or dark colored clothing while concealing one’s face using scarves, masks and sunglasses. Some of the protesters brought with them hammers, crowbars, bricks, rocks, flares and firecrackers.

The funny thing is that they’re crying about how even though their “backers” bailed them out, they’re still facing stiff fines and up to 10 years in prison. The idiots never learn that they’re just expendable tools, doomed to be cast aside as soon as they’re not useful anymore.

Operation Destroy Milo

In case you didn’t realize that the concerted effort to take down Milo was a designated media hit that is aimed to divide and conquer Republicans. From /pol/ yesterday. Note the timestamp.

FYI the MSM has a huge fucking media onslaught that is set to go live Monday to scorch earth Milo and destroy him via the pedophile label.

I’m part of a mailing list (not giving my real name or the name of the list for the sake of protecting my ass from retaliation) but they have been sitting on the story for a while, because they thought Milo was small fries and wanted to wait until he got big enough a thread to go nuclear on.

The journalists are pissed the fuck off Maher put him on the air and more so, pissed off his book deal had not been revoked (and some are pissed that Milo got a book deal from the same publisher who dropped Zoe Quinn’s book, along with a larger signing bonus than most of the publisher’s social justice authors).

There are also those who want to hurt him simply as a proxy to hurt Steve Bannon/Breitbart. since their attempts to attack Bannon have largely failed. Not to mention people on the left being pissed off that most people sided with Milo over the rioters. Rioters, that were paid for by Soros through a variety of fronts and laundered through companies that can’t be traced back to him.

Expect a steady drumbeat of “Milo is a pedophile” and “Milo must be dropped from CPAC”. The later is especially important, in terms of the divide and conquer long game the press is playing: the press wants a civil war with the McCain/Graham wing of the GOP and the Trump/Ryan wing so as to weaken the Republicans in 2018. The overall plan is to make the Republicans fear social shaming from the media and the left more than they do their actual constituents who love Trump, in hopes of regaining the House and enough Senate seats to pull off an impeachment of Trump.

They are particularly frightened of the Alt-Right, of course, because only the Alt-Right has the courage to actually attack them instead of cowering dutifully before them like cucks or going gracefully down to noble defeat like conservatives.

It matters in so far as it’s an attempt to go after anyone connected with the alt-right silenced and destroyed publicly.

Case in point, there are a couple of journalists sitting on some nasty shit Gavin McInnes did when he was with Vice. Stuff Shane Smith personally helped said reporters gather (since Shane hates Gavin and would gladly backstab in a heart beat).

Also know they have been soliciting shit on Steve Crowder, Laura Southern, Ann Coulter, along with trying to get their grubby hands on as much anti-PC footage and audio they can gather to take down Anthony Cumia, since Cumia keeps surviving every hit they try on him. They are going the long view angle.

The right are at a crossroads in that a younger generation has risen and going conservative, which kills their plan for a never-ending wave of kids being born and each generation being SJW types.

The media in particular, has started to notice as well that after years of ignoring the internet, that the libertarian wing of the GOP have started colonizing their own segment of the internet that grows stronger every day. They blame Bannon for this; Bannon was the one who saw the need (one that Breitbart himself ignored) that you need to make conservativism sexy and young; Fox News may have served a purpose, but it’s too tied to older folks and more so, bound to the old axis of religious right/big business, that Trump’s election and the youthquake shattered with Trump’s ascension.

Milo, Southern, McInnes, Crowder, Compound Media are basically the right’s version of MSNBC/Vice/Daily Show/Colbert Report. I’d also toss in Alex Jones, but Jones is considered a whole other beast in than the others in a lot of ways, by my fellow journalists so I’m leaving him out.

Them being on the internet also puts them beyond the traditional media’s reach to silence them. And they are bringing in the young conservatives and converting jaded, pissed off liberals to the right.

They want them dead, now while they are still on the brink of mainstream acceptance, because the left is TERRIFIED of the right having their own version of John Stewart/Stephen Colbert/Samantha Bee/John Oliver types and the mainstream media definitely wants to kneecap the right claiming any significant internet territory to rival the left’s control over most of the internet.

Keep that in mind if you feel inclined to wax indignant and turn your back in huffy righteousness on Milo, Gavin, Steve, Laura, Ann, or Anthony. Or, eventually, Mike Cernovich, Stefan Molyneux, and me. You are being played by the Left. You are, quite literally, serving their interests.

I have to say that I’m very pleased with both the Dread Ilk and the Castalia House authors. Very few of the former, and absolutely none of the latter, were foolish enough to be taken in by it, and more than a few contacted me to let me know of their support for Milo.

Shape is a social construct

If a man can become a woman because he believes it, there is no reason the Earth can’t become flat for precisely the same reason:

As a football player, I’ve been a fan of Vikings receiver Stefon Diggs from the moment he made his first impact on the NFL as a rookie in 2015. As a potential social-media troll, he may have even better chops. Unless he’s really not deliberately riling up his followers when he suggests that he agrees with NBA player Kyrie Irving’s view that the Earth is flat.

Yes, whether the Earth is flat has recently become a thing in the sports world. Irving may be trolling, too, and the ultimately genius of the approach (if it’s all an act) is that it points out the nature of the age in which we currently reside. Given the ridiculous factual claims that people are willing to blindly embrace as true, maybe it’s not ludicrous to think someone genuinely rejects the long-settled notion that the Earth is round.

The Big Lead has items on both Irving’s comments and the tweets from Diggs. My own assessment is that Diggs is having fun with the issue, but that Irving actually may believe what he’s saying.

Irving would hardly be alone regarding the lingering notion that the planet is pancake-shaped; a few minutes with Google unlocked plenty of evidence of others who reject the evidence that the world is round. The argument hinges on the notion that the spherical theory emerged as a way to supplant religion with science, since the Bible suggests that the world is flat.

The claim is less stunning given that the flat-or-round world generally has morphed into a place where the line between fact and opinion has been obliterated, and all that matters is what you believe.

I believe I now need a nap.

The real question is: Bruce Jenner, brilliant troll or transgender truther?