Wednesday, 31 August 2016

Thought experiment

One of the stupidest, yet most persistent, arguments that gun-grabbing liberals love to use to make their case for outlawing the private possession and use of firearms is that, if the Founding Fathers had any experience with so-called "assault" rifles and "high-capacity magazines", they would have outlawed them.

In other words, the nanny-statist ninnies who would like nothing better than to get the police to knock down your door and confiscate your guns from you- they would never be brave undignified enough to actually get their own hands dirty, you understand- are simply doing what the Founders themselves would have done in imposing sensible, practical, common-sense limits to dangerous firearms.

They would have imposed these limits, and forbidden citizens from owning these weapons, because "assault" rifles are in and of themselves threatening, noisy, dangerous, difficult to clean and maintain relative to pistols, capable of killing at FAR greater ranges, and responsible for "a large number" of the depressingly common active-shooter incidents that take place in the US every year.

So. In the interests of putting liberal "logic"- I know, I know, but bear with me for a bit- to the test, let's say that argument actually makes sense and is valid and sound and all that. (Hey, I know how hard you're trying to keep a straight face at that one. Work with me here.)

And now let's look at that other beloved shibboleth of liberal logic, "separation between Church and State", which they claim is enshrined in the First Amendment and dictates that Federal, State, and Local governments have every right to keep religion out of the public sphere.

In practice, of course, this means that the Ten Commandments- the moral foundation upon which all of Western civilisation was built- cannot be displayed in public, that public prayer and worship must be regulated and sharply curtailed, and that Christians and to a large extent Jews- but not, be it noted, Hindus or Buddhists or Norse pagans- cannot build statues to the Lord Christ or the Virgin Mother on public lands.

With that being said... what happens if we take the same sort of specific exemption logic that liberals use for the Second Amendment, and apply an example of it to the First?

Well, here is what the 1st Amendment actually says, unedited:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Right. Fair enough. Seems completely unambiguous to me.

But now, let's take the "religion" of Islam.

We know that Islam is utterly hostile to Western norms of civilisation and decency. We know that Islamic law is totally incompatible with a Federalist republican system of government, or with any form of democracy. We know that Islam's views on women, gays, slaves, science, mathematics, music, and a wide range of other subjects remain frozen in the 7th Century.

We know that Islam preaches intolerance, violence, and persecution of non-believer. We know that anywhere from pluralities to strong majorities of the followers and believers of Islam agree with the notion that Islamic law is superior to Western canonical law, derived as it is from Judaic and Christian morality. We know that similar numbers of Muslims agree at least in principle with the notion that holy war against unbelievers is just and necessary.

I'm not making any of this up. Finding the relevant passages, polling data, and examples of the great harm that Islam does upon the world can be found with just a couple of searches. (Use DuckDuckGo, not Google- the former won't track you and try to sell you a bunch of useless shit.)

Therefore, according to the same logic with which these progressive nitwits would like to ban "assault" rifles, Islam should also be banned from the USA.

After all, there are a considerable number of followers of Islam that are threatening, noisy, dangerous, difficult to live beside relative to Jews and Christians, capable of killing for just about any reason (including whether or not you ordered ham on top of your cheese pizza), and responsible for a depressingly large number of crimes and murders both in and outside the USA every year.

Oh, but wait, there is more.

You see, unlike "assault" rifles, which did not exist in the 19th Century, Islam most assuredly did exist back then. The Founding Fathers had a pretty good idea of what Islam was actually like- the country's third President, Thomas Jefferson, engaged in the First Barbary War against Islamic pirates, and his eventual successor James Madison had to finish the job in the Second.

Two of the Founders, including the Father of the Constitution, had direct contact with Islam, and they didn't much care for it.

Therefore, according to liberal "logic", it must be reiterated that Islam must forthwith be banned from the United States of America- the plain and perfectly understandable language of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding.

You see how easy it is to just make shit up that sounds sensible when you're a liberal?

Tuesday, 30 August 2016

Damn you, Vox

As you know, I am an avid reader of Vox Day- he is, after all, the Supreme Dark Overlord of our delightful little Evil Legion of Evil, and the supreme commander of the Vile Faceless Minions. So when he posts something, I read it. You don't have to agree with him, but you'll realise very quickly that there is a very good reason why he is one of the greatest thought leaders of the alt-Right movement.

But I should never, ever, EVER have clicked on his latest post.

Well, more specifically, I should never have clicked on the link to this specific song in that post:

I don't know what the hell just happened, but I do believe that is what's left of my mind all over the ceiling of my apartment.

I have to apologise for embedding that song. I do not doubt that I f@cked up your mind every bit as badly as I did my own.

Now go do what everyone else is doing and replay it 50 times just for shits and giggles- because it is frakking HILARIOUS.

We've got to do more than that, actually- we've got to get this thing up on the Billboard charts, boys! Can you imagine how the establishment would react if "Dicks Out for Harambe" became a Top 40 hit overnight?!

Monday, 29 August 2016

The children of a dying paradise

I recently wrapped up reading a short book- more like an extended essay or master's thesis, really- by a chap named Julian Langness, who writes quite well and thoughtfully over at European Civil War. Part travelogue, part philosophical discourse on the current (parlous) state of Western civilisation and Western European civilisation in particular, Mr. Langness writes very well indeed about the clash of cultures that has been brewing between the dying cultures of France, Germany, Scandinavia, and Central Europe, and the very much alive and kicking culture of the Islamic invaders who have come over to settle in those same lands.

The work itself consists of a series of personal anecdotes woven into a larger framework of criticism and discussion of the great evil that is afflicting Europe, and the West in general. Basically, Mr. Langness starts out on a "heritage trip" of sorts, to rediscover his family's ancient Nordic roots. Traveling to Scandinavia to stay with some acquaintances in his ancestral family town, he spends time with the youth of Norway and finds them to be open, welcoming, and charmingly decent.

Yet, almost immediately, he also encounters the darker side of modern Scandinavia- the Islamic side.

Within just a day or two of arriving in Norway, he finds himself getting into a fistfight in a club with a Muslim immigrant. The scuffle ends very quickly, but it starts our friend on a path of discovery that takes him down some very interesting intellectual alleyways.

His journey meanders through several more fistfights with Muslims (hence the title), particularly in the Netherlands, as he observes the appalling casual destruction of their cultures that the European peoples have inflicted upon themselves.

And he is led inexorably to a single, terrible, inescapable conclusion:

War is coming to Europe.

He is, of course, entirely correct.

I found his book to be an excellent read for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that Mr. Langness repeatedly referenced books that have become virtually required reading here in the world of the alt-Right. Ranging from Jack Donovan's The Way of Men, to Jonathan Gottschall's The Professor in the Cage, to the work of Michael Trust, a.k.a. Anonymous Conservative, on r/K selection theory, to the superb works of William S. Lind and Martin Van Creveld, it is immediately obvious that Mr. Langness is both a traveler and a scholar- if perhaps a scholar of works that are decidedly outside of the mainstream.

He even referenced a very good book that I read some ten years ago, back when I first came to the US and when my views on Islam were somewhat less hostile than they are now- Omar Nasiri's Inside the Jihad.

(My aunt, a flaming liberal, lent me that book in order to see whether it would "change my views", or something like that. Instead, it made me realise that Islam is a terrible and existential threat to the freedoms that the West has taken for granted for so long. I could make a joke about liberals and unintended consequences, but that would be too easy...)

Indeed, reading through this book was a lot like seeing my own mental thought processes on the subjects of cultural vandalism, 4th-Generation War, the cycle of civilisations, and the nature of masculinity laid out in black and white, but in far more coherent and succinct a form than I have managed on this blog. Imagine having a little gnome sitting on your shoulder writing down everything you think about the world and then turning it into a book, and you'll get an idea of what it was like to read this.

It was an... odd experience, to say the least.

The somewhat surreal nature of that experience aside, Mr. Langness brings up two excellent points that need to be expanded upon and understood very clearly by those of us in the alt-Right.

First and foremost is Mr. Langness's quite acerbic observations about how severely and terribly European culture has emasculated itself.

He points out repeatedly that the moment that any kind of conflict or stress made itself apparent between the native, white, nominally Christian, European populations, and the non-native, brown, very clearly really Muslim, "guest workers" (read: invaders), the natives immediately panicked and did their damnedest to pretend that nothing was wrong. Or, they would simply scramble to get away from the scene of trouble.

Their response was either that of a deer caught in the headlights, or of a rabbit confronted by a wolf.

They responded, quite simply, as prey would to predators. It was the response of an r-selected population to a K-selected invader.

It was a response that made absolutely no goddamn sense when you realise that this is the same Scandinavia from which the Danes and the Vikings hailed. The reavers that set sail on their dragon ships from the shores of Iceland, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden were among the most feared warriors of antiquity. Their fighting skills were so highly prized that they were offered enormous sums of money to become part of the royal guard of the Byzantine Emperors. The proud history and legacy of the Varangian Guard is deep within the blood of their descendants.

If the Viking ancestors of modern Scandis could see how badly their offspring have debased themselves, I doubt that even the Allfather himself could stop his einherjar from charging forth across the Rainbow Bridge to give the invaders of their ancestral lands a good taste of Viking steel- and their descendants a proper lesson in good old-fashioned Viking berserker tactics.

There is a stark contrast, by the way, between the meek and submissive natures of the Europeans that Mr. Langness encountered, and the Muslims that he fought with. As he states at length in his writing, he actually found himself greatly admiring those he fought against, because they have a warrior spirit and a strength that has gone very much amiss in the rest of Europe.

I understand entirely where that comes from. Once you know what it means to stand up and hit another man, and desperately try to avoid letting him hit you back, you will know what I mean when I say that fighting is the fastest way I know of to establish bonds of brotherhood between men who might otherwise be mortal enemies.

Even so, one might be pardoned for asking... WHAT THE NIFLHEIM HAPPENED?!?

Yet, in a sense, that cowardly response to foreign invasion is, in fact, not only understandable but rational.

The European experience of the World Wars was vastly different from the American one. America came out of both wars pretty much unscathed. Her industrial base was intact, her culture had not been brutalised by the horrors of war, and the flower of her male youth was still (for the most part) alive and well. Not so in Europe, which had suffered truly epic devastation due in large part to nationalism taken to genocidal extremes.

Their people were war-weary, sick of death, and willing to do anything for the promise of perpetual peace. (They should have done their homework a bit better- anyone who has ever read a certain old Kipling poem would have known that this was a fool's dream.)

It turns out that "anything" meant giving up their identities, and being force-fed an unending stream of guilt-tripping indoctrination about how virtually everything wrong with the rest of the world was the West's fault- more specifically, the fault of white colonialists and entirely unwarranted European and American aggression against the peace-loving indigenous peoples of the world.

To make up for these sins, whether perceived or real, the Scandis, along with most of the rest of Europe, were told by their leaders and their governments that they needed to welcome in the refuse of the world with open arms.

Those elites succeeded- all too well. Scandinavia has for the last several years been heading inexorably toward a breaking point.

If you've spent the last 60 years attempting to breed and guilt-trip aggression and violence out of your native population, it should come as no surprise at all that your people will behave like dumb, terrified sheep in the presence of real danger- until they have nowhere else to go.

And then the real horror begins- because, as LTC Kratman loves to say, "survival cancels out programming". If you bring an entire people, with a history stretching back over fifteen centuries, to the brink of total destruction of their culture and their way of life, you should not be the least bit surprised if quite a few of them decide to say, "enough"- and with steel instead of words.

This leads on to the second point of Mr. Langness's narrative. The war that is coming to Europe will not be quick. It will not be easy. It will not be fought on some far-away battlefield between professional armies wearing clearly identifiable uniforms.

It will be fought in the streets of cities like Malmo and Gothenburg and Oslo and Copenhagen. It will be fought in the banlieues of Paris and the Kurdish ghettos of Berlin and the refugee centres of Lesbos and Calais and Sicily. It will be fought in towns like Rotherham and Bradford and Hackney.

It will be fought among and between and by people like you, and me, and him.

There is no guarantee of victory, none whatsoever- not for the Islamist invaders, and certainly not for us.

And there is every reason to believe that this war will be far worse, bloodier, and more barbaric than anything that has been seen or understood by the West for nearly five hundred years.

The Laws of War, brutal and cruel and terrible though they are, nonetheless are built upon an understanding that warfare needs to be fought under certain rules. Those who break these rules are shown no mercy whatsoever, and justly so.

But what do you do against an opponent whose very way of life states that it is no dishonour to lie, to cheat, to kill, and to break one's word of honour whenever it is convenient to do so- which is exactly how Muslims have repeatedly fought against Christian opponents historically?

What then are the laws under which war will be fought? How then will the savagery of hellish war be be at least reduced somewhat? Where then will be the considerations and dispensations for non-combatants, if the opponents that we are fighting believe that there is no such thing as a true innocent?

This isn't war the way our fathers and their fathers understood it. It won't even be 4GW the way Mr. Lind understands it. It will be 0GW- a return to barbarism.

The only way to avoid this horrible fate is to expel the invaders, en masse, and immediately. And even then, it is an absolute certainty that violence and civil war will erupt in the deportation process.

Europeans in general, and the Scandis in particular, are a long way from choosing that course yet. But they are getting to that point, whether they like it or not. The day is coming when Mr. Langness's experience of brawling with Muslims on the streets of the great cities of Europe will no longer be a fringe experience but a daily reality.

The question is, which side will the children of Europe's dying paradise choose?

Will they choose their own cultures, national identities, and proud histories?

Or will they choose to meekly surrender and submit to the domination of Islam?

I do not know the answer. Nor, I wager, does Mr. Langness. But he's been right there in the trenches. He has seen what is coming. And he is urging us all to be prepared.

Take his advice to heart. The day will surely come when the children of this American paradise will need to heed it.

Oh, and one more, personal note: Julian, in the unlikely event that you read this, if you're ever anywhere near New Jersey, look me up, and we'll go put on some boxing gloves and spar. I would consider it a true honour and a privilege to touch gloves with someone who has put himself in personal danger to understand the nature of the wars that are coming. And then we'll go grab a few beers- because that, after all, is what happens when two like-minded guys beat up on each other in a friendly sparring contest.

Guns, girls, sour-mash and glory

Mat Best clearly gets it:

As if that wasn't batshit insane enough:

And, of course, where would we be without gratuitous but ever-so-epic bikini snaps:

You know, I used to think that Jeremy Clarkson and the boys have the greatest job in the world, driving supercars all over the world and pulling off ridiculous cheap car challenges that were plainly conceived by a bunch of crack-addicted chimpanzees masquerading as screenwriters. I simply did not believe it possible for anything to come anywhere near that level of sheer balls-out epicness.

Judging by what Mat Best and his crew of maniacs get up to, I might have been mistaken. Maybe.

Sunday, 28 August 2016

Good old Uncle Milton

Milton Friedman is, of course, one of the greatest economists who ever lived- even if he was not quite as strong a defender of freedom and human liberty and capitalism as people tend to think he was. As Vox Day has repeatedly pointed out, his "radical" theories of monetarist economics were in fact essentially Keynesian heresies clothed in free-market language, and Prof. Friedman was the brain behind that most terrible abuse of the government's power of income taxation known as payroll-withholding.

None of that changes the fact that Uncle Milty was probably the most effective defender of free people, free minds, and free markets that we have ever seen.

His ability to eviscerate the arguments and polemics of those who took the opposite view with nothing more than a cheerful grin and simple rhetorical arguments rooted in fact and logic was truly something special. He may have been small in physical stature, but his tremendous intellect more than made up for his lack of height.

And I have to say, despite the fact that several of Prof. Friedman's ideas have simply not worked out in real life the way he thought they would (particularly when it comes to free trade and immigration), we on the Right lost one of our most powerful rhetorical weapons when he passed.

Take a look at this, and you'll see exactly why his death was such a huge loss to us:

He was a true defender of personal liberty, and- for the most part- really quite sensible about the proper role of government and the limits that must be placed upon its intrusions into the private sphere of the economy. He was certainly wrong on quite a few things- but on balance, he deserves to be remembered as the great champion of freedom that he really was.

The Last Redoubt

Friend, commenter, and fellow alt-Right nutjob, LastRedoubt, has started up his own blog- the rules of which look oddly familiar for some reason...

Actually, there is nothing "odd" about that- he has very kindly given me the props for coming up with the original list. I would be greatly remiss if I did not in turn admit that my rules are actually largely based on Vox Day's- whose writings I know both he and I read avidly.

Go check it out if you're interested in intelligent, well-versed writing that comes from a man who, like me, loves this country and its people- but, unlike me, is actually a citizen. As far as I'm concerned, it's going up on the blogroll.

Saturday, 27 August 2016

Songs of glory

Nothing serious to see here- other than some serious headbanging:

(That song is catchier than herpes. I'm surprised the CDC hasn't jumped on the banned-wagon for it yet.)

And let's not forget the girls- I am nothing if not fair-minded, after all:

Oh, all right, one more. You needy bastards.

I don't remember eating that...

Paging Mr. Didact, the 90s called, they want their memes back...
Our ever-helpful neighbourhood alt-Right gun-buddy (and, let it be noted, highly qualified gun safety instructor) Luke Stranahan recently had to show considerable intestinal fortitude in order to wade through the results of a hilariously nasty hacking incident:
The content that I saw on the mirrored site had some celebrity photos and six NSFW explicit pictures. I don’t follow show-biz in general, nor black or other minority entertainment in particular, so I had no particular reaction to the celebrity shots of Jones and other people, with the exception of I noticed that even the men in the pictures with her are more attractive than she is, and this is coming from a straight man. 
The two nude full frontals were uninspiring. Especially if you are a comedienne and a silver screen actress, when you are obese, you should not be sending nudes to anyone, even privately. Although she had the sense to blur her face in one of them, what is [it]with people taking nude selfies with a commode in the picture? [It's actually a very good question. I recently received a bikini shot from a girl who took the picture in the bathroom- with the shower in the background. She wasn't bad-looking at all, but the setting didn't do her any favours.] I get that you may want to use the bathroom mirror for the, um, spread, but try not to have the shitter in the shot with you, and the other picture is no better in what seems to be a janitor’s closet, or maybe the bathroom in the Ghostbusters’ fire station of the version in the 80s cartoon. 
It gets worse. There’s a thoroughly unappetizing topless shot with a facial expression of presumably horniness, and then, my friends, we move on to the X rated, where I saw a picture of Leslie showing intense sexual hunger.
Since we try for a somewhat professional atmosphere here, I will summarize with the statements that one shot belongs in a gynecological textbook, and the other two belong in a porn movie involving anal sex. [That's the point where I nearly lost my lunch. And I haven't even had to look at those pictures. Luke must have a cast-iron stomach- especially if he's eating Taco Bell chalupas on his cheat day while doing this "research".]
My reaction went from null on the celeb shots, to turned off on the full frontals, scared by the topless sex pose, and just about lost my dinner on the last three. Roosh came very close to owing me a gourmet meal of Taco Bell (it was a cheat day, what can I say?)
Luke, you poor stupid bastard. I hope you at least made Roosh give you hazard pay for writing that article.

I feel sorry for him, I really do. NO MAN should have to endure what he went through.

Now obviously, I'm not about to go and independently verify his findings- I like my readers and all, but I ain't gettin' paid for this gig and I sure as hell am not going to go hunting down these pictures without being compensated for the severe gastrointestinal and emotional distress that is sure to follow. I don't like you guys that much, I'm sorry to say.

In fact, I wouldn't do that search even if you guys paid me. Some things just aren't worth the cost.

But I have to ask- WHO ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH wanted to see pictures of Leslie Jones naked?!?

I mean, come on, guys, this is what she looks like fully clothed:

I will try to avoid the obvious (and extremely funny) comparisons that could be made here. Some things are just better left to the imagin- oh, wait, never mind, someone already went and did it.

Slightly more seriously, as Luke pointed out further down in his article, this episode simply underscores, once again, the importance of not taking the security of your personal data and files for granted when they are backed up or distributed online.

As demonstrated so effectively (and downright hilariously) a couple of years back by The Fappening, celebrities are no different from the rest of us when it comes to having their personal data and files hacked routinely and easily. Once you put something on the Internet, whether via Google Drive or Apple's iCloud service or Dropbox or whatever, you cannot really expect it to be fully secure- no matter what the various providers tell you in their EULAs.

So exercise a bit of common goddamned sense and don't allow pictures of yourself doing stupid shit to get backed up on the internet. Better yet, don't take those pictures in the first place, if you can resist the temptation (which, by the way, is surprisingly easy to do- just refuse to take selfies, like I do).

There is a time and a place for taking pictures of oneself. I would even agree that there is a time and place to take, shall we say, intimate snapshots of oneself for, er, romantic purposes. But those examples should be left on media disconnected from the internet and therefore at least somewhat proofed from hacking. Such things are private affairs between individuals, and that is where they should stay.

What amuses me the most about this story- other than the fact that one of our brave Kingsmen had to put his mental and digestive strength to the test in such a painful way- is the fact that this happened after Leslie Jones picked a fight with the wrong guy- or should I say, the wrong fairy.

As First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza pointed out shortly after the news of this hack emerged, it is a virtual certainty that the individual that hacked Ms. Jones was/is a fan of Emperor Butt-Pirate:
“There’s zero chance that this wasn’t a fan of Milo’s (Yiannopoulos),” he said. “The other zero percent here is it’s zero percent Milo’s fault.” 
Also a fat goose egg are the chances that Breitbart editor Yiannopoulos — who was recently suspended from Twitter for “targeted abuse” of Jones via the social media platform — will face any legal trouble over this ordeal, Randazza said. 
“If this was somebody who was a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos, unless he directed it, he has no liability at all,” Randazza continued. “If he just created a culture of it — as he has been accused in the past — that’s legally nothing.” 
“Had Twitter not banned Milo Yiannopoulos, I bet it wouldn’t have happened,” he opined.
I agree entirely. Leslie Jones decided to take serious personal offence at the Lord of Fabulosity's (entirely valid) criticism of her horrid movie, which reveals volumes about just how childish she is as a person.

If she cannot handle negative opinions that people have of her work, or of projects that she has participated in- the failures of which may or may not have been her fault- then she is simply not adult enough to be taken seriously by the rest of us.

When you or I are criticised for poor workmanship or inappropriate remarks, that is information which we can choose to receive or ignore. If we receive it, take it in, and amend our work and behaviour appropriately because the criticism makes sense, that is all well and good. And if we ignore it, that is our choice.

Taking criticism so personally that one leaves an SJW-dominated platform like Twitter supposedly in tears- only to come right back within less than a day- is the living definition of a childish temper tantrum. Ms. Jones literally threw all of her toys out of the pram- and now that some enterprising troll has gone and shown the world that her ugliness of spirit is reflected in her ugliness of form, she is throwing an epic shit fit yet again to try to avoid taking responsibility for her own personal failings.

That is not adult behaviour. That is not worthy of support or sympathy. It is worthy only of scorn.

To be very clear, I do not condone the hacking of people's private data. I sure as hell don't condone the distribution of such personal images for purposes of taking revenge. Whoever hacked Leslie Jones's personal data committed a clear offence.

That doesn't mean that Ms. Jones is absolved of all responsibility. Far from it. She is responsible for her own actions. And her actions show her to be a petulant, vindictive, nasty, profane, small-minded, and deeply unpleasant person.

Is it in any way surprising, therefore, that quite a few of us- self included- think that, even though hacking her account was plainly wrong, she got what she deserved?

Thursday, 25 August 2016

The nationalists take the stage

A rather colourful Englishman by the name of Nigel Farage joined Trump-Muad'Dib recently on stage and brought the house down in Mississippi- I think I spelled that correctly- by delivering a message of hope and populist optimism to the people:

That is almost enough to bring a single manly tear to my eye. ALMOST.

Mr. Farage is, quite simply, a hero. He was instrumental in getting the English and the Welsh to give the luvvies, the London-based globalist elites, and the EU apparatchiks a taste of what it feels like to get hit in the giblets with a baseball bat. That must have been interesting for them, to say the least; they sure as hell weren't happy about it.

And he is absolutely right to compare the God-Emperor's America First nationalist movement with the political earthquake that was the result of the #Brexit campaign.

Parenthetically, I should note that I find the hysterical reaction of the globalist elites to both #Brexit and the Trumpening to be by turns refreshing and amusingly ironic, given that I in fact work for one of the very same banks that Mr. Farage's wonderful campaign did so much to piss off. My employer's management believes fervently in the pipe dream of the European integration project and has done everything in its power to ensure that the EUSSR's Long March to glorious revolution carries on.

Let's just say that I don't exactly see eye to eye with those people- which, of course, is a large part of the reason why I support both The Donald and Nigel Farage, even though on the face of it their policy prescriptions would be terrible for people like me.

(Indeed, I am quite out of tune with my employers on a rather large range of subjects, which is why I write under a nom de plume.)

Back when it happened, I saw that Mr. Farage's campaign was a huge victory for those who love their country, their culture, and Western civilisation, and I was delighted to see him win against all odds.

June 23rd, 2016, was a tremendous day for all of us who believe in nation-states, in free peoples living under laws of their own choosing, and in the radical notion that Western civilisation, in its pre-modern form, was the pinnacle of human achievement and therefore worthy of preservation and defence. I fervently hope that it was not the last day of its kind.

American voters have a chance to prove that Brexit was not a fluke on November 8th, 2016. They have a chance to give the political elites of this country the biggest shock of their lives. Make no mistake: what is at stake is the very moral fabric and foundation of your country. If the Hilldebeast wins, what little is left of your once-great civilisation will be cast down into darkness, from which it cannot return.

Your Bill of Rights will be diluted and interpreted away to nothingness. Your government will drop any and all pretence of transparency and accountability and descend to depths of corruption typically only found in sub-Saharan Africa. Your God-given rights will become a dispensation of the Hilldebeast's favours- and she only gives things to those who pay for them. And your children, and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, will have to pay for her sins of wanton fiscal and moral abuse.

The likely outcome of that destruction will almost certainly be open war- a second Civil War, but this time a war between the Federal government and the Several States, rather than a war provoked by the North against the South. As a proud de Tocquevillean, that is the last thing that I want to see happen to this country that I love, which has been good enough to permit me to live here in peace for ten years.

There will be no glory or honour to be found in such a war; it will cast neighbour against neighbour and will result in the fracturing of the heterogeneous American empire into homogeneous nation-states, precisely in line with the past lessons of history.

I do not claim for even a moment that such an outcome is avoidable under a Trump Presidency. As I have said many times before, I don't have the first clue what he will be like as a President. But, under President Trump, at least the historical notion of a strong, white-dominated America might come to fruition peacefully.

By the way, it will probably horrify our friends on the Left to no end to realise that there are, in fact, non-whites living in America right now (like, say, yours truly) who have no problem whatsoever with the idea of living in a white-dominated country. That is because Western civilisation is, for the most part, white civilisation. There is nothing wrong with this. There is also nothing wrong with pointing out that Western civilisation has- or rather, had- no equal.

Chinese and Japanese civilisation both hold varying degrees of appeal, but it is very difficult to argue with the notion that white-created, white-dominated, and white-maintained Western civilisation has done more to advance the happiness and prosperity of an afflicted Mankind than anything that has come before it or since.

If Donald Trump is elected, it will be the single biggest shock to the American political system since the rise to power of Ronald Reagan. America is long overdue for a rediscovery of national pride, of the virtues of a civilisation built and advanced and maintained by those much-maligned "dead white guys", and of the need for foreign and economic policies that advance American interests, not global ones.

A love of country, of people, and of civilisation is no bad thing. Come November, perhaps enough of what is left of the American Republic will remember that. I can but hope.

That's not funny, infidel!!!

My good buddy, training partner, and favourite Sasquatch-sized punching bag told me this terrible joke shortly before he left for college:
A rabbi, a priest, and a gay guy all get into a cab. The driver turns around and tells them, "Hey guys, I'm Muslim, I can't take a joke".
Yeah. I know. It's dreadful. And yet hilarious in a really stupid way.

Not least because of the fact that it will cause virtually every RIF in the nearby vicinity to suffer from a severe premature detonation. 

Wednesday, 24 August 2016

Shadowban this, Jack

The development of new, SJW-intolerant platforms is now well underway:
AT: If I had to pick a single event that pushed me over the edge to take action, I would have to say it was the suppression of conservative sources and stories by the incredibly biased Facebook Trending Topics team. 
Many of us don’t realize just how much power and influence the News Feed and Trending Topics products have on our psychological understanding of the world around us. There are hundreds of millions of people who get their main source of news and information from a handful of companies in one of the most progressively liberal cities in the world, it’s time for a change.
There is more good news:
AT: Unlike other social networks, we don’t use verification checkmarks as an elitist social ranking system. We use them for one purpose – verifying identities. Currently, we verify accounts if they have a high likelihood of being impersonated, but very soon every Gab user will have the ability to verify their identity if they so choose. We believe that when people verify their identity they are much less likely to harass others. 
It’s easy to harass folks online behind an anonymous profile, but much more difficult to do so when your name is attached. We want to make sure everyone on Gab can find who they want to find, and protect their identity or brand. That being said there is no requirement to verify your identity. We believe anonymity is important for some to feel comfortable expressing their right to free speech, and we don’t want to infringe on that right.
I cannot claim to be in the least bit surprised. As Vox Day memorably pointed out over a year ago:
Give a man a platform and he will speak his mind. Deny him a platform and he will build his own... and you will never silence him again. Rabbits always think that the only possible response to being shunned is to a) submit or b) vanish. The problem, of course, is that some of us aren't rabbits.
I do not use Twitter. I gave up almost all social media usage years ago and am far happier for it as a result. (Though there is that one rather fetching ukrainina that keeps pinging me on WhatsApp... Don't ask me how I got that particular app, it's a long story.)

So on the face of it, I don't really have a dog in this fight.

However, if you're going to build a social media platform on the basis of free and open expression, upholding the virtues and values of the civilisation that made it possible for you to create such a thing in the first place, then as far as I am concerned, the least you can do is actually, y'know, abide by your word.

The problem is that the leadership at Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, and (increasingly) Google have all long since abandoned the pretence that they are simply impartially providing a platform for end-users to use as they wish within broad and fairly sensible boundaries.

The companies that created those platforms have long since become infested with SJWs and infected with their particularly loathsome disease. (In the extremely unlikely event that you've never seen an SJW, they look kind of like Warhammer 40K genestealers.) And, as SJWs always do when brought in to positions of power and authority, they proceed to use their banhammers and thought-policing tools to drive out anyone guilty of "badthink".

They have done this through means both overt- such as banning people outright- and covert- such as the much-ballyhooed tactic of "shadowbanning". The underlying principle behind such nonsense is that the gatekeepers of these platforms are the ones who have the right to decide what you and I should see, that they are the arbiters of what is and is not "acceptable discourse", and that they and they alone should determine who and what can use their platforms.

Now, to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with private individuals and firms discriminating with respect to who can and cannot use their services. That is called "freedom of association", and it has been one of the bedrock principles of Western civilisation for centuries.

If I were to setup a social network tomorrow, and I told you that you cannot use it because you are fat, or you smell, or because you are a cis-het-white-male (whatever the f@ck that means), or you are black or white or Arab or Jewish or Martian, that is entirely my right.

And it is entirely your right to call me an asshole and find some other service provider who is not a complete lamebrain dickbreath and use that instead.

What I categorically do not have the right to do is to first accept you as a user of my service, where you have agreed to the terms and conditions of that service, and then turn around and deny you that same service simply because I disagree with you on a personal level for some reason. As long as you have obeyed my rules and the terms specified in the contract that you and I agreed to abide by, I have no right to break that contract.

Now obviously, these are basic principles and you can always find a very good lawyer who could find a few (thousand) loopholes in all of this reasoning. Nonetheless, these principles have remained the basis upon which countless millions of business relationships and transactions are forged and conducted every day.

What suddenly makes social media so special that the people who maintain those platforms can now turn around and ignore these things with impunity? Who gave them that right to decide?

While we're on the subject, what, exactly, is so terrible and terrifying about letting "racists" and "trolls" and "evil people" speak their minds?

The answer to that, for most SJWs, usually comes down to a reductio ad Hitlerum: "look what happened when Hitler was allowed to speak his mind!!! And if we let these shitlords say whatever they want, we'll see the rise of yet another fascist lunatic who will lead us all straight into the jaws of Hell!!!".

Well, actually, the facts are slightly different. When Hitler was elected to power, it was done with less than 40% of the popular vote; he engineered his takeover of the German government through legal loopholes and- hey, look!- ruthless suppression of dissenting voices.

In reality, the best way to deal with complete goddamn fruitcakes is not to silence them or censor them. It is to let them speak their minds- because the more you see of them, the more you understand what kinds of people they really are. Even if you believe- as I do- that Most People Are Idiots, the reality is that most people are also capable of recognising complete raging lunatics when they see them.

Not, of course, that SJWs would ever let annoying things like facts and reality get in their way.

Twitter has been thought-policing people's feeds quite happily using their now-standard "shadowbanning" tactic, but interestingly, it only seems to bother doing that to people who have horrid doubleplusungood thoughts (i.e. right-wing nut jobs like Mike Cernovich and Vox Day and Milo, the Lord of Fabulosity).

The SJWs who control Google, Wikipedia, Faceborg, and Twatter all thought that we would simply roll over and accept their egregious abuses of their platforms. Unfortunately for them, we've had enough and we're not simply going to sit here and eat their shit anymore.

Turning to this new "Twitter alternative", I like what I'm hearing so far. This new platform is attracting the right kind of attention and getting the feedback and growth that it needs in order to build itself into a truly superior product offering.

Will it get there? Only time will tell. Andrew Torba, the founder of this new platform, is saying the right things and it looks like he is interested in delivering on his promises.

However, there are several factors which could easily sink him if he is not careful.

The first, and most important, is most succinctly stated within Robert Conquest's Second Law of Politics: Any organisation not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. Mr. Torba must do everything in his power to keep SJWs out of the management group for this new playground he has created.

By all means, let SJWs create accounts and join and perform their usual point-and-shriek routines. That is all they can do, and that method of intimidating their opposition is rapidly losing its effectiveness, because we have long since learned that the moment we actually stand up to their crybullying, they have absolutely no clue how to deal with that resistance.

But under no circumstances can Mr. Torba allow SJWs to get into positions of power within his organisation. If that happens, then this new idea will die in the same way that Twitter is dying under Jack Dorsey's leadership. Mr. Torba will need to create a set of ironclad rules with respect to hiring and firing- I do believe our very own Supreme Dark Lord came up with a guide to doing exactly that not too long ago- that will stop the infiltration of his organisation by SJWs.

That, after all, is the entire point of freedom of association.

This, of course, is only the beginning. Project REDACTED, Project Big Fork, and other initiatives like it are all underway with the express intent of not just taking on but outright crushing these SJW-run platforms.

As far as I am concerned, of course, I am very much looking forward to the day when the last Tweet with the last hashtag from the last unverified account is sent out to be seen by absolutely nobody. Twitter already appears to be tripping over its own two left feet- if its management continues down its present course, it won't be long before the organisation dies completely.

Monday, 22 August 2016

A man of principle

One of the major criticisms of Trump-Muad'dib by the (increasingly irrelevant) mainstream )))media((( has consistently been the fact that Mr. Trump's positions on a number of issues have never been very consistent.

He has veered from what were (in their minds) perfectly acceptable ideas (read: flaming liberal) to batshit-insane Hitlerite fascist craziness (read: rather straightforward nationalist).

I too have dinged The Donald for his lack of consistency. To me he appeared to be guided more by pragmatism than any kind of battle-tested inner conviction. But then I saw this video, and I realised that, in fact, Mr. Trump has been preaching a fairly consistent and principled message for the better part of thirty years:

The Donald still has a very great many flaws as a candidate. He is a far less polished orator than he needs to be, and his stump speeches are long on rhetoric and short on details (even though his actual policy ideas are unusually thoughtful).

He is combative, rude, and openly dismissive of his critics.

And I have to say, I admire him greatly for those qualities. I've had quite enough of seeing milquetoast cuckservatives being nominated by their parties, only to go down to honourable defeat against those who believe that the Constitution is worth less than toilet paper.

Call him what you will, though- the one pejorative that cannot be applied to him any longer is "unprincipled". While the details of his personal views have indeed changed over the years, the core message and theme of a strong, self-reliant America guided on nationalistic principles that put the American people first, has never changed.

There is only one other candidate for President that I can think of who maintained that same kind of rock-ribbed principle over the course of nearly thirty years in electoral politics: Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Not yet. (If it weren't for the fact that I consider edifices to past Presidents to be more than a little out of touch with the values of this country's Founding and Constitution, I would be among those arguing hardest for President Reagan's face to be added to Mt. Rushmore.) But he has the chance to do the same thing the Gipper did: give America back her true self, and restore its people to greatness.

Few today remember that when "Dutch" ran for President in 1980, his ideas about how to rebuild America's economy, refocus her military, and defeat the Soviet Union were considered outright lunacy by the "establishment". They thought that he was going to start an outright nuclear war just for shits and giggles. They hated everything he stood for, because he posed a true existential threat to their entire worldview.

When he was elected- in an electoral landslide, no less- his foremost critics damn near went into cardiac arrest. To them, the inmates were well and truly running the asylum.

And yet, look what happened. "Dusty" went on to become the greatest President since Calvin Coolidge.

Now let's be straight about this: Donald J. Trump is NOT the second coming of Ronald W. Reagan. Not even close. President Reagan had an eloquence and a deftness of touch that Mr. Trump simply does not possess, along with a sunny optimism and a folksy wit that disarmed even his fiercest critics almost at will. Mr. Trump does not have any of these attributes.

Yet the comparison between the two remains an apt one.

Both were, and are, men of principle. Both were, and are, outsiders. Both were, and are, absolutely loathed by the "establishment".

And both were, or are being, given a once-in-a-generation opportunity to correct the course of American politics.

Can Mr. Trump do it? I have no idea. He faces the toughest tests since President Reagan himself entered office, and I simply don't have a clue as to whether a President Trump would be able to handle them.

What I have seen thus far, though, is encouraging.

Mr. Trump's platform of American nationalism is resonating with the people in a way that I have not seen since I first arrived in this land*. He has broken almost all of the old rules of American politics. He is the only political candidate from either wing of the One Party of Big Government who is actually talking about things that really matter. And he is the only serious candidate who has had the balls and the heart to take the fight right to the doors of his enemies.

He will not bend. He will not break. He will not back down.

And if he stays true to himself and to the American people, I think he will win, and win well.

The alternative is 4 years- more likely 8- of The Bitch. From what I know of female politicians, with very few exceptions they are utterly incapable of restraining themselves in their wanton abuses of the powers that they are given. (The only exception that I can really think of is the Iron Lady, Prime Minister Thatcher herself. And even she was far from cautious in her use of power.)

Make no mistake: if the Hilldebeast wins, one way or another, it will be THE END of the great American experiment in self-determination. That experiment is already very nearly dead; eight years of President Odumbass have reduced a large segment of the people to the yoke of gentle (for now) government despotism; the few remaining freedoms of the rest will be taken, one way or another, if The Bitch has her way.

Will the God-Emperor Trump manage to do any better? I haven't the first clue. But all of the evidence we have available to us thus far indicates that he will be far less interested in meddling with the personal freedoms of the American people than his counterpart.

We could well be horribly mistaken. He might turn out to be another Dubya. But at least with Mr. Trump, we have some assurances that he won't turn out to be Sauron the Deceiver made flesh.

And for now, that is reason enough to vote for a man who has shown, repeatedly, that he has principles, and is willing to take enormous risks to defend them.

*It so happens that today marks 10 years since I arrived in America. I didn't think I'd be here this long, but here I am.

Sunday, 21 August 2016

"The Last Stand"

SABATON's latest album is finally out, and it is indeed very damn good. I find it difficult to choose the "best" track off the whole thing, but if I were pressed, I would probably pick the title track:

It's not often that you hear a metal band- from Sweden, no less- perform a song that praises the name of the Lord while making a point about courage and sacrifice. But then, SABATON are not your typical metal band.

They're silly, they're over the top, they can be gloriously non-PC at times- and they are quite simply one of the best heavy metal acts out there today.

And, as I said, it is hard to pin down the "best" track on this album. The first track, for instance, might as well have been the marching music for the legendary 300:

Thursday, 18 August 2016

I fail to see the problem

Apparently some unhappy feminists are annoyed with a certain Michelle Jenneke- you may recall the name- who is becoming better known for her bouncing, uh, assets than she is for bouncing over hurdles:
Michelle Jenneke has been eliminated from the Olympics after performing her trademark warm-up dance. 
The high-profile Australian trailed home sixth in her 100m hurdles heat in Rio de Janeiro in 13.26 seconds, almost half a second slower than her personal best set last year. 
Despite there being high hopes for the bubbly 23-year-old - who was this year named the face of Coca Cola's Rio campaign alongside Jamaican Kemar Bailey-Cole - the one-time Sports Illustrated model did not even make it to the finals. 
After the race Jenneke said she was disappointed with 'one of the worst races I've ever done', saying she's been struggling with nerve pain for two weeks. 
'I've been on the table every day sorting that out,' Jenneke said. 
'But unfortunately I felt it grab on hurdle two. 
'I tried to push past it but just couldn't get the same drive off my leg I wanted to.' 
However, she admitted she should have run faster but didn't.
Well, let's take a look into the substance of the issue first. Apparently the complaint is that the lissome Ms. Jenneke has had breast implants, and then there is something about how she is better known for her glamour modeling than she is for her track performances, and at that point I rather lost interest because articles about women's sports are boring that way.

So. Here is what young Michelle looked like back in 2012, when she was just 19 and was warming up at some event in Barcelona:

And here is what she looks like these days:

Yeah, it's a gratuitous and tacky display. So what? Like that old and worn-out meme goes, if you noticed her eyes first, I have bad news for you...

Anyway, judge for yourself about whether or not she has had "performance enhancements" done to her bouncy bits. It's not a question with which I find myself overly concerned.

Now, as I have said about Ms. Jenneke in the past, once you get rid of the makeup and the stand-to-attention outfits, what you'll find is that her face is a bit odd-looking. I would go so far as to argue that her squared jaw makes her look a bit mannish.

But absolutely nothing about her face, her outfits, or her athletic performances take away from the real reason why she gets so much attention. And, contrary to what our friends in the media might like to believe, that reason is not actually directly related to her bust size.

It has to do with the fact that if you look at her, you see a cheerful, bubbly, happy young woman who looks like she is practically bursting with the joy of being alive.

She exudes warmth and femininity at all times. Her smile dazzles whether she is doing squats in the gym, laps in the pool, or stretches on the track. No matter what she is doing, she looks happy to be doing it.

If these traits make her a bad female athlete, I argue that we need a hell of a lot more just like her. (And like Simona Halep, while we're on the subject.)

These are traits that are immediately attractive and attention-worthy to anyone, regardless of sex. Men are instinctively drawn to happy women; they are instantly attractive, pleasant to be around, and immensely good company.

Some of the happiest times that I can remember have been spent in the company of a dear friend of mine who has that same kind of million-watt smile and that same effortlessly pleasant manner. She was a joy to be around, and it was easy to lose track of time in her company. She was, and is, the kind of woman who makes people feel better just by her very presence. (Which is ironic to say the least, given that she is known to curse like a sailor and is very much a Mama Bear when it comes to her kids.)

So you'll forgive me if I have a difficult time holding Ms. Jenneke's smile and cheerful manner against her.

She probably is going to go down in history as being afflicted with a classic case of Kournikova Syndrome. And you know what? As long as she doesn't squander her very obvious genetic and other gifts in pursuit of hedonistic excesses, there is nothing in the world wrong with that.

Like most of the alt-right, I am very harsh in criticising beautiful women who waste their gifts in opening their legs for every high-status man that winks at them. I do so because I also recognise a basic fact: a woman's most important and valuable assets are always going to be her youth, her beauty, and her fertility.

The unhappiest people that I have ever had the displeasure of knowing are women in their mid-30s who were once beautiful but are now faded and worn by their careers and have sacrificed their greatest assets for the high-flying lifestyle that they were told was their birthright. Michelle Jenneke strikes me as a young woman who will (hopefully) avoid that fate.

So that deals with the "question" of whether Ms. Jenneke has had breast implants. Maybe she has, and maybe she hasn't. Who cares? When she looks that happy to be alive, and is so cheerful and graceful in all of her public appearances, does it particularly matter? She is young and, in the right outfit and with the right makeup, really quite fetching. Good for her- she plainly has the business sense and savvy to capitalise on her most important assets, so more power to her for that.

As long as she keeps her head firmly planted above her shoulders and doesn't let her fame run away with her- or, worse, squander her greatest assets in pursuing that fame recklessly- then I simply cannot see what the complaint is here.

That leaves the "problem" of her lackluster athletic performances at the Olympics this year.

Leave aside the fact that I generally could not care less about the Olympics, unless there is something involving Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt pulling off yet another incredible achievement. (Or women's beach volleyball players- and then only because of the bikinis.) I'm going to do our friends over in the world of sports journalism a small favour and point out a basic, immutable truth about women's sports to them:
We just don't give a flying proverbial about where Michelle Jenneke, or most female athletes for that matter, placed in their various sporting events. Most of us guys don't pay attention to women's sports. There is no reason why we should; the athletic achievements are nowhere near as impressive as those of  the men.

It doesn't particularly matter where you look- women's sports, as an almost universal rule, attract far fewer viewers and far less attention than men's sports because they are, quite frankly, boring by comparison. The level of athleticism on display is not as great. The degree of skill involved is generally lower. The ferocity of the competition is much less impressive.

The only exception that I can think of to this general rule is women's MMA. And even that exception only applies when it involves a certain Ronda Rousey- who spent a significant part of her career implying or even outright claiming that she could defeat men far bigger and stronger than her, and who honestly thought that she "could beat every girl in [her] division with one hand behind [her] back". She was proven spectacularly wrong when Holly Holm landed a superbly timed head kick to her neck and jaw and put paid to that claim.

The rest of the time, women's sports just do not warrant much by way of attention.

So, really, who cares whether Ms. Jenneke got implants or not? And who cares whether her athletic performance suffered as a result of all of the attention that is being paid to her (not inconsiderable) looks? She's young, she's quite pretty, and she knows how to make the most of those facts. Good for her.

If she wins Olympic gold in the process, even better for her. But that won't be why she is remembered. And there really isn't much wrong with that.