It has come to this

 

“Stop Islam”. No equivocation, no pussy-footing, no mincing words. “Stop Islam”. This in the country which produced Baruch Spinoza, gave rise to Amsterdam, and welcomed religious refugees from all over Europe even at the height of 17th century religious warfare.

The Daily Mail reports that the Turkish foreign minister has said that “Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders’ views were shared by all rival parties and were pushing Europe towards ‘wars of religion’.”

In short, all you Dutch white people are the same, social democrats, liberals, greenies, nationalists.
The outrage of the Left at Wilders (rightwing! extremist!) is well captured by Steve Sailer’s commentary in TakiMag this week.

Congressman Steve King (R-IA) has noticed just how extremist today’s respectable conventional wisdom has become. So King has been exercising a Trump-like knack for trolling the Establishment with blunt truths that enrage goodthinkers into revealing just how much their worldview is founded upon hatred of average Americans.

Over the weekend, King tweeted:

[Geert] Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.

Every time I try to think of myself as a moderate, along comes the frantic, hysterical reaction to obvious truths such Steve King just issued. I find myself asking, as I have occasion to do nearly every day, why is there is such anti-white animus from white people? I understand it coming from professional race grievors, even if it is the product of excessive tolerance by whites for subsidized attacks on ‘white’ civilization. But why is our civilization- yours and mine – so bent on self destruction?

Why is the statement, that “you cannot restore our civilization with someone else’s babies?” so electrifyingly horrid to the immense crowd of anti-white whites? I think these are the reasons.

First, because it is irrefutably true. Second, because it refers to the consequences of abortion, reduced fertility, and demographic collapse that feminism – for want of a better word – has engendered, but will not own up to. Third because it asserts that there might actually be such as thing as “our” civilization, which might have a racial or ethnic basis.

Touching three electrified rails at the same time!

I keep seeing this Thing, and I do not know what it is in essence, but in its effects, it is

  • anti-white
  • anti-male
  • anti-Christian

Yet I suspect that if this civilization had been founded by the female, the racially Mongol, and the Buddhist religion, then the Thing of which I speak would be equally anti-female, anti-racially Mongol, and anti-Buddhist. For myself it seems to be an inchoate rage of people who were never spanked, loved, restrained, and held to any standard of manners and comportment..

#ObamaGate, couple of thoughts to ponder

Fact: NYT, Jan 19, 2017

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

With visceral hatred for Trump emanating from the Deep State and open collusion between the MSM and law enforcement & intelligence agencies, why is it that we haven’t heard anything more than “oh, this Trump guy met the Russian ambassador”? Is that the best that Democrats can do?

Fact: Whitewater investigation ended with a blue dress

Where will this investigation end up?

The Trump-Putin obsession of the Democrats

Three data points start today’s posting. I have just read carefully the piece in the New Yorker called Trump,  Putin and the New Cold War, by its Evan Osnos, David Remnick, and Joshua Yaffa. And with greater pleasure I have read Fred Reed’s A Budget without Russians. We will get to them in a moment. My third piece of information came from a conversation with a senior counsel to Hillary’s campaign last August, 2016,  when it was virtually certain that Hillary was about to win. Let’s just call him the Counsellor. He was purring like a cat at the prospect of power and his role in the new dispensation.

The Counsellor’s views seemed to me strange at the time, indeed they were scarcely credible. He seemed intent on a revival of the Cold War and, perhaps more strange, a pro-Iranian, anti-Turkish position. It seemed reasonable to infer that, if Hillary had won, and the Counsellor had a senior position  in the Administration, then  the Clinton administration would be playing geo-politics with these objectives in mind:

  • keeping Russia small and weak;
  • assisting the Iranians (Shiites) to dominate the Sunni Arabs;
  • and doing their best to undermine Turkey, up to and including reducing its territorial extent.

What struck me about the Counsellor’s views, apart from the strangeness of pivoting in favour of Iran and against the Sunnis, was how belligerent this position was. It seemed bent on fomenting real trouble throughout the  near and middle east. By contrast,  Trump’s erratic behaviour seems little more than shaking the tree for a more favourable outcome to any bargaining that might go on. His apparent liking for a Putin – up to a point – seems no more than making nice with a guy from whom you expect to get something you want in negotiations.

Maybe I mistake the nature of the conversation with the Counsellor, and exaggerate his possible role in the Hillary administration that then seemed inevitable. But I am certain that he believed what he was saying at the time, and attribute this to  my knowledge of this guy over many years, his ardent patriotism, his whole-hearted commitment to the Democrats and Hillary, and the sense that he was relaying to us what was a settled intention within circles of the Hillary regime even more Inner-Party than he was. He was talking as if communicating a Party Line.

So back to today. Fred Reed’s piece “A Budget without Russians” provides the essential illumination.

 

“Methinks the insane hysteria over Russia needs to stop. It probably will not. For reasons of domestic and imperial politics the American public is again being manipulated into a war frenzy by Washington and New York. It is stupid, without justification, and dangerous.

The silliness over Russia is, obviously, part of the Establishment’s drive to get rid of Trump. Yes, the man is erratic, contradictory, shoots before he aims, backs off much of what he has promised, and may be unqualified as President–but that is not why Washington and New York want to get rid of him. It is about money and power, as is everything in the United States. Wall Street, the Pentagon, the Neocons, and the Empire run America. Trump has threatened their rice bowls.”

To summarize:

  1. There is an Establishment drive to get rid of Trump
  2. because he threatens an outburst of peace.

Reed continues:

What sense does this make–apart from money and power? Russia is an economically challenged nation of 145 million, less than half of Europe’s population and much less than half of America’s. Its economy is a small fraction of the combined economies of Europe and America. It is not on a war footing. It is not moving forces into position for an invasion. It is not mobilizing. To satellite photography, to NSA these things would be as obvious as leprosy on a prom queen. The Establishment would be screaming to high heaven if there were the slightest trace of preparation for war. The whole business is manufactured.

Indeed.

I have carefully gone over the Osnos, Remnick, Yaffa article on Trump, Putin and the supposed hacking of the democratic party’s email servers. Their conclusion:

 

No reasonable analyst believes that Russia’s active measures in the United States and Europe have been the dominant force behind the ascent of Trump and nationalist politicians in Europe. Resentment of the effects of globalization and deindustrialization are far more important factors. But many Western Europeans do fear that the West and its postwar alliances and institutions are endangered, and that Trump, who has expressed doubts about NATO and showed allegiance to Brexit and similar anti-European movements, cannot be counted on.

This is the conclusion of fact drawn by the authors, but you would be hard pressed to find it among all the heavy breathing and hand waving reported in the New Yorker article.

In short, the establishment believe that Trump is not politically reliable, and that, like Putin, he may be his own man, and for this reason they are setting out to destroy him, in the same way that Nixon was destroyed. I smell a judicial-political-media coup.

I keep wondering when some embattled US President will stage a coup and have a few hundred establishmentarians killed, just to get the attention of the rest of the Establishment that traitors never prosper. They play rough in the United States.

 

Milo! What are they doing to you?

 

The Americans are not a forgiving lot. They can be harshly judgmental and moralistic. They can be dreadfully PC: left, right and centre.  Milo Yiannopoulos is in the process of finding out just how much.

Apparently he made some remarks at some point recently that young gay males might discover who they were by means of sex with older men, and he meant people in their late teens, but the wall has fallen in on him.

I cannot imagine Milo Yiannopoulos NOT having made such remarks at some point in his short and much exposed life. In fact he made them in some radio show somewhere where he thought he had licence to be outrageous. He has suddenly been made aware that the United States is a literal, irony-free society, and can summon a fury of self righteousness in a split second.

In case you have been living in isolation for the past six months Milo Yiannopoulos is a provocative British faggot who has been talking about the dangers of Islam, feminists and political correctness to gays and to freedom in general. He has been getting away with it because he is witty, charming, fundamentally intelligent, faggy, well spoken, and essentially sound in his arguments.

He draws the opprobrium of the political Left the way a tank draws fire on a battlefield; if you cannot knock it out, you are doomed. Yiannopoulos has been drawing fire towards himself, including full scale riots at the U of C campus at Berkeley.

The idea that this fairy imp is a conservative shows how desperate the situation has become. He is only conservative of the right to speak and think; he is in all senses of the word a liberal. He is for freedom in all its forms, especially of thought, speech and whom you can laugh at. Nor is he a leftist.

As the Daily mail reports:

On Monday, he wrote on Facebook: ‘I’m partly to blame. My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous.

‘But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, “advocacy.” I deeply regret that. People deal with things from their past in different ways.’

You can read about the whole sorry mess in the Daily Mail.
I can only sympathize with Milo. He has been leading the charge against the atrocious suppression of freedom everywhere. What he forgot to realize is that nothing said anywhere escapes being recorded these days. There is no locker room, there is no refuge, there is no isolated cabin in the woods where you can let off some intemperate, irresponsible, or genuinely offensive remarks without them being recorded, especially if once you have been identified as a troublemaker, a provocateur, or an aspiring political candidate.
He will do time in the dog house; and he will learn an important lesson, that even outrageous faggot provocateurs must always be mindful that Big Sister is watching and listening.
There will be more to this story. What a gift that has been to the political Left! Milo’s usefulness to the cause of freedom has been damaged. Let us hope this particular tank can be hauled off the field and sent to the repair shops for refurbishment and an upgrade.
The people of the United States also like a comeback.
[If by chance you are stupid enough to believe that I endorse pedophilia in writing in defence of Milo, would you be so good as to find another blog to read? Thank you.]
 _________________________
 Milo resigned today from Breitbart.  What a loss to the cause of freedom!

Wrong White privilege pin colour!

This month the students at Elizabethtown College in US “are wearing white pins in the shape of puzzle pieces to remind them of their white privilege.”

The campaign was launched over the weekend by the Elizabethtown College Democrats, who say it aims to make students at the small and private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania more introspective about issues of race, especially in their predominantly white region of Lancaster County.

“Discussions about race are often perceived as being only open to people of color, but I think it is just as important for white people to partake in conversations about race,” Aileen Ida, president of the College Democrats, told The College Fix via email.

Obviously these students have right to pay $56,200 in tuition and fees to make a fool of themselves but at the very least they should get the colour of the pin consistent with history. The appropriate colour for the pin should be blue for the following reason.

The Pact of Umar, an apocryphal treaty between the Muslims and the Christians, that later gained a canonical status in Islamic jurisprudence states the following.

Obligation to identify non-Muslims as such by clipping the heads’ forelocks and by always dressing in the same manner, wherever they go, with binding the zunar (a kind of belt) around the waists. Christians to wear blue belts or turbans, Jews to wear yellow belts or turbans, Zoroastrians to wear black belts or turbans, and Samaritans to wear red belts or turbans.

Given that most of the White students are Christians, the appropriate colour for the pin should be blue. Using white as the pin colour leaves them aligned with the Ku Klux Klan. Is that really the message these students want to send? Even the Nazis got it right historically, when they specified yellow as the colour for the star that Jews had to wear as a badge.

Of course this left the Taliban in Afghanistan in a quandary, when they specified, during their  rule from 1996 to late 2001, that the Hindus had to wear badges in public to identify themselves. With no precedence for Hindus in the Islamic jurisprudence, they selected yellow as the colour of choice for these badges, thus staying within the confines of the Pact of Umar.

Michael Flynn’s political assassination by the Deep State

US continues its march toward a Banana Republic status with an out of control intelligence community in tow. The Week opines.

The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down.

The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. “Finally,” they say, “someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!” It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

Bloomberg notes.

There is another component to this story as well — as Trump himself just tweeted. It’s very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.

Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton’s nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush’s first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

All this was not an isolated event as WaPo notes.

Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

More disturbing is the release of SIGNIT related to this case.

President Trump’s national security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Monday night as a result of getting caught lying about whether he discussed sanctions in a December telephone call with a Russian diplomat. The only reason the public learned about Flynn’s lie is because someone inside the U.S. government violated the criminal law by leaking the contents of Flynn’s intercepted communications.

In the spectrum of crimes involving the leaking of classified information, publicly revealing the contents of SIGINT — signals intelligence — is one of the most serious felonies. Journalists (and all other nongovernmental citizens) can be prosecuted under federal law for disclosing classified information only under the narrowest circumstances; reflecting how serious SIGINT is considered to be, one of those circumstances includes leaking the contents of intercepted communications, as defined this way by 18 § 798 of the U.S. Code:

The key will be to watch if there is any follow through on this.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that the most significant question posed by the resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn is why intelligence officials eavesdropped on his calls with the Russian ambassador and later leaked information on those calls to the press.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which is conducting a review of Russian activities to influence the election. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

Given Trump’s propensity to never back down from a fight, this angle might lead to interesting results if the investigation proceeds in that direction.

The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.

The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility, multiple sources revealed.

I am a liberal, and therefore am a conservative

 

I am linking you to a long and heartfelt article by a former American Democrat who, over the course of 25 years, has become inclined to vote Republican without any change in his political views. How can this be?

I think many people who once voted liberal or for left-wing candidates have experienced the same emotions and the same evolution. They may smoke dope; they may support abortion rights, limited or not; they may even sort their garbage and take global warming seriously, but they have one thing in common with me, George Orwell, and you, dear reader. They can smell the totalitarianism emanating from the political left these days, the “smelly little orthodoxies” as Orwell called them.

In the 1930s these virulent intolerances and dreams of social control were in some fashion channelled by the Communist Party and its near equivalents. After the fall of Soviet Communism, we found that the same human impulses to control and domination were liberated from the discipline, such as it was, of Marxist thought. Thus without the discipline of Marxism and the Party, leftist totalitarian behaviour and thought spread out of its Petri dish to infect wider and wider sectors of society. The impulse to grievance and victimhood remains, even as the theory that gave it a semblance of coherence lies rotting in its grave. Which only demonstrates the truth that Leftism is an urge of the soul and ontologically prior to Marxism, which was a particular economic theory seeking to justify the Leftism.

I quote from Brad Torgerson’s article (the one I recommend you read):

 

A good friend of mine, who also happens to be an outstanding author, once quipped, “If I am forced to choose a side, I choose the side which is not forcing me to choose sides.”

Seldom have I ever encountered phrasing more apt. Because that’s precisely how I feel. I’ve been feeling that way, for years now. It was not a sudden thing. It was a gradual realization. The slow clarity of an underlying sentiment, incrementally surfacing…..

And later in his essay –

And I have been reminded every single day, just how far I’ve been pushed away — by so-called progressives in this country.

Sure, some of that is me walking my talk. I am not exactly the same guy I was 25 years ago. And not because I don’t think some of the idealism of liberal thought is not worthy, or even evocatively beautiful.

It is.

Liberalism — the kind I was attracted to in my teens, and early twenties — mostly focuses on brighter futures with better choices.

Yet at many points over the past quarter century, that shining picture of what the Left supposedly stands for, has been undermined again, and again, and again, and again, by the behavior of self-styled Leftists.

Maybe it all comes down to the fact that I decided Alinsky’s ballyhooed rules are pernicious. Not once do they involve self-reflection, nor questions of higher moral obligation to a power or a need beyond simple political expediency. Like with the 2004 Washington State governors race, the ends justify the means. If you’re a Leftist and you have to lie to get what you want, then lie. If you’re a Leftist and you have to cheat to get what you want, then cheat. If you’re a Leftist and you have to hurt people to get what you want, or if you have to frighten people into not opposing you, then hurt and frighten people.

Never doubt that everything you — the Leftist — says or does, is done justifiably.

Everyone and everything is a fair target. Lash out. Incriminate. Slander. Punish. Make them quake in their boots. They deserve it, the jerks. “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists!” Oops, Leftists excoriated Bush 43 for saying that. Now they themselves live it every day. “If you didn’t vote for Hillary, you’re with the KKK and the Nazis!”

Torgerson’s article speaks for itself. He joins a long list of people disillusioned with Leftist totalitarianism: if you are interested in the 1930s version I recommend “The God that Failed”, written by several important former European communists, and if the 1960s is your thing, you can try David Horowitz’ “Radical Son”.

I would say that, now, more than ever, we need an Orwell,  to remind us once again that patriotism and loyalty to one’s own people trumps (yes, that word) abstract professions of loyalty to the future, the road to which is made of human skulls.

 

Today’s Tedious Wanker: Michael Mann, “climate scientist”, apostle of global warming fanaticism

 

 

In today’s The Hill, a newspaper directed at the Washington political class, Michael Mann, of hockey-stick fame, writes:

“The era of climate change denial is over. Rejection of the unequivocal scientific evidence that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are warming the planet and changing our climate is no longer socially acceptable,” Professor Mann said.

“Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused, and they are largely ignored.”

Not merely wrong but socially unacceptable!

When will the denial of Trump’s election be over, and be no longer socially acceptable?

When will these people admit they were beaten? When will they start to learn? Probably never.

But back to Michael Mann

“We scientists are, in general, a reticent lot who would much rather spend our time in the lab, out in the field, teaching and doing research. It is only the most unusual of circumstances that gets us marching in the streets. Trump’s assault on science is just such a circumstance. And we are seeing a rebellion continue to mount.”

Michael Mann has for decades been conducting a political campaign through assertions of climate science, the  effects of which  involve economic distress to tens of millions if not billions of people, by raising energy prices, putting us off fossil fuels,  wasting wealth on inefficient wind turbines, all on the basis of a dubious assertion that human activities are the principal cause of global warming. The Ontario government’s windmill and coal policies are direct results of the political climate of ideas created by the likes of Professor Mann.

A reticent lot, indeed. More likely, accustomed to wielding power over the fate of humanity, and now angry that the sceptre of power has been abruptly ripped from their hands by Trump and his appointees.

 

 

 

 

 

Tedious Wankers 1: Michael Eric Dyson

American race hustlers abound. One can think of Al Sharpton, Van Jones, Jesse Jackson.  The new one on the block is Michael Eric Dyson. Obviously he is at least half white, and that makes him more tedious than less.  In a way the racism of Malcolm X came from a place of deep and possibly grievance. This guy is a nabob of the chattering classes, a professor of sociology at Georgetown. He appears on talk shows to denounce whiteness, white people,  and the baneful effects of both on his precious consciousness.

Let us refer to the words of Thomas Sowell, the American black intellectual, who has fought the ideas of the race hustlers all his life. Speaking in an interview in 2013 in the American Spectator, Sowell had this to say:

AmSpec: Let’s talk about the example of David Hume and the Scots and the path they followed.

Sowell: The role Hume played was one diametrically opposed by that played by most intellectuals as regards ethnic groups that are lagging behind. He wanted the Scots to master the English language. And that’s what they did. There were places all over Scotland that were giving lessons in English. The Scots learned that and it greatly expanded their cultural universe. I don’t know if there were any books in Gaelic in Scotland, and you were unlikely to learn chemistry or anything like that in Gaelic. The Scots came out of nowhere. They were very backward at one point. But from the middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century many of the leading British intellectuals came from Scottish ancestry, including John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith.

It was the same with the Czechs in the Hapsburg Empire. If you were a Czech and you wanted to become a doctor or a scientist, chances are you’d find the books you needed in German, but not in Czech. And so, again, you needed to borrow from another culture.

Hume understood that. Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore understood this. The kids there learn English in addition to their native language.

But nowadays you are told to cling to your own culture and glory in its past achievements, real or fictitious. In Czechoslovakia after World War I, when they were doing they were doing the opposite of what Hume had done, intellectuals were lauding the Czech peasant as the purist expression of Czech culture. And the Czech peasant may have been the purist expression of Czech culture, but there wasn’t a damn thing he could teach you that would enable you to become a doctor or a scientist.

None of this race hustling will stop until Americans of good intentions cease to listen to the Dysons, Sharptons, and their ilk. Yet they seem addicted to self flagellation. Why? Therein lies a question whose answer runs deep into the spiritual decadence of the contemporary leftism.

Cultural appropriation is both good and necessary for cultural growth. People like Dyson are too ashamed of their “blackness” – whatever that is –  to endure comparison to real standards of accomplishment, which he labels “white”. Dyson fails to understand that  we all once to learn those standards of accomplishment ourselves, and in so doing gave up living in our little villages and knowing only our cousins and our clansmen. Charlatans like Dyson keep trying to get American blacks to revel in their cultural and economic failure, and to shift the blame for that failure onto whites. If whites were not around, he would have to shift the blame  onto whatever racial or cultural group was dominant. That is the sum and substance of sociology, a collectivist system of blame apportionment and victim worship.

A rational society would fire every sociologist from university teaching positions and send them to work making coffee and sandwiches for people who do useful things.

Michael Eric Dyson is today’s Tedious Wanker.

 

Sowell, Race Hustlers, and David Hume