- About Vox Day
- VD on Amazon | Brainstorm
- Darkstream | GabTV
- Castalia House bookstore
- Dark Lord Consulting
- RULES OF THE BLOG
- mailvox | writing
- economics | free trade
- cartoons | immigration
- atheism | science
- books | evolution
- vibrancy | sports
- trainwreck | McRapey
- Rules of Writing | SFWA
- Book Reviews | Lions Den
- Banned Trolls | Fifth Horseman
- Umberto Eco translations
- Selenoth | Quantum Mortis
PRINT AND AUDIO
Vol 1.2: Karl Denninger
Vol 1.3: Nick Novello
Vol 1.4: John Julius Norwich
Vol 1.5: John O'Neill
Vol 1.6: Rep. Thad McCotter
Vol 1.7: John Hawkins
Vol 1.8: Steve Keen
Vol 1.9: James Delingpole
- The Landmark Thucydides
- America's Great Depression
- Liberal Fascism
- The Divine Comedy: Inferno
- On the Existence of Gods
- Team Calvin: Five Questions
- Dissecting the Skeptics
- The Non-Dilemma of Euthyphro
- The Fifth Horseman
- Umberto Eco
- Jonah Goldberg
- Daniel Hannan
- Moshe Feiglin
- Ian Wishart
- Dinesh D'Souza
- James Delingpole
- John Derbyshire (Doomed)
- John Derbyshire (NRO)
- Jonathan Haidt
- John Romero
- John Williams
- David Frum
- Thomas Woods
- Rep. Ron Paul
- Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
- Max Keiser
Interviews of Me
- Speculative Faith
- Talking to the Devil
- Strike the Root
- Ilana Mercer
- Alt Investors
- John Brown interview
- The Ranting Room
SITES OF INTEREST
Monday, February 27, 2017
Aside from free trade and perhaps some elements of nationalism, much of what comprises the Alt. Right ideology is outside of libertarianism; it neither contradicts it nor agrees with it. The goals of the Alt. Right are not mutually exclusive of those in libertarianism.While I tend to consider the Alt-Right political philosophy to be more post-libertarian than alibertarian, I do agree that libertarianism would require an Alt-Right-compatible foundation to even begin to be a practical possibility.
Whatever the case, I see many similar values between the two movements. The areas of disagreement, in my opinion, are secondary and not fundamental components. There is room for friendly dispute.
It is my sincere hope that both sides can engage in thoughtful conversations and work together when mutually beneficial against common enemies. Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, it has become self-evident that the Alt. Right, whatever its flaws, is trying to preserve the only kind of civilization in which libertarianism can exist at all.
I found it interesting to observe that while he didn't find my anti-free trade arguments in the Tom Woods-hosted debate with Bob Murphy to be convincing, he did pick up that Murphy - and other libertarians and free traders - have come up with no answers whatsoever to the problems I, and others, particularly Ian Fletcher, have raised.
I was frankly a little mystified to see that a number of people actually concluded that Bob Murphy won that debate, when all he produced was the same free trade boilerplate that we've all known for decades. He didn't even begin to address the substantive differences between theory and practice cited. But I suppose it is difficult for people to relinquish their grasp on defining elements of their intellectual identity, which is why it's necessary for libertarians to cautiously examine the Alt-Right philosophy before they can seriously consider accepting it.
The core conflict between libertarianism and the Alt-Right is that the Alt-Right is perfectly willing to crush individual liberties if that is necessary to preserve Western civilization and the European nations. And that is something that libertarians are going to have to accept if they are going to remain intellectually relevant in any way, because for all that the nation-state is a necessary evil, it is to be vastly preferred to the multinational state or the global state.
And those are the three options on offer at present.
I expect most libertarians to eventually gravitate to the Alt-Right, simply because the latter is both viable and coherent, while the former is not. I hope you will note that I don't say that with contempt, but rather, with regret.
Let the Days of Rage begin! #OscarsSoWhite
Well, that's about as close I can get to pretending to care about Hollywood's annual exercise in patting itself on the back. It's always nice to see people whose idea of political discourse and repartee is to incessantly call their intellectual superiors stupid publicly demonstrate their incompetence, though.
And when Tadashi's attempt to dutifully report the murder to one of his daimyo's lieutenants unexpectedly results in a second murder, he finds himself, and worse, his lover, ensnared in a dangerous web of deceit and death. For clan war looms over the mountains, the Tiger of Kai, the lord of the Takeda, is on the prowl, and shinobi stalk the shadows of the night.
SIX EXPRESSIONS OF DEATH is Mojo Mori's debut novel. A historical murder mystery set in a mystical version of 16th century Japan, it is a unique and enthralling tale. From the reviews:
- Fans of Medieval Japanese history or traditional Japanese culture will be pleased.
- This is an interesting tale of murder and intrigue during the Sengoku Era of Japan. This was a time of great upheaval and conflict, when the entire country was at war. A mysterious murder of a traveler outside of a small village catches the attention of a humble samurai, and before he knows it, he is up to his neck in a plot that could embroil his whole land in an unwinnable war.... The writing in this book is quite good. The author has a nice feel for Japanese sensibilities and aesthetics.
- The honor of the samurai is contrasted well with the cunning of the ninja, and both are presented with respect due their traditions.
- Author Mojo Mori's future is writ bright with this unique and sparkling debut.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
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.
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'.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.
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 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.
Today, for example, Morgan tears the corpse of the execrable Damon Knight, the founder of SFWA, a new one for his shamelessly hateful reviews, while yesterday Rawle Nyanzi defended backstories from the assault of fellow Castalia blogger Jasyn Jones, who shared his vision of a world ruled by the Pulp Revolution.
And that's just this weekend! We have not even begun to touch upon Blog Editor Jeffro Johnson's response to critics who seek moderation in the SF/F cultural war, Nathan's review of Yoshiki Tanaka's Legend of the Galactic Heroes, or Brian Renninger's exploration of a naval Napoleonic role-playing game from 1978.
Excellence in esotericism could well be the motto. Either way, if you're not reading it regularly yet and you have even a modicum of interest in SF/F, I can assure you, you're missing out. I suspect the second million will arrive rather more quickly.
UPDATE: As per a reader's suggestion, we have moved the blog to the main page in order to make it easier to find on the site. If you maintain a regular link to the blog, you should adjust the URL accordingly.
Labels: Castalia House
One in five species on Earth now faces extinction, and that will rise to 50% by the end of the century unless urgent action is taken. That is the stark view of the world’s leading biologists, ecologists and economists who will gather on Monday to determine the social and economic changes needed to save the planet’s biosphere.Meanwhile other academics celebrated the demise of the white race and encouraged open immigration to increase the population of those rich western countries now siphoning up the planet's resources and destroying its ecosystems at an unprecedented race.
“The living fabric of the world is slipping through our fingers without our showing much sign of caring,” say the organisers of the Biological Extinction conference held at the Vatican this week.
Threatened creatures such as the tiger or rhino may make occasional headlines, but little attention is paid to the eradication of most other life forms, they argue. But as the conference will hear, these animals and plants provide us with our food and medicine. They purify our water and air while also absorbing carbon emissions from our cars and factories, regenerating soil, and providing us with aesthetic inspiration.
“Rich western countries are now siphoning up the planet’s resources and destroying its ecosystems at an unprecedented rate,” said biologist Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University in California. “We want to build highways across the Serengeti to get more rare earth minerals for our cellphones. We grab all the fish from the sea, wreck the coral reefs and put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We have triggered a major extinction event. The question is: how do we stop it?”
As, in Zimbabwe, politicians dined on rare rhino steak.
If white people aren't supposed to care about their own extinction, why should they care about the extinction of any other species?
“[Africa’s] population is likely to go from roughly one billion now to around 4 billion,” said Dasgupta. “Can you imagine what tensions there are going to be there, especially with climate change coming and hitting the continent more than anywhere else? What do you think is going to happen when the arid regions spread, and a hundred million Africans try to swim across the Mediterranean? It is terrifying.”
Sooner or later, Europeans are going to sink the ships. You see, multiculturalism and Western do-gooderism comes at a price that is simply too high for civilization to pay.
Labels: decline and fall
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Sadly, the Democrats went for the Hispanic, Tom Perez, rather than the Black Muslim, 235 to 200. The result, of course, will be the same: TRUMPSLIDE 2020.
That’s the first bit of advice I offer to the alt-right. Trust no one. In the Reagan Revolution, it was impossible to tell the grifters from the committed. Lots of people attached themselves to conservatism, as writers, thinkers and commentators, simply because there was money in it. The term “Conservative Inc.” did not exist in the 80’s, but the idea of it sure did. Just ask Charles Krauthammer. He was a liberal speech writer for Walter Mondale and then he changed teams, because there was more money in being a right-winger.We saw this with the Tea Party too. It had no sooner begun to build momentum when all of the Richard Armitrages and Dana Loesches began leaping to the front of the parade and leading it into oblivion. Fortunately, the "Alt-Right is Hitler" tends to prevent most of the grifters from jumping on board the train, although CPAC's embrace of Bannon, Trump, and near-embrace of Milo may signify that they are going to begin trying to coopt the Alt-Right since demonizing it failed.
Related to this is the recent Milo flap, where he was cut down by previous statements he made in one of his “look at me I’m outrageous” performances. He was ever so close to finally getting onto the big stage, making it to the show, but now he has been sent down to the minors and his career is in doubt. The people in charge of the stage have strict rules about who gets on and what they say while on the stage. You either submit to these rules or they toss you from the stage.
Conservatives in the 80’s made this blunder. They truly thought they would be accepted into the club if the public embraced them. The people in charge don’t give a damn about the public’s opinion. They care about controlling the message and the media stage is the platform from which the message is broadcast. If you want onto the stage, it means signing a blood oath to promote the message and there is no room for compromise. There are two sides in this, pick one and live with the choice.
That’s why it is important to no-platform the people in charge. It would glorious if all Trump voters dropped their cable sub this month, but that’s not happening. People like their entertainments. What you can do is build your own media platforms by relentlessly supporting the new ones coming on-line now.... Supporting the media that supports you means looking for a friendly source before going to the mainstream source. It also means the leaders and big shots of the movement need to stay the hell off the mainstream platforms. Milo doing Maher did everything for Maher and nothing for Milo. Anyone who tries to get onto the big stage and mix it up with the mainstream media should be suspect. It is the Golden Rule, the man with the gold makes the rules and in media, it is the man who owns the stage who makes the rules.
The big lesson from the Reagan Revolution is that optimism is easily used as a weapon against the optimistic. All the “Morning in America” bullshit in the 80’s fooled a lot of people into thinking the fight was over and the results were a foregone conclusion. Young people were convinced they had been born into the springtime of a cultural revolution, when in fact they had been born into the early winter of a declining civilization.
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
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!
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.
1. Alt Desnica je desničarski politički pravac u istom smislu kako se desnica poima u Americi i Europi. Socijalisti nisu Alt Desnica. Progresivci nisu Alt Desnica. Liberali nisu Alt Desnica. Komunisti, marksisti, kulturalni marksisti, i neokonzervativci nisu Alt Desnica.
2. Alt Desnica je ALTERNATIVA konzervativističkom pokretu srednje struje u SAD-u koji je nominalno definiran kroz 10 konzervativnih principa Russela Kirka, ali je u stvarnosti degenerirao u progresivizam. Alt Desnica je alternativa libertarijanizmu.
3. Alt Desnica nije obrambeni stav te odbacuje koncept plemenitog i principijalnog poraza. Ona je ofenzivna filozofija u svakom smislu tog pojma. Alt Desnica vjeruje u pobjedu kroz ustrajnost i upornost te djelovanjem u skladu sa znanošću, stvarnošću, kulturnom tradicijom i lekcijama povijesti.
4. Alt Desnica vjeruje da je zapadna civilizacija vrhunac ljudskog postignuća te podržava njena tri temeljna stupa: Kršćanstvo, europske narode te grčko-rimsku ostavštinu.
5. Alt Desnica otvoreno zagovara nacionalizam. Podupire sve nacionalizme te pravo svih nacija da postoje kao homogene, neiskvarene stranim invazijama i imigracijama.
6. Alt Desnica je protiv globalizma. Suprostavlja se svim grupama koje se zalažu za globalističke ideale i ciljeve.
7. Alt Desnica je protiv ideologije jednakosti. Odbacuje ideju jednakosti iz istog razloga zbog kojeg odbacuje ideje o jednorozima i vilenjacima. Jednakost ljudi ne može se poduprijeti niti jednom znanstvenom činjenicom, a ona ne postoji niti u pravnom, materijalnom, intelektualnom, seksualnom, ili duhovnom smislu.
8. Alt Desnica je scijentodična. Prihvaća trenutne zaključke znanstvene metode (scijentodije), ali shvaća da: a) ti zaključci podlažu budućim revizijama, b) znanstvena profesija je sklona korupciji, c) takozvani znanstveni konsenzus nije temeljen na scijentodiji, već demokraciji, te je kao takav intrinzično neznanstven.
9. Alt Desnica vjeruje da je identitet > kultura > politika.
10. Alt Desnica se protivi vladanju ili dominaciji bilo koje etničke grupe nad drugom, naročito unutar suverenih država naroda koji su podčinjeni. Alt Desnica se protivi tome da bilo koja etnička grupa koja nije domaća ostvari prekomjeran utjecaj u bilo kojem društvu kroz nepotizam, tribalizam, ili pomoću bilo kojih drugih sredstava.
11. Alt Desnica shvaća jednadžbu: različitost + neposredna blizina = rat.
12. Alt Desnicu nije briga što mislite o njoj.
13. Alt Desnica odbacuje međunarodnu slobodnu trgovinu i slobodno kretanje ljudi koje slobodna trgovina podrazumijeva. Prednost slobodne trgovine unutar jednog naroda nije dokaz za prednosti međunarodne slobodne trgovine.
14. Alt Desnica vjeruje da moramo osigurati postojanje bijelaca te da moramo osigurati budućnost za bijelačku djecu.
15. Alt Desnica ne vjeruje u generalnu nadmoć bilo koje rase, nacije, naroda ili ljudske podvrste. Svaka rasa, nacija, narod te ljudske podvrste imaju vlastite jedinstvene jakosti i slabosti, te posjeduju suvereno pravo da žive bez da ih se maltretira unutar vlastitih kultura.
16. Alt Desnica je filozofija koja vrednuje mir između raznih svjetskih nacija i suprostavlja se ratovima koji služe za nametanje vrijednosti jedne nacije prema drugoj, te se suprostavlja svim pokušajima da se pojedine nacije istrijebi kroz rat, genocid, imigraciju ili genetsku asimilaciju.
TL;DR: Alt Desnica je zapadna ideologija koja vjeruje u znanost, povijest, stvarnost i pravo svake nacije na život i vladanje prema vlastitim interesima.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Just a few hours after Trump warned during his CPAC speech that "we're gonna do something about the media", he did just that after the White House barred a number of news outlets from covering Sean Spicer’s Q&A session on Friday afternoon. Spicer decided to hold an off-camera “gaggle” with reporters inside his West Wing office instead of the traditional on-camera briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room according to press reports.Good. Now let him revoke their press credentials. As Glenn Reynolds says, all they are is activists with a byline. They're not neutral. So treat them like the damned enemy they are.
Among the outlets not permitted to cover the gaggle were various news organizations that Trump has singled out in the past including CNN, The NYT, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News.
Several non mainstream outlets were allowed into Spicer’s office, including Breitbart, the Washington Times and One America News Network. Several other major news organizations were also let in to cover the gaggle. That group included ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Reuters and Bloomberg, however AP and Time have boycotted the event.
Now is the time to act. Now is not the time to play fair. Let them whine and cry. What are they going to do, call Trump a Nazi racist bigot again?
This is an unacceptable development by the White House. This is how they retaliate when you report facts they don't like. We'll keep reporting regardless.
Go ahead. Double-down, by all means! The God-Emperor will keep shunning you. And even more people will refuse to watch you.
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.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.
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.
We wanted to demonstrate to Europe that Crimea is ours, but that we were ready to discuss everything else. This was rather immoral, and I’m not sure if it really yielded any result. Nevertheless, we broadcasted this message, and those at the top were tasked with demonstrating our peaceful intentions. The shelling of Donbass cities, the murdered people, the mockery of the people of Novorossiya (not to mention the militia) - to me this price seems excessive for such a demonstration, so I have always been an opponent of the Minsk Agreements. They cannot be a solution to the situation, and this is obvious. No one on any side believes in them.The only way Russia is going to attack Ukraine is if an invitation to NATO is extended or if Donbass unexpectedly falls. Russia does not want Ukraine, because Ukraine is an expensive disaster. That's why all the neocon warmongering about Russia is complete nonsense; the Russians are attempting to build up their strength, not expend it.
We tried to wink at Europe, to show that “we are wonderful” and say “throw out the Americans.” They [the Americans] were the ones who brought the situation to such a critical point. This wasn’t successful and couldn’t be. The influence of the Atlanticist elites in Europe is quite strong, but we still tried to do this.
As regards Ukraine, Poroshenko demonstrated the same thing. This was not a game with America, but with Europe. Poroshenko says: “I’m sitting down with the Russians at the negotiating table. Look how democratic and decent enough we are to be ready even to discuss peaceful agreements with “terrorists,” because we so want to be in Europe.” That is, Poroshenko didn’t want to report before America, but before Europe. We and the Ukrainians competed in a certain diplomatic battle to attract Europe to our side. But this wasn’t successful - they didn’t believe us up to the end, and they didn’t believe us after Crimea, but after Syria this already became clear. It’s all about confidence and power. My declared ourselves a sovereign and strong regional power, and let others understand that now it is necessary to perceive us as such. Not our diplomacy, but our real strength. Historically it has turned out that if we are strong, then they’ll consider us, but if week, then there will be no consideration. Therefore we didn’t persuade Europe, and we couldn’t convince by such ridiculous negotiations. But then they were convinced by our air strikes on ISIS and other terrorists in Syria.
Poroshenko didn’t convince them, and he couldn’t convince them because Europe, from the very beginning, did not really engage in the Kiev Maidan. The Americans promised that everything in Ukraine will be really fast, and the Europeans won’t incur any responsibility for what’s happening. Moreover, the Americans forced European leaders (especially Hollande and Merkel) to participate in the Maidan. The “young partners,” or, more precisely, the vassals of Washington naturally don’t have greater freedom of action.
When Europe turned out to be an accomplice of the US and started to impose sanctions, then it realized that deliveries of gas were being put into question. Then Europe shrunk back in horror from the Russians and Ukrainians, preferring that everything be turned back to how it always was. The Normandy Format and the Minsk talks essentially revolved around whether or not it would be possible to turn back, or at least extend the status quo. Now, as long as the Minsk Agreements are recognized by everyone, there is already simply no other exit for Poroshenko and Washington except by breaking them unilaterally and beginning the final battle for Donbass.
For the Americans, this is a way to distract us from Syria, opening a second front which is the only way by which Poroshenko can maintain power. It’s nothing personal: they’ll impose this war on us.
We will shy away from this war and cling to the Minsk Agreements for the same reasons. We don’t need a second front and need a falling, not strong, Poroshenko so that Ukraine will collapse before Donbass will be once again annexed by the Nazi state. We will shy away from direct conflict, and I can even assume that comments like mine will be censored by major media outlets. But we have seen this and it is such.
Our bet is not to allow the Ukrainians to impose war on us and not give them the opportunity to take control of the border.
Which, of course, is why the neocons who hate Russia even more than Iran are seeking to try to start a war with both. Which, of course, would be disastrous for the USA; one hopes Trump recognizes that there is nothing in it from a national interest perspective.
SCHLAPP: On that front -- on that front, I also think it's a perfect moment to thank all of you for helping us elect what will be one of the greatest presidents that ever served this country. It's because of your work...
... that he made it happen.
BANNON: And Matt, I want to thank you for finally inviting me to CPAC.
SCHLAPP: Yeah, there's no -- the -- what was the name of the -- the...
BANNON: The uninvited.
SCHLAPP: The uninvited.
BANNON: I know there are many alumni out here in the audience.
PRIEBUS: I didn't like the uninvited.
SCHLAPP: Here's what we decided to do at CPAC with the uninvited. We decided to say that everybody's a part of our conservative family.
PRIEBUS: That's right.
SCHLAPP: And that's what Donald Trump has done to so many of us around the country politically. And you guys have put together an amazing operation. You know, I know you all know this, but the last time a president came to CPAC in his first year, it was Ronald Reagan.
(APPLAUSE) St. Ronald in 1981. And you've put together this -- the president has put together the most conservative Cabinet we've ever seen according to our CPAC ratings and I think a few of us are pretty happy about what looks like is going to happen on the Supreme Court too, so it's a...
Now, let me ask you two. I'm looking in the back of the room as well, but let me ask you two.
PRIEBUS: Is that the opposition party?
Read more »
ON TUESDAY, THE Department of Homeland Security released a pair of memos laying out how the agency intends to implement President Donald Trump’s executive orders on domestic immigration enforcement. In addition to calling for a massive increase in the number of immigration agents and the deputizing of local and state law enforcement across the country — described in the documents as a “force multiplier”— the memos dramatically expand the range of people who can be deported without seeing a judge.We'll see how it works out in practice, but if the plan has these anti-American lawyers this upset, it looks to be a pretty good start. The pre-1965 demographic balance isn't going to be restored overnight, and 80 million foreign residents aren't going to be repatriated by the end of this year, but the journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step.
“I see now what the plan is,” Greg Siskind, a Tennessee-based immigration attorney and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association board of governors, told The Intercept. “Their plan is basically to have everybody thrown out of the country without ever going to court.” Additional immigration attorneys and legal experts who spoke to The Intercept shared Siskind’s concerns, describing various elements of the DHS directives and the executive orders they reflect as “horrifying,” “stunning,” and “inhumane.”
“This is the broadest, most widespread change I have seen in doing this work for more than two decades,” Lee Gelernt, a veteran immigration attorney and deputy director of the ACLU’s national Immigrants’ Rights Project, told The Intercept. “After 9/11 we saw some extreme policies, but they were largely confined to particular areas around the relationship between immigration and national security. Here what we’re seeing are those types of policies but also much broader policies just dealing with immigration generally.”
“I expected bad based on Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric,” added David Leopold, a Cleveland-based immigration attorney and past president of AILA. “Then when I read the executive order, I expected really bad … but I’m absolutely shocked at the mean-spiritedness of this.”
Let the Soros-funded lawyers file their complaints with the amenable courts after Pedro and Wang-Meng are returned home to Guatemala and Vietnam. We'll see how long their altruism lasts when there are real costs of time, money, and opportunity associated with it. It appears that portrait of Andrew Jackson hung in the White House after the inauguration was exactly what we suspected; it was provided as fair warning.
Of course, this plan isn't mean-spirited at all. This is kindness. Mean-spirited is what is going to come if these necessary efforts to make the USA American again are somehow stymied. And it will only get worse, considerably worse, from there. Because the God-Emperor is not going to let America or Western civilization die under the feet of tens of millions of unnecessary and unwanted invaders.
It's time to go home.
“America is not only for the whites, but it is for all. Who is the American? The American is you, me and that. When we go to America we will become Americans and there is no a race or nationalism called America and the Americans are those Africans, Indians, Chinese, and Europeans and whoever goes to America will become American…American is for all of us and the whole world had made and created America. All the people all over the world had made America and it shall accordingly be for all of us. I will never feel ashamed when I claim for my right in America and it will not be strange when I raise my voice in America.”
– Col. Moammar Gadhafi, 12 January 2005
Obviously Moammar was an American born in Libya, more American than any descendant of the Pilgrims who doesn't believe that America is a Judeo-Christian Proposition Melting Pot of Immigrants.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
In a hard-hitting speech, the head of a major conservative organization argued that the so-called "alt-right" is actually just a cover for a "hate-filled left-wing fascist group" seeking to undermine conservatism.Seriously, who listens to these idiots anymore? We're not trying to worm our way into their ranks. We reject conservativism and we reject conservatives just as we reject noble defeat, futility, and failure. Do you know how to confirm that Milo truly isn't Alt-Right? Because he agreed to speak at CPAC. I'd no more agree to speak there than to a meeting of Whigs or Popolares.
Speaking at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference just outside Washington, D.C., American Conservative Union Executive Director Dan Schneider sought to cast the loosely organized movement with ties to white nationalists that played a role in last year's elections out of the conservative coalition.
"There is a sinister organization that is trying to worm its way into our ranks and we must not be duped," he told thousands of grassroots conservatives. "Just a few years ago, this hate-filled left-wing fascist group hijacked the very term 'alt-right.' That term has been used for a long time in a very good and normal way."
The speech was the latest salvo in an ongoing war among conservatives about what to do about the alt-right, which was galvanized by President Trump's populist campaign for the White House. Some members of the American Conservative Union's board, including President Matt Schlapp, rallied around Trump despite concerns about his breaks from conservative ideology.
Conservatism is mortally wounded. It is conceptually cancer-stricken. It clings desperately to its pseudo-ideology in a world of identity. It is an outdated and irrelevant posture, nothing more.
UPDATE: Did a Darkstream on Periscope about the cucks and cons attacking the Alt-Right. Longest, best-attended one yet! The replay is here.
Project Veritas released 119 hours of raw audio in a WikiLeaks style dump, with over 100 more hours still yet to be released. The audio was secretly recorded in 2009 by an anonymous source inside CNN's Atlanta headquarters who we are identifying as Miss X. The tapes contain soundbites from current and previous CNN employees Joe Sterling, Arthur Brice, and Nicky Robertson, as well as numerous others. Project Veritas is also offering a $10,000 award for content that exposes media malfeasance. The tapes show CNN's misrepresentation of polling data:One would hope there is something rather more damning than that in all those hours of recordings.
Miss X: "I read a CNN poll that was taken on June 26 and 28th, and I know that the hearing for the case, the fire fighters case was on the 29th, so the poll was done right before it, and those are still the poll results we're reporting, so I asked someone in DC who does the poll results about why we hadn't updated it, and said there were a few newer polls from last week and the week before and there's CBS news polls and a Rasmussen poll, and he said we don't use Rasmussen, and I said does CNN plan to do another poll if we're only using that. He said we're not going to be doing another poll, those are the results we'll be using. So I don't see how that's reporting all sides because that poll said hold for release until Friday the 10th."
Arthur Brice: "Who did you talk with?"
Miss X: "Paul [CNN's Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser]."
Arthur Brice: "Yeah, he's your director. Yeah, he's pretty high up in the food chain. I agree. I think it's dishonest to use outdated information if new information shows something that is in variance with what you're reporting. It's just, it's dishonest."
The same apathy towards reporting accurate poll numbers was seen in the way CNN released inaccurate poll numbers about Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.
Miss X: "This wasn't released until two weeks after. So can we say a newly released poll?"
Joe Sterling: "No, you can't say that. You can't say that at all. This isn't a newly released."
Miss X: "But it says newly released on Friday."
Joe Sterling: "I know, how did we write about this? Did we write a wire about this? "I don't think we stand to change how people think of her [Sotomayor]. Geez, I mean if someone picked this up it's not going to change - it's not going to change anybody's opinion."
It's a very powerful observation: "You can still protect the children of the future from the predators of the past."
That being said, there is a reason that so many who have been witness to such ugliness, from Elijah Wood to Corey Feldman and Allison Arngrim, have not been specific, and are reluctant to identify the responsible parties. What that reason may be, I don't know, but I think it would be absolutely wrong for those of us who have not been victimized to demand that Milo do what those others could not. What we can and should do, however, is to continue to offer our unconditional support for him, and encourage him to listen to his conscience and to speak the truth without fear, whatever it might be.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that another survivor of child abuse, Moira Greyland, the daughter of confirmed child molesters Walter Breen and Marion Zimmer Bradley, was one of many Castalia authors who emailed me to offer her support for Milo.
I know you're busy. Can you let Milo know I am pulling for him and so are a crowd of other writers over here?
She also wrote a piece that can be read here. As adults, we are, in part, the consequences of the childhood experiences that shaped us. We all bear the psychological scars, and not infrequently from experiences we thought were positive at the time. Think of the narcissistic attention-seeker who has never recovered from being the pretty girl in 7th grade, or the glory-days jock who simply can't move past the game in which he scored four touchdowns, for example. But some of us were shaped in more difficult and dangerous molds than others.
When I grew up there were five little boys that I knew—all from different family circumstances, all of them, bright and smart and fun. One of them was my first official crush, and I must have been all of five years old, and so was he. There was a snow pile in the schoolyard, and we were king and queen of the mountain. The others I knew, too, and I even “dated” two of them, even though date is a chaste word. Once it was ice-skating and once it was a movie. We were always friends, but dating wasn’t in the cards, for what is now obvious reasons. But then it wasn’t obvious.This is precisely why I reject the notion that homosexuality is to be celebrated any more than drug addiction or smoking is. Some of you may recall that my band, Psykosonik, was signed to Wax Trax! Records. What you may not know is that the men who signed us to their label, Jim and Dannie, were both gay. Jim died at 47, less than three years after signing us. Dannie died in 2010, at the age of 58.
I learned later that when these little boys were little, they were visited upon by a friend, an older male, someone perhaps who was attracted to their brightness and wit.
They were funny boys. They knew what the convention was, and they tried to form attachments to girls. But they weren’t able to overcome what had happened. They felt that their lot in life was settled, that the map to their destiny was drawn by someone else, without their having a say in the matter.
Four of those little boys are now dead. Three died very young, one older but still young. One a suicide, and the others in situations that were brought on or complicated by The Disease. None of them married. None of them had children. They left their mothers behind, questioning, grieving, inconsolable, loving. Think of it: five families were prevented from being formed.
"How do we make sense of today's political divisions? In a wide-ranging conversation full of insight, historian Yuval Harari places our current turmoil in a broader context, against the ongoing disruption of our technology, climate, media -- even our notion of what humanity is for. This is the first of a series of TED Dialogues, seeking a thoughtful response to escalating political divisiveness. Make time (just over an hour) for this fascinating discussion between Harari and TED curator Chris Anderson."Such amazing insight, such as the idea that global government might be more akin to China than Denmark! How very fascinating! I've never paid any attention to TED for just this reason; it's third-rate pop intellectualism marketed to pseudo-intellectuals to make them feel smart. The amazing thing is that it has taken them this long to begin suspecting that Fukuyama might have been wrong. And they still haven't figured out that Huntington, and Powell, and Wallace et al were right.
"I think the basic thing that happened is we have lost our story. Humans think in stories and we try to make sense of the world by telling stories," the historian said. "And for the last few decades we had a very simple and very attractive story about what was happening in the world. And the story said that the economy is being globalized, politics is being liberalized, and the combination of the two will create paradise on earth. And we just need to keep globalizing the economy and liberalizing the political system, and everything will be wonderful."
"2016 is when a very large segment of the Western world stopped believing in this story," he said. "For good or bad reason it doesn't matter, people stopped believing the story, and when you don't have a story it is hard to understand what is happening."
"The old 20th century political model of left vs. right is now basically irrelevant and the real divide today is between global and national, global or local. All over the world this is not the main struggle."
Out of curiosity, I did a search on "globalism" in my latest book, the first volume in the trilogy of my collected columns, and this was the first one that came up.
From The Collected Columns Vol. I, Innocence & Intellect, 2001-2005
One world… one big, bloody problem
February 4, 2002
It’s not hard to understand why globalism is so persistently seductive to people of genuinely good intent. Long a staple of hack science fiction writers and the producers of Saturday-morning cartoons, the notion of one central and benevolent government for all humanity appears like a light shining in the darkness of a world that is still wracked by warfare, terrorism, famine and disease despite the past century’s incredible advances in technology.
Of course, it was pointed out several thousand years ago that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
In fact, if humanity’s past record is a reasonable guide, globalism may represent the single deadliest threat to mankind in our long, murderous history. The Economist has reported that in the last century, more people died at the hands of their own governments than in all the wars and civil wars combined—170 million deaths vs. 37 million. However, the implications of this fact for global governance have not often been considered.
Supporters of globalism are optimistic that under the aegis of a single government, the world will experience peace, one way or another. But even if we put aside the questionable notion of an enforced peace, which the Balkan conflict demonstrated is merely a matter of putting off today’s violence for tomorrow, it must be understood that an end to war is not synonymous with an end to violence and bloodshed.
Just as soldiers going into battle for the first time tend to think in terms of what they will do to the enemy instead of what the enemy will do to them, globalists envision one-world governance as an efficient means of imposing their views on others. This is why political activists of nearly every stripe tend to embrace globalist institutions even if they oppose a specific aspect of globalism. Thus the radical environmentalist who protests the World Economic Forum nevertheless supports the Kyoto Treaty on global warming.
But there is no guarantee that a one-world government will respect the laws, customs, and institutions of the traditional freedom-loving West. Indeed, the institutions which are most deeply enmeshed in the globalist movement show strong signs that it will instead imitate the autocratic habits of its intellectual predecessors. For example, the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 29, section 3, that:
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Jawohl, Reichsfuhrer Annan! Consider also the possibility that a coalition of Arab and African states might take control of the global government in the same way they’ve been able to exert undue influence over the U.N. General Assembly. Then everyone could enjoy the religious freedom enjoyed by Jews and Christians living in Saudi Arabia and the Sudan .
Unfortunately, that’s far from the worst possibility. Two of the governments responsible for the worst civilian massacres in history, Russia and China, boasting 62 million and 37 million murders, respectively, hold permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council. And for those who argue that Russia isn’t the same government as the Soviet Union, I have only one thing to say: If they’re not, then what is Russia doing on the Security Council?
Even in medieval times, intelligent people understood that the fact that one king was a wise and benevolent ruler didn’t mean the next one wouldn’t be a complete psychopath. For those of you without historical reference, I’m talking about a situation like the one depicted in the movie “Gladiator,” wherein Emperor Marcus Aurelius was succeeded by his son Commodus. The peril of central power is why America’s founding fathers decided to ditch the whole concept and did their best to break it up, scattering it as far and as wide throughout the land as possible.
Regardless of how global governance is implemented, it is sure to attract every evil, power-seeking individual and organization like pedophiles to a public schoolyard. The intrigues and conspiracies will make Byzantium’s internecine power struggles look like a student-council debate by comparison. Every would-be Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Mugabe will be converging on a single institution, and the most ruthless of them will be the winner.
The National Socialists had a saying that still sounds ominous now, 50 years later. “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!” One world, one government may not sound so scary yet, but it should. Because one thing is certain. Totalitarian government doesn’t improve with size.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Ilya Muromets is a big, ugly, motherless boy who does not look like anyone else in his Oregon town. His father is often absent on mysterious Church missionary work that involves silver bullets, sacred lances, and black helicopters. Ilya works as a janitor for Professor Achitophel Dreadful of the Cryptozoological Museum of Scientific Curiosities, and he has a hopeless crush on the Professor's daughter, Penelope, who pays him little attention and appears to be under the impression that his name is Marmoset.
One night, when Professor Dreadful escapes from the asylum to which he has been temporarily committed, he sends a warning to Ilya that not only is his Many Worlds theory correct, but those many worlds are dominated by an unthinkably powerful enemy determined to destroy anyone who opens the Moebius Ring between the worlds. And, as it happens, prior to his involuntary absence, the Professor left his transdimensional equipment in the basement of the Museum plugged-in and running....
So it is that Ilya, as he has secretly dreamed, is called upon to save the mad scientist's beautiful daughter. With his squirrel gun, his grandfather's sword, and his father's crucifix, Ilya races to save the girl, and, incidentally, the world.
Narrated by Jon Mollison, Somewhither, The Unwithering Realm, Book One is 22 hours and 9 minutes long.
I am writing you because whenever somebody talks about war in Yugoslavia or I hear balkanization, I think people misuse the term. So I would like to tell my view on the subject. I am a Croat, and I was a teenager during the war.
Balkan and balkanization as a term is specific of its geography where there are lots of small valleys, and a history of Ottoman rule, which together produced clannish behavior in Balkans. Croatia has roughly third of the country that can be considered balkanized and Bosnia and Hercegovina is epitome of the term. Thus war in Croatia was regular army vs clans in valleys, and war in Bosnia was clans free for all. Clans were excellent in defending their valleys (knowledge of the terrain and faith in fellow clansmen) against other clansmen. Croatian regulars which started with no weapons, when armed easily defeated clan-people in full frontal attack over wide front. Bosnia was a mess where Croats owned half of the land (17% of people) and were supplied from Croatia, Serbs (31%) had the most guns but little land and Muslims had 43% of the people and lived in cities and near a river bordering Serbia. Since you cannot hold occupied territory without removing original inhabitants, Serbs cleared Croats from north of the Bosnia and Muslims from the river bordering Serbia and populate those areas with Serbs who fled from Croatia.
Two main things influenced Balkans: geography and Ottoman rule. Geography is very important because most of the Balkans consists of small valleys trapped by high mountains. Ottoman ruled over most of Balkans for some 300 years. Ottoman reach can be roughly correlated with Hajal line. This had consequences on characteristics of its people. Geography and Ottoman rule made people clannish, i.e. most important allegiance was to 5-20 thousands people who live in the valley. Funny enough these people referred to each other as "zemljaci", derivative of "zemlja" which means both country and soil. Up until WWII there was not a lot of movement between areas so these characteristics were preserved.
After WWII Yugoslavia embraced a toned down form of socialism and government companies and government itself grew at accelerated pace. Clannish behavior demands that if somebody of the clan gets any managerial position he is required to employ its "zemljaci" foremost. Since this was going on for some 40 years most of the people in the police, military, and other government positions were from the other side of the Hajal line. The problem was clearly evident in Croatia because roughly the third of Croatia is east of Hajal line and most of those people were Serbs (in numbers Serbs were 12% in Croatia and majority in the areas east of Hajal line). It was no wonder that Serbs participated in police and government disproportionally to their population. When socialism fell these Serbs rightly thought that if Croatia gained independence their share in government will be reduced to their population share. Sprinkle a little incentive from Milošević and support from Yugoslav army and you have a recipe for a war.
War in Croatia was vastly different than war in Bosnia. Croatia was a functioning, Catholic, almost western country albeit without any armament (one year before the fall of socialism, Croatian government gave up its weapons to Yugoslav army, as opposed to Slovenia whose socialist leaders were not traitors). Serbs were 12% of population but in defendable valleys with ample weapons and ammunition. It took several years for Croatia to rearm itself and take over Serb-controlled areas. In the final battle, evacuation corridors were established so all Serbs that felt the need to flee can leave. Proportion of Serbs in Croatia went down from 12% to 5%. After siege of Vukovar and Dubrovnik the end result was never in question, only question was will reintegration be peacefully or not.
Siege of Dubrovnik is excellent example of the war. It was a turning point in the war after which Serbs never won another battle. The crucial battle was battle for Srđ, which was a battle for a Napoleon fort overlooking Dubrovnik. Numbers are interesting: there were 880 people defending Dubrovnik (some 50 000 civilians), forces in siege had 30 000 people and 100 tanks (hard terrain meant the tanks were of no use, and most of the soldiers were forced recruits). Actual battle for the fort started on Dec 6, 1991. 600 people and two tanks were stationed to attack the fort, but only 40 soldiers of the Yugoslav army special forces were directly involved in fighting. 42 people defended the fort. After a lot of artillery on the fort, two groups advanced to the fort. The advancing tanks were quickly neutralized, but after some fighting fort was overrun, defenders were out of bullets so a broken arrow order was given. After artillery died down defenders started to sing patriotic songs so attackers were in disarray, several wounded, without knowing who shot the mortar on them. Attack was broken and attackers retreated. Fort was resupplied by carrying ammo up the 600m hill on foot and the battle was over at sunset.
War in Bosnia was different because, especially in the beginning, there were not a lot of official armies and usually there were no established frontline but each valley established paramilitary and defended itself. This is very consistent with clan theory and defenders were very efficient in defending their valleys, because they knew the terrain, they trusted their flanks, and if they did not defend they would be slaughtered like in Srebrenica valley. When it was evident that the war in Croatia was over USA gave a go-ahead to defeat Srbs in Bosnia as well, but then stopped the attack after Croatian army swept some 40km of territory in one day, fearing flight of all Serbs from Bosnia.
Key takeaways: The number of soldiers in active fighting was low on any side. Clans are best in defending their territory but ineffective in attack. If you occupy a territory you cannot hold it unless people originally there leave or die. Trust that your flanks won’t desert their position is crucial, which would mean that homogeneous nation is essential for a successful recruit army, especially for defense.
We can draw a parallel with western Europe where ghettos can be equated to valleys and people in ghettos show similar characteristics to clansmen. Croatian victory shows the path, coordinated attack on all valleys at once and established corridors for retreat of the civilians.
voxday is fiercely loyal to people. But there is something else. He has an almost uncanny ability to sense who is seeking the path of righteousness, even if it is not superficially apparent from their behavior. Roosh has taken a far more spiritual path of late. Milo clearly wants to change.There is really nothing uncanny about it. Most people tend to look at others where they were, and judge them by things they have done in the past, even in the distant past. That is why the Left constantly digs through long-forgotten personal histories in seeking to discredit people; to them, you will forever be whatever the worst interpretation of the worst thing you have ever done or said is. That this is patently absurd, of course, is irrelevant to them. They care nothing for the truth, they only seek to destroy. They are little satans, accusers in service to the Great Accuser.
But they are not alone. Petty people always insist on trying to force people into the box of their past. They cannot conceive of change, of personal growth, or personal improvement, and they hate it when others make them feel as if their understanding of the world is incorrect. They will never stop trying to remind even the most successful, most transformed individual of his less impressive past.
Fewer people look at others where they are. And fewer still look at the trend line formed by what a man was to who he is now, thereby providing a glimpse of what he may one day become. The man I am today is very different than the arrogant young man with a record contract whose primary interests were girls, music, and video games. The writer I am today is very different than the author of Rebel Moon and the generic, obvious-twist-at-the-end short story that was rejected by Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine.
The individuals I appreciate most are those who seek after the truth, even when they find it uncomfortable or personally distasteful. I am far more comfortable with the seekers than with those who are convinced that they have arrived at the final one true understanding of God, Man, the universe, and everything, whether it is the Catholic Church, the Bible, or Science that provides them with the basis for their baseless confidence.
I prefer those who know they see as though through a glass, darkly, probably because they are the only people who are not hopelessly self-deluded who also possess the courage to reject the despair of the nihilist.
Not everyone who walks the hard and narrow path of truth is, or will become, a Christian, but it is a path that eventually leads to Jesus Christ all the same.
Freedom of speech is in trouble—and the only ones who do not know it are those who will soon find out. The idea of free speech is a recent one. It first emerged during the eighteenth century when Voltaire, the great French writer, said that while he might not agree with someone’s ideas he would fight to the utmost to protect that person’s right to express them. Like Assange and Snowden Voltaire paid the penalty, spending time in jail for his pains. Later, to prevent a recurrence, he went to live at Frenay, just a few hundred yards from Geneva. There he had a team or horses ready to carry him across the border should the need arise. Good for him.When people as diverse as Roosh, Milo, and MvC are speaking out about the danger to free speech, you can be certain that it is a serious problem. And, of course, this threat is only one aspect of the larger, existential threat to Western civilization itself.
To return to modern times, this is not the place to trace the stages by which freedom of speech was hemmed in in any detail. Looking back, it all started during the second half of the 1960s when it was forbidden to say, or think, or believe, that first blacks, then women, then gays, then transgender people, might in some ways be different from others. As time went on this prohibition came to be known as political correctness. Like an inkstain it spread, covering more and more domains and polluting them. This has now been carried to the point where anything that may offend anyone in some way is banned—with the result that, as Alan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind has shown, in many fields it has become almost impossible to say anything at all.
Let me give you just one example of what I mean. Years ago, at my alma mater in Jerusalem, I taught a course on military history. The class consisted of foreign, mostly American, students. At one point I used the germ Gook. No sooner had the word left my mouth than a student rose and, accused me of racism. I did my best to explain that, by deliberately using the term, I did not mean to imply that, in my view, the Vietnamese were in any way inferior. To the contrary, I meant to express my admiration for them for having defeated the Americans who did think so. To no avail, of course.
And so it goes. When the Internet first appeared on the scene I, along with a great many other people, assumed that any attempt to limit freedom of speech had now been definitely defeated. Instead, the opposite is beginning to happen. Techniques such as “data mining” made their appearance, allowing anything anyone said about anything to be instantly monitored and recorded, forever. All over Europe, the thought police is in the process of being established. Sometimes it is corporations such as Facebook which, on pain of government intervention, are told to “clean up” their act by suppressing all kinds of speech or, at the very least, marking it as “offensive,” “untrue,” and “fake.” In others it is the governments themselves that take the bit between their teeth.
On a related note, a visual guide to how social justice warriors coopt organizations and communities.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Walt was interrupted as the batwing doors slammed back, and a big, burly man stalked through them. His gait was unsteady, as if he’d already had more than a few drinks and was feeling their effects. He was dark-haired, with a big, bushy beard. His grubby, stained checkered shirt was tucked into black trousers that fell to mud-stained boots. A revolver was holstered at his right side, balanced by a long-bladed knife on his left. He was followed by what looked like a younger version of himself, dressed and armed in the same style, also not very steady on his feet.
Rosa hissed in anger, and started forward. The men at the bar looked around, then backed hurriedly away from the new arrivals as the bartender lowered his hands out of sight behind it.
Walt pushed back his chair, and murmured to Isom, “Stand by for trouble.”
“Got it.” Isom gently moved his chair back as well, to give himself room to move.
Rosa stepped in front of the burly man, arms akimbo, fists clenched. “I told you not to come back here, Señor Furlong!”
“Aw, shaddup, Rosa!” the man slurred, trying to focus his drink-sodden eyes on her. “I gotta wait here in town for a reply to a telegraph message, an’ I want someone to keep me warm ’till then. Here – I’ll pay.” He fumbled in his pocket.
Rosa exploded with rage. “You hurt my girl last time! She couldn’t work for two weeks! No more of them for you! You get out of here, and take your son with you!”
“Aw, you’re cute when you’re angry. Maybe I’ll take you tonight instead!” Bart’s hand shot out and grabbed her right breast, squeezing. Rosa’s eyes bugged out and she yelled in pain, pulling back, trying to free herself.
The bartender lifted his hands above the bar. They were holding a sawn-off double-barreled shotgun. He began to swing it into line, but Walt was faster. He threw himself forward, drawing his right-hand revolver, lifting it, then chopping down with vicious force, clubbing Bart over the head with the butt of the gun. The man collapsed as if he’d been pole-axed.
Isom was right behind him. As the younger man staggered unsteadily, reaching for his holstered revolver, the teamster grabbed his shoulder, spun him around, and launched a haymaker that came around with all the weight of his body behind it. It landed on the side of the man’s jaw with an audible crunching sound. His victim flew sideways, crashing into the wall with an impact that shook the room. He hung there limply for a moment, then toppled forward to land face-down on the floor.
“Thank you, señor,” Rosa said, rubbing her breast absently, her eyes on the revolver in Walt’s hand. “You are very fast with that.”
“I get by,” Walt said shortly, holstering the gun and looking round at Isom. “I heard something break – not your hand, I hope?”
“Naw,” the other replied, massaging his knuckles with his left hand. “I think it was his jaw.”
There is an expanded excerpt at his site.
Labels: Castalia House
Heads up -- a good friend of mine just posted your Milo post on facebook when I sent it to him to his wall. We were chatting via PM about the topic and I watched on my phone as all of his messages turned into "your message has been flagged by facebook for spam."We are. And we're going to win. Because everything they do is built on lies. Spam indeed. This is yet another reminder of why we need to build our own platforms. And we will.
His account is now gone and blocked. Everything about his posts have disappeared from my timeline, he can't get into his account.
We're headed for all-out war.
French far-right National Front presidential candidate Marine Le Pen canceled a meeting on Tuesday with Lebanon's grand mufti, its top cleric for Sunni Muslims, after refusing to wear a headscarf for the encounter.Unlike Sweden, France will not cower. One hopes the French electorate will see the merits in this woman.
Le Pen, among the frontrunners for the presidency, is using a two-day visit to Lebanon to bolster her foreign policy credentials nine weeks from the April 23 first round, and may be partly targeting potential Franco-Lebanese votes.
Many Lebanese fled to France, Lebanon's former colonial power, during their country's 1975-1990 civil war and became French citizens.
After meeting Christian President Michel Aoun - her first public handshake with a head of state - and Sunni Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri on Monday, she had been scheduled to meet the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Latif Derian
He heads the Dar al-Fatwa, the top religious authority for Sunni Muslims in the multireligious country.
"I met the grand mufti of Al-Azhar," she told reporters, referring to a visit in 2015 to Cairo's 1,000-year-old center of Islamic learning. "The highest Sunni authority didn't have this requirement, but it doesn't matter.
"You can pass on my respects to the grand mufti, but I will not cover myself up," she said.
Tuesday, February 21 2017 at 3pm
Milo Yiannopoulos will be making his first on-camera comments to press regarding the recent controversy over statements Milo made during Joe Rogan and Drunken Peasants podcasts. Questions will be taken following a statement.
Live stream is here.
Transcript of the full statement.
Mike Cernovich has some relevant advice:
Treat a PR crisis like a life-or-death fight.
Milo had escaped so many attacks. His Facebook response last night was inadequate. He should have been live streaming on all platforms getting his message out.
When #Pussygate happened, Trump listened to me by posting a video rather than doing press conferences. Trump waited too long, actually, and should have got ahead of the narrative.
When a PR crisis hits, treat it like a life-or-death event. Get on every available platform. Call your friends. Get on their podcasts. Do not let a narrative involving something like Nazism or pedophilia take form.
“Remember people on the way up, you’ll see them on the way down.”
Milo has done a great job at staying in touch with his base of supporters. He has a platform larger than most in traditional media. Today is a reminder why you must build your own platforms and own audience. Will Milo have a show on Fox this year? No. Will he still have a larger audience than most people in media? Yes.
Take good care of your friends as your platform grows.
As some people rise into the mainstream, they promote their friends and those who helped build them up less and less. This is a mistake, as when you hit a ceiling (see above), those are the people who are going to find energy to support you. If you don’t actively work to take care of them, they won’t find the energy needed to engage in a full-throttled defense of you.
Most people won’t have your back.
During a time of crisis, you’re mostly going to be on your own. Get used to it, don’t be bitter when people don’t defend you. Even if you’ve had the backs of others, expect them to be “too busy” in your time of need.
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.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.
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.
It matters in so far as it's an attempt to go after anyone connected with the alt-right silenced and destroyed publicly.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.
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.
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.