Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Let it be war, then

Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon- but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.
-- Attributed to Captain John Parker at Lexington Green, 1775
It would appear that everybody's favourite Dangerous Faggot, Milo Yiannopoulos, has landed himself in a spot of hot water after supposedly making comments that supported paedophilia:
The head of the American Conservative Union is defending his decision to invite controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos to the annual CPAC conference – even though he withdrew the invitation after videos containing 'out of bounds' comments emerged. 
Matt Schlapp, who heads the ACU, told MSNBC's 'Morning Joe,' indicated he was aware of anti-Semitic statements by Yiannopoulos, but decided to invite him to highlight campus free speech issues. 
'I think when it comes to what he does on campus … You have a right to be heard in America and you have a right to be heard on campus. And it’s not fair on campus that just voices that emanate from the left seem to be cherished and not voices from the right,' Shlapp said. 
But he took back the invitation after videos came out where Yiannopoulis described the benefits of 'coming of age relationships' – though the outspoken conservative said he was not defending pedophilia.
I stress the "supposedly" part because there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Milo is now the subject of a sustained campaign to destroy him publicly. His status, his celebrity aura, and his following have all reached the point where the regressive Left can no longer tolerate his existence- because he reveals their hypocrisy, their bigotry, their closed-mindedness, and their extreme paranoia to the entire world to see.

Interestingly, none of the media stories that I have seen so far- from both the Left and the Right in the media- actually show or provide the clips that have caused this uproar. This means that, if you and I didn't know better, we would have to rely on the lying legacy media to tell us what to think.

But we do know better. And this is 2017. So it isn't all that difficult for people who are actually interested in the Truth to go and find it.

To whit- here is a compilation of the clips that supposedly show that Milo Yiannopoulos supports or at least does not outright condemn paedophilia.

Watch the whole thing, and then make up your own mind as to whether Milo is a flaming (literally) hypocrite:

Once removed from the filter of the lying media, it becomes perfectly clear that Milo's only crime was to be highly imprecise with his language and very sloppy with his definitions.

Since we cannot trust the media to tell us the truth about what Milo actually intended to say, and whether he was in fact sloppy with his definitions and his language, we must therefore turn to what the man himself said:

Therefore, once we step away from the media's lies, we are left with several inescapable conclusions.

Milo does not support or condone or in any way paper over abuse of minors. Milo was imprecise in his language and probably a bit foolish in his choice of topic. Milo did not make adequately clear the line between humourous and serious conversation.

But Milo did not, in any way, do or say anything to deserve the treatment he has received thus far from his erstwhile publisher, his supposed "friends" among the cuckservatives, and from CPAC.

Now here is where, inevitably, unfortunately, and quite annoyingly, I have to state where I stand in order that people don't misinterpret what I am saying.

First: Paedophilia is among the worst crimes that any human can commit. Sexual abuse of children- note, not young men or young women, CHILDREN- is abomination. Burning at the stake, crucifixion, impalement, and drowning are too lenient as punishments for paedophiles.

At no point does Milo disagree with any of this. At every point, he states clearly that he finds paedophiles disgusting and abominable. As he has stated himself, he has worked hard to out paedophiles in his professional life.

Second: grown adults having sexual relations with teenagers below the established age of consent is illegal, and with good reason. There is a specific age above which it is assumed that a young man or woman is wise enough, and sexually mature enough, to be considered an adult. You can argue and quibble and prevaricate all you like about where that line should be, but the fact remains that it exists and must exist in any law-abiding society. In my personal opinion- and it is only my opinion- the 

Milo Yiannopoulos explicitly stated that he agrees entirely with the concept of an age of consent. His failure lies in refusing to elaborate or define exactly what he considers to be the age of consent.

Third: I strongly disagree with Milo's specific comments related to teenage boys having sexual relationships with their older teachers (regardless of gender). If you agree with the concept of an age of consent- and I do, as Milo does- then sexual relationships between someone below the age of consent, and someone above it, is statutory rape.

That is the line of the law. It may be arbitrary and there are surely individual exceptions where people under the age of consent may well actually be capable of giving consent. But the law says what it says in black and white.

Fourth: I disagree with and loathe Milo's personal predilections and lifestyle. I find homosexuality abhorrent and unnatural. I have so stated in a number of my posts and I state it again here for the record. I do not condone or endorse a homosexual lifestyle in any way. I certainly do not endorse a male homosexual lifestyle at all.

I also state, clearly and for the record, that I stand with Milo today.

This might seem to some to be a highly contradictory position. It is nothing of the sort. One can support an ally even when one disagrees personally with his lifestyle, his decisions, and his point of view.

Milo is an ally in our war for our culture. He has proven to be frighteningly effective at debating leftists- because he ticks off so many of their class-warfare boxes, and yet he argues on the basis of devastating rhetoric rooted in dialectic, fact, reason, and evidence.

Allies like that need and deserve our support.

Milo is not of the alt-Right. He has said so himself repeatedly. But without Milo Yiannopoulos, the alt-Right would not be nearly as formidable and powerful as it is today. We owe him.

We can disagree with him. We can condemn his lifestyle. We can get annoyed by his swishing faggotry. But we must not turn our backs on a friend who has gone to war on our behalf, and exposed himself repeatedly to terrible risks in the process, when he needs us the most.

So I state now that I stand with Milo in this war. I will buy a copy of his book, no matter where it ends up being published. If he requires funds to cover legal fees against the lawsuits that are sure to come, I will donate, under my real name and with my own money, to him directly.

His war is our war, and it is well past time that the fight was taken straight to the legacy media. Their lies, their faithlessness, and their betrayal of the very people who once trusted them, must be held over their heads as the Sword of Damocles. They must be weighed, judged, and found wanting.

And now, they must be destroyed. That is their fate, and they deserve it.

Monday, 20 February 2017

Confronting an uncomfortable truth

I recently finished reading through Gregory Hood's Waking Up from the American Dream, which is basically a white nationalist's perspective on the current state of politics in the United States of America. The author might be known to you as one of the contributors over at Counter-Currents Publishing- no, not the Leftist whacktivists who are completely cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs about your usual left-wing causes celebre, these guys.

The book makes for some decidedly uncomfortable reading if you are of the rainbows-and-unicorns persuasion with respect to race and culture in America, and especially if you subscribe to the standard conservative view of America as being an exceptional proposition nation built upon the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...
Methodically and ruthlessly, the author takes a sledgehammer to every last one of the propositions that make up the American Dream: that it is indeed possible for immigrants to simply come on over and become Americans; that any and all races can peaceably coexist with the white majority that built this country; and that white people themselves are anything other than targets for systematic elimination and degradation by their own government.

And he is absolutely merciless in his savage treatment of the mainstream "conservative" movement, as he tears it to shreds for not having "conserved" a damn thing. This is a recurring theme throughout the collection of articles presented in this book, wherein Mr. Hood is unsparing and withering in his criticism of the National Review conservatives who insist on going along to get along, and who have as a result inevitably and categorically failed to "[stand] athwart history, yelling 'STOP!'".

The book is well worth reading for many reasons, including the fact that it forces even alt-Right types like us, who accept many of the things that he is talking about as axiomatic, to face very uncomfortable ideas. In my specific case I particularly disliked his assertion that American Christianity basically has nothing to offer anymore, and that the disastrous state of modern American culture is in fact the logical outcome of the universalist nature of the Christian creed.

It almost seems as if Mr. Hood is arguing in favour of secularism and atheism, when any halfway reasonably informed member of the alt-Right will immediately recognise and articulate the fact that, wherever secularism has taken root, disaster and tragedy has inevitably followed in its wake.

But the main point to note is that the catastrophe that is America's contemporary culture is a direct and entirely logical result of a severe misinterpretation of the Founding itself. And it is that misinterpretation that I intend to expand upon here.

A Founding Betrayed by its Descendants

The first thing to note is that America, whether you like it or not, is a nation built by white people.

You could argue until you are blue in the face that America was built on the backs of slaves. You'd be wrong, of course, given that both black and white slaves existed in the American colonies up until the barbaric practice was outlawed, and given that many of the thousands upon thousands of slaves sent to the colonies were in fact white Scotsmen.

And then there is the fact that, while roughly 388,000 black slaves were sent specifically to North America- I'm not talking about the rest of the New World, just the territories that eventually became the United States of America and Canada- over one million white slaves were sold by Barbary Coast slavers to Muslim nations over a roughly similar period as the one in which the American slave trade took place.

Kind of puts that whole "slavery" thing into perspective, doesn't it? Indeed, such a thing almost makes you wonder why February is named "Black History Month" in the US, given that the sheer number of white slaves historically sold to both Islamic caliphates and European colonies far exceeds the number of black slaves sold to the United States of America.

(If anything, Islamic nations should be held accountable for the tens of millions of black Africans that they have sold into slavery over the past 14 centuries. Slavery was, and still is, very much a trait of Islamic government.)

Having summarily dealt with the contentious but extremely badly informed arguments about black contributions to America, whether voluntary or otherwise, let us accept the fact that without white people, America would not be what it is today.

The plain truth is that just about everything that is good and great about modern America exists because of whites.

The entire reason why everyone and his cousin in India, China, Mexico, Brazil, and pretty much everywhere else wants to come to America and live and work here and seek the American Dream is because white people made it possible to do so.

It doesn't really matter where you start in American history. The same conclusion stares you in the face.

The Declaration of Independence was written by men who considered themselves to be free-born white Englishmen, and who were outraged at what they perceived to be the tyrannical actions of their sovereign.

The Constitution was written and ratified to secure the same rights of free-born Englishmen, and was informed by the rich legacy of the British Constitution, itself a product of over a thousand years of thought and action.

The first waves of immigrants that came through were almost entirely white Europeans. Whether they were Danes, Swedes, Germans, Scots, Italians, or Spaniards, they were originally Europeans and they mostly came from a shared cultural heritage that stretched all the way back to the Roman Republic- and in some cases, earlier than that.

That was true of the first great wave of American immigration, comprised as it was of English and Dutch Protestants. It was just about equally true of the second great wave, made up as it was of continental Europeans.

But it has not been true of the third great wave, which has taken place since the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization [sic] Act. That wave has been made up primarily of immigrants from Central and South America, Asia, and the Middle East.

These cultures are not European. They do not share the same values as the immigrants who came over and settled here. They are not white.

The Latin American imports, in particular, are among the fastest-growing segments of the "American" population. In the process, they are making a nation created, built, and maintained by whites, into a nation that is non-white.

And if you insist on making America non-white, by logical extension, you are insisting on making America not-America.

You don't have to be a neo-Nazi reading the Daily Stormer every day and screaming white-power slogans at skinhead rallies to know these things. You don't even have to like these truths very much. You simply have to accept them- and if you can't do that, then you're really not going to like what follows next.

The Breaking

Now at this point the usual mainstream cuckservative or liberal retort- usually also expressed in tones bordering on the hysterical- is that America is a nation of immigrants, founded by settlers from England who came over and established colonies, and then later expanded upon by European immigrants who came over and enriched America's cultural heritage. And of course, those immigrants came over and assimilated and became Americans.

Therefore, anybody can come over and become an American, as long as he or she adheres to the American creed of hard work, obedience to the law, and fidelity to the Constitution.

This assertion is usually followed by accusations of bigotry and racism directed toward anyone who might dare to disagree with such eminently sensible ideas.

Problem is, of course, that these things simply are not true. The "proposition nation" never was. It doesn't work- if it did, one could just as easily let everyone in South America, China, India, and Africa come over to settle in America and expect that the American system and way of life would simply carry on without issues.

But it does not. We know this after seeing more than 59 million immigrants come into the US since the passage of the Hart-Celler Act referenced above. Anyone with eyes can tell that entire areas of the country that have seen large numbers of immigrants come in, have experienced significant changes to their quality of life and surroundings as a result.

I've seen this myself- and remember, I am writing this as a non-white, non-European, legal resident alien worker in the United States. I can see it in the part of the country that I live in with my own two eyes.

All you have to do is go about three miles west of where I live, and you'll run into an area that is heavily Black and Hispanic. Unsurprisingly, it is a very different vibe out there than it is in the quiet, mostly white and Asian, area where I am.

The same is true in other parts of America too. One of the most extreme contrasts can be found by taking a trip out to Arizona.

Apparently, in the town of Nogales, Arizona, you can drink the tap water- or at least, you used to be able to, back before the wells surrounding the area became contaminated. But in the town of Nogales, Sonora, under Mexican control and literally right next door, you can't.

Or take black-run America, and contrast it with white-run America. Hands up if you've ever visited any of these cities: Detroit, MI; Newark, NJ; Trenton, NJ; Camden, NJ; New Brunswick, NJ; The Bronx, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Atlanta, GA; Chicago, IL; Baltimore, MD; Washington, D.C.

Every one of these cities has a substantial or even a majority black population. And every single one of them has some serious issues with crime, pollution, and civic disorder. Chicago is nowadays known as "Chiraq" simply because it is so dangerous. Washington, D.C., is actually pretty safe and orderly as long as you're in the "top half" of the diamond formed by the Beltway, but the moment you're in the southern half of the city, you're taking some serious risks with your safety.

And then contrast these places with white-run America. The best examples that I have seen during my time here thus far are in Vermont and Pennsylvania.

No matter where you go in America, you will find that even in the poorest parts of the country, white America is mostly law-abiding, safe, clean, civic-minded, and unprepossessing. White Americans can be loud, obnoxious, and closed-minded- and yet they are also far more capable of building and maintaining civilisation than their little brown and black brothers from foreign lands, even those who have been in America for generations.

It doesn't take a genius-level intellect to work out that if you insist on demonising and destroying the people who built America- mostly white, mostly European, mostly with a shared cultural heritage- then America itself will be destroyed. And that is precisely what we are seeing today.

Actually, while we're on the subject of intellect...

The IQ Elephant

One of the unspoken realities about race relations in the United States of America is that there are some serious issues posed by the considerable gaps in IQ between various racial groups in this country.

Here are a few graphs that illustrate the sheer scale of the gap:

The graphs clearly prove out what anecdotal evidence already tells us to be true: not all races are equally smart.

By extension, not all races are equally well suited to building civilised societies.

That this has civilisational consequences should be immediately obvious simply by looking at the states of the civilisations built by each of the racial groups noted above.

Starting at the highest possible level, we note that Africans have the lowest average IQ and the most densely clustered distribution out of the low-IQ groups. One only has to observe the visible differences between sub-Saharan Africa's current state and, say, Estonia's, to note that even imperial rapine and plunder cannot possibly explain away the vast differences in outcomes.

Parenthetically, it is often extremely difficult for white Americans and Europeans to accept the fact- well established through a number of studies- that Black Africans have an average IQ that would be considered to be the point of mental retardation in the West. Whites observe that the black folk of their acquaintance are affable, charming, and outgoing, thus they discount the idea that blacks have sub-normal intelligence as preposterous. Turns out, though, that these two character traits are not mutex.

We see also that East Asians have significantly higher IQ distributions than South Asians and Southeast Asians. Again, this is not surprising for anyone who has spent significant amounts of time in, say, India and Indonesia (which, by the way, I have).

And we see that Europeans are the next highest ranked group in terms of IQ. Once again, this has consequences for the quality and durability of the civilisations that this group builds. One only need visit majority-white American and European cities- or even Moscow and St. Petersburg in Russia- to understand just how well European civilisation has worked out over the past four thousand years of its existence, in various permutations and combinations.

Finally, we note that the gap between white and black America isn't merely an anthropological oddity; it is in fact a vast, yawning chasm of achievement and intellect.

I say again, you do not have to be a racist or a neo-Nazi to make these connections. I am not white. I am not European. I am not even Western by birth, even though I've lived in Western nations for better than half of my life. These things simply are what they are, and no amount of dissimulation and lying will change them.

Monocultural Nations from Multicultural Empires

So where do these observations, however painful and uncomfortable, leave us now?

It should be plainly obvious to any reasonably honest mind that white America is under siege. From all sides- including, appallingly, the voices of supposed "mainstream conservatism"- there are now calls for whites to be exterminated, for their communities to be destroyed, and for their way of life to be annihilated.

This is madness.

If America insists on attempting to rid itself of white people, it will cease to be America- that much should be obvious. But if America means order, stability, peace, fidelity to the law, and all of the other myriad blessings of civilisation, then it is the height of lunacy to argue that white people should be marginalised and even destroyed, and then argue in the very same breath that those who replace white Americans will then be able to maintain and even enhance the civilisation that white America has created.

The conclusion is stark and inescapable: America as we know it, as we dream of it, as we want it to be, is not a multi-ethnic society with many cultures sitting together and singing kumbaya. The America that everyone wants to work and live in is largely white- and if we get rid of whites, as so many politicians and immigration advocates are arguing, then by definition, we get rid of America too.

What will be left over will not be a country worth living in- because it won't be a country. It will simply be pockets of rapidly decaying civilisation surrounded by vast stretches of wilderness and even outright savagery.

Given the state of things today, I wager that if the Founders could see what their descendants have done to the nation that they fought so hard to build, they would quite likely have abandoned the entire idea of secession. King George III may have been somewhat mad and more than a bit stupid, but he was never this batshit insane.

Sunday, 19 February 2017

So here's a crazy thought...

Not to blow my own trumpet or anything, but it strikes me as something of an achievement that I've been able to write and post consistently for going on five years now. Most blogs don't last even six months, never mind four years (and counting). Fewer still, at least those maintained by single individuals, can claim to post with consistent regularity.

And if you were to go through my blog's archives, you will find quite a lot of good material and associated wisdom compiled over the years.

Not everything I write is of particularly high quality, obviously. Some of my work has been pretty poor due to muddled thinking, inexperience with writing, stylistic issues, and so on and so forth. But I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that there has been no evolution whatsoever in terms of output, quality, consistency, and literary style over the years. Indeed, I think that any fair-minded observer who went back and read what I wrote in 2012 2013 (ye cats, I'm getting old- my memory's going already!), when this blog came into existence, would be pleasantly surprised at how the style, fluency, content of my writing has improved.

Of course, my blog does not fall into easy categorisation. It isn't really a Manosphere blog, even though there is a core focus on masculinity and men's self-improvement.

It isn't really a politics blog, even though I spend quite a lot of time writing on the subject.

It isn't really a video game blog- even though its very title was inspired by my beloved HALO franchise, and my online persona, though an accurate and relatively unfiltered reflection of who I actually am, is also partly inspired by the personality of the IsoDidact.

It isn't really a philosophy blog either, despite the vast amount of writing that I have done on fairly esoteric philosophical and religious subjects.

It isn't really an alt-Right blog, an economics blog, or a single-issue nerdistry blog- and it sure as hell isn't a PUA blog.

It is all of these things, except the PUA stuff. It is none of these things.

In that respect it's pretty unusual among most Manosphere/alt-Right blogs, in that I don't concentrate on one cause du jour and harp endlessly about.

One could argue that this makes my output unfocused and scattershot. That is a fair criticism. And yet, people keep coming back to read what I write- because, similar to other (far superior) bloggers like Vox Day, I maintain a diverse range of interests and then try to reason my way through them into a coherent set of views and arguments.

Which brings me to an idea that I've been chewing over for a few weeks.

As a reader and friend pointed out before, it might be useful to actually put some of this writing, in some edited form, into an e-book of some kind, and put it out there for wider distribution.

Now obviously my output is not comparable to that of, say, Vox Day or Quintus Curtius. But there is clearly a point of view articulated here that my readers find valuable and useful, and it might not be a bad thing to put together some of that experience and wisdom in distilled, focused form and distribute it out to whoever is interested.

I do not pretend that such a venture would be a runaway success, but if the output was of sufficient quality, clarity, and wisdom, it might just help convert a few more Millennials over to the Truth. And that, in and of itself, is a worthy enough goal.

So- what do you think? Is this a useful venture? Or am I just barking mad? Stick your ideas in the comments below.

The swift vengeance of the God-Emperor

President Donald Trump- dear Lord Almighty, I don't think I'm ever going to get tired of saying those words- held a press conference on Thursday which was... quite the performance.

Actually, a correction is in order there. The event was billed as a press conference, but it actually ended up being a savage verbal beatdown of much of the White House press corps. And it was EPIC:

The odd thing about the God-Emperor's reign thus far is that, depending on who you listen to for news about what he's done, either he is the most incompetent, foolish, loudmouthed, narcissistic buffoon ever to have occupied the Oval Office (if you listen to the failing legacy media), or he is a competent, skilled, forceful administrator who gives his subordinates considerable freedom and trust but swiftly and ruthlessly punishes them if they prove unworthy (if you listen to the alt-Right).

Given how frequently and predictably and lamentably the lamestream media has gotten things completely and totally wrong over the past year, I'm rather inclined to go with what the alt-Right has to say about the God-Emperor.

Make no mistake, there are many things that President Trump could improve upon in his interactions with the press. He is not a natural rhetorician, at least not in the sense that he can deliver a carefully constructed and articulated message in the way that a Cicero, a Caesar, or a Reagan could. He rambles, sometimes incoherently. He jumps from topic to topic with seemingly little connecting those random changes in tack. He frequently gets facts and figures wrong, misinterprets or misplaces basic information, and sometimes takes quotes and ideas way out of context.

And yet he is a fearsome opponent for the mainstream media- the toughest that they have ever seen.

Why is that?

Well, as the Chateau put it a couple of days ago, the God-Emperor is not a rhetorician- he is a RETORTICIAN.

He does a superb job of taking the MSM's hypocrisy, blatant bias, and astonishing lack of foresight and vision, and turning it right back at them. His quips, put-downs, and outright slams of various reporters are delivered with the deft touch and supreme skill of a man used to taking on his enemies face-to-face.

Even when he gets things glaringly wrong- as he did with that assertion that he made about his victory being the biggest electoral college win since that of Ronald Reagan- he doesn't necessarily back down. He dissembles and dodges and changes the subject, but he doesn't apologise and he doesn't show weakness.

He displays classic, characteristic aggressive Alpha-male behaviour in his dealings with both the press and his enemies in the Senate and the House. He tolerates and even encourages honest and fair reporting- but he shows no hesitation in crushing his opponents when he needs to.

His critics in the press have no idea how to handle him- other than by displaying classic Gamma fighting-retreat tactics. Here is a perfect example from The Daily Mail- which, unusually for a big media outlet, actually does try to report things honestly from time to time:
During a campaign-style rally on Saturday, Donald Trump used a quote from one of the nation's Founding Fathers out of context to vindicate his war against the media. 
At the 'Make America Great Again' rally in Melbourne, Florida which mirrored the rhetoric throughout his campaign tour, Trump said he hoped to speak 'without the filter of fake news' - whom he declared the 'enemy of America' this week. 
The President then referenced previous American leaders who combated the media during their time in the White House. 
He said: 'Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln: many of our greatest Presidents fought with the media, and called them out, often-times, on their lies. 
'In fact, Thomas Jefferson said: 'Nothing can be believed which is seen in a newspaper'.'  
The clipped excerpt comes from a personal letter Jefferson wrote in June 1807 to John Norvell in regard to the First Amendment - which legally protects the rights for free speech and free press. 
The actual quote says: 'It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly [sic] deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.' 
The document goes on to describe possible ways to construct newspapers to distinguish areas of undeniable fact from conjecture - much in the way we structure newspapers today, differentiating news and crime from opinion and feature pieces. 
Several years earlier, Jefferson defended the necessity of the media, saying: 'were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'
The tone-deafness and lack of comprehension displayed by even this, one of the more competent media outlets, is amazing.

They simply do not realise that the rest of us cottoned on to their game a long time ago. Their much-ballyhooed separation of editorial and sports pieces from their headline news was long ago thrown right out the window. We of the news-consuming public know full well nowadays that fake-news peddlers like The Carlos Slim Blog, The Jeff Bezos Blog, The Puffington Host, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation, and the Clinton News Network, are not in the slightest bit interested in merely "presenting the facts". They have a clear agenda and that permeates their reporting to the very core.

We know full well that even once-respectable outlets like The Daily Telegraph in Britain have long since become SJW-converged. They report what they want to report, not what is actually happening.

After all, is it not written in the Imperial Creed that "The Emperor Protects"?

And even then, people still don't get it. I've seen posts by liberal Jewish friends of mine on my (pretty much inactive) personal Facebook account arguing that The Donald is an anti-Semite and has a great deal of trouble answering questions about his own inherent hostility toward the Jewish people.

Such an assertion is surely the product of an unhinged mind.

First, the God-Emperor has already clearly demonstrated his affection and regard for the nation of Israel and the Jewish people. He hosted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House recently, and showed clearly that he is far more interested in fostering close good relations with Israel than his buffoon of a predecessor.

Second, his son-in-law is Jewish. His own daughter converted to her husband's faith. His grandchildren are Jewish. The idea that Donald Trump is an anti-Semite is so ridiculous that even the reporter who pressed President Trump about anti-Semitism stated bluntly that he agreed with the God-Emperor about his outrage at the charge of anti-Semitism.

Turning to the "scandal", if it is that, which prompted this brutal, wanton (and quite delightful) beating of the unwanted stepchildren of the press, I also suspect that The Donald pays attention to the mindset writings of men like Mike Cernovich, even if he doesn't say so and even if he did disavow the alt-Right. (Technically he was repudiating the white-supremacist elements of it, but not necessarily the alt-Right's core philosophy of mounting a vigourous physical and moral defence of Western civilisation.)

When the whole NSA issue broke, Mike argued that it was a serious strategic defeat for the new Administration (which, realistically, it was), that other targets were being lined up by the Deep State and the lying media (which is absolutely true), and that The Donald needed to make a major mindset change and go right back on the offensive.

Evidently, the God-Emperor thinks exactly the same way.

This is not exactly surprising if you know anything about Alpha-male behaviour. Alphas have monumental egos (I write this as someone with a large and somewhat prickly ego myself, though I don't claim to be any sort of Alpha male), and do not take slights against their person or their "tribe" well at all. The natural response of an Alpha male to truly personal and dangerous attacks is to crush the opposition as brutally and ruthlessly as possible.

And of course, that is exactly what Gustavus Donaldus went and did.

My reservations about the God-Emperor remain. I have yet to be fully convinced that he can push through his legislative agenda through the House and Senate. He can issue all of the Executive Orders that he likes, but until and unless he actually signs into binding law some of the items he has talked about, it is going to be difficult to argue that he has actually accomplished all that much.

And his civic nationalism is, while highly refreshing and a vastly preferable alternative to the cucked and hopelessly inept bumbling of the conservative establishment, still not sufficient. Civic nationalism is all well and good in a largely homogeneous population with common racial memory and attitudes; it is nowhere near enough in a heterogeneous empire made up of disparate minority groups which seek to use government power and force to trample upon the rights of the white majority that actually built the empire itself.

Sooner or later, the direct, culture-based nationalism of the Alt-Right is going to make its presence felt. It's simply a matter of time- because we acknowledge Truth for what it is, however harsh and terrible, not what we want it to be.

Nonetheless, I remain optimistic that, based on his latest performance, the God-Emperor is likely to prove the single most effective leader of American nationalism that the world has seen since President Reagan. He may even eclipse the Gipper himself one day, and be held in the same regard as President Andrew Jackson- an American nationalist par excellence.

Even President Trump would be hard-pressed to do better than that, really. But he just might.

So I ask you, lads, once again- ARE YOU TIRED OF WINNING YET?!?

Friday, 17 February 2017

Friday T&A: Fruit platter Edition

Since last week's (rather well received) serving of beautiful women involved mostly the fun stuff up the front, and since this IS technically a T and A segment, I figured it might be useful to balance out the scales a little bit. Not too much, obviously, I'm still very much in favour of one over the other, but a little variety doesn't hurt.

The ladies below all have the kinds of curves that you'd find on apples, oranges, and peaches- especially peaches, and especially in the boot.

Today's heavy dose of Vitamin C brought to you once again by our buddies at Radass.com (which if you think about it is really quite fitting). This really is a public service that they perform, and a highly enjoyable one at that.

Happy Friday, lads.

Thursday, 16 February 2017

The Spirit of Fire returns

HALO WARS was not, by any stretch of anybody's imagination, the best HALO game ever. It wasn't even in the top five. It is difficult, after all, to imagine an RTS game making much sense in a universe generally defined by what was originally a first person shooter.

And yet... there is something oddly appealing about HALO WARS. I've always enjoyed its simple, intuitive, point-and-shoot control scheme and its straightforward, uncluttered approach to resource gathering. The folks at Ensemble Studios basically created a strategy game that allowed for nearly infinite variation and flexibility on the part of the player, subject only to a few simple rules, and then sat back and let that same player just get on with business.

I have to say, I also loved the music. Stephen Rippy's soundtrack was both innovative and nostalgic at the same time, blending great references to the classic HALO soundtracks and themes while adding new ideas and flavours in at every turn.

So I am very much looking forward to seeing what 343 Industries can do with their latest release, which picks up the torch 25 years after the ending of the original HALO WARS with a similar cast of characters in a familiar location:

This should be good fun to play- and hopefully a damn sight less disappointing than HALO 5: Guardians turned out to be.

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

More glass ceilings, Pt. 2: Why fight biology?

A little under a year ago, I wrote the first post in what I had originally intended to be a two- or three-part series providing my unfair, unbalanced, and thoroughly unmedicated views as to why it is that women should be held back by that dreaded "glass ceiling". It took me a rather long time to get around to writing the follow-up (of which I think there will almost certainly only be one) partly because I'm quite lazy sometimes, partly because I got rather busy with everything else, and mostly because of the way things evolved at work after I wrote that post.

You see, I originally wrote it after I landed in soup thanks to someone in my team who complained to management that I had created a "hostile working environment" for her.

That was... interesting, to say the least.

Even so, my sentiments in the intervening time on the subject of women in the workplace have not changed. Women, particularly in fast-paced, challenging, technical environments, or in dangerous and difficult ones, are on balance a detriment to the health of a workforce and the profitability of a business.

However, that post was not, as it happens, written in a fit of pique. There was and remains a serious point to be made, and it is simple: pushing women into the workplace is not just bad for business, it's bad for them as well.

The Dilbert Principle

As for the reason why I landed in soup in the first place, it's easy to narrate: I found, and still find, the person in question to be deeply unqualified for the job and totally unsuited to the work. And since I do not tolerate fools, incompetents, or slowpokes, it should come as no surprise at all that we don't exactly see eye-to-eye.

The stupid thing, though, is that this entire mess could have been avoided three years ago if only we as a team had exercised a bit of sense.

I had interviewed her back in the day for a position in our team. I knew instantly that she was not sufficiently qualified, rejected her as a candidate, provided my feedback, and basically got on with my day. At the time my team consisted of basically three people- me and two other chaps, all with technical backgrounds and all well-versed in the complex systems and processes that we deal with on a daily basis.

Of the remaining two interviewers, one agreed entirely with me and rejected her as a candidate. But the other... well, it so happened that the interviewee and the interviewer are of the same ethnicity and speak the same language. And the interviewer basically wanted someone to follow his orders.

The end result was that the VP in question overrode the objections of his co-equals and hired this woman into our team- despite our clearly voiced opinions that she would be totally unsuited for the work.

I have since spent the last three years watching myself being proven correct. Again. And all because of racial preferences and the Iron Law of Bureaucracy that we know of as The Dilbert Principle: the tendency of people to get promoted or hired into their areas of maximum incompetence.

The result has been a clear fracturing of our team into disparate little units with no common goal or vision, and no development of individual skills or cross-training.

Worst of all, from my perspective, is the inevitable effect that substandard team members have on relationships with clients. Problems that would take me an hour or two to investigate, analyse, and resolve routinely take this person two weeks- or more. Her ability to talk to the business is non-existent. Her skill set is quite limited and has not grown in the entire time that she has been in the group.

Indeed, there are, in fact, times when being right so often gets to be a real burden.

But then, at the beginning of the year, she went to our senior managers and told them that she was expecting her third child with her husband.

This, as far as I am concerned, is a very Good Thing.

What Women Really Want

Everyone benefits. Our team gets rid of some dead weight for about a year. Our clients benefit from actually getting their problems resolved in a timely and efficient fashion- or at least, I hope so, given the internal politics of my group. And our erstwhile colleague gets a new child.

It is almost certain that, in the long run, she will be far happier being a wife and a mother to her two existing daughters, and her future child, than she will coming in at 9, leaving at 5, and barely getting anything done during her time at the workplace. And good for her- because that is exactly what most women would prefer in the first place.

You see, no matter what any STRAWNG EMPAWAHHHD WIMMENZ tells you, the fact of the matter is that women are almost universally going to be happier being mothers and housewives than they are ever going to be climbing the corporate ladder.

There are exceptions to this rule, to be sure. A very small number of so-called "alpha females" do exist who are extremely intelligent, inclined to logic, equipped with a very sharp sense of humour and pair it with a deeply cutting sense of sarcasm, and do not tolerate nonsense or softness.

Here is a rather good example of that sort of thing:

That is not, by the way, a criticism of the supremely talented Ms. Coulter. On the contrary, I have immense respect and admiration for her. But the fact is that Ms. Coulter is not exactly what one might call "housewife material". She lacks the feminine softness and delicacy and tolerance for nonsense that is required of such- and she knows it. She knows that her greatest talents lie in the field of political punditry, and she herself knows that she probably wouldn't prove to be a very good wife, because very, very few men would have the necessary Alpha-male qualities needed to handle a woman like her.

She is, however, a rarity. And I suspect that if you are a young woman, or if you are a man with a young daughter, and you asked Ms. Coulter what she thinks young women should do with their lives, she would agree with me.

Sperm is Cheap, Eggs are Expensive

The harsh but true reality is that the Western world simply does not need women in the workforce.

Quite aside from the points that I had raised in my first article on the subject, pertaining to how having women in a team is often detrimental to productivity, morale, camaraderie, and career security, all of the data that we have available point to two inescapable facts.

First, as stated above, housewives and mothers are far happier than their working, stressed-out, career-driven counterparts.

Whether you like it or not, whether you are willing to admit it or not, the fact remains that men can do (just about) everything that women can in the workplace. Actually, they can do considerably more in manually intensive, or very technical, or very risky jobs- because men are constitutionally and biologically more willing and able to take risks, work longer and harder hours, and endure privation and discomfort than women are.

(I am aware of the standard female counterargument that nothing a man experiences could ever be as bad as childbirth. I'll believe it when a woman who has worked 12-hour shifts in the freezing cold of a North Dakota oil rig for weeks on end, and then given birth to a child, tells me that the latter is more miserable and more difficult than the former.)

But, there is one thing that women can do that men cannot ever do:

Conceive, carry, and give birth to, new human life.

That simple fact alone is what makes women valuable and men expendable. This one distinction more than makes up for every deficiency that a woman possesses in physical strength and stamina relative to a man. It is what gives women such immense power over men.

This is why the maxim about sperm being cheap and eggs being expensive is much more than merely a glib remark. It is a fundamental truth.

And (almost) any woman who ignores that fundamental truth, and thereby ignores her own biology, is setting herself up for a lifetime of unhappiness and pain. The sole exceptions are the very, very rare Alpha females, as mentioned above, who are actually better off being single and doing their own thing instead of becoming wives and mothers.

But for most women, their true path to happiness is not in their careers. It is in their families, and in the joys that they will find from building families of their own.

Raise the Ceiling a Few Feet Higher

If, therefore, women are inclined by temperament and biology to pursue motherhood and family over careers and stress, why, then, do we insist on supporting their careerist ambitions when all of the evidence tells us that doing so is plainly idiotic and simply makes women less happy?

And, by extension, makes men less happy too?

We do so partly because we're men, and therefore not very bright sometimes- but mostly because Western culture and civilisation has forgotten these basic truths, and is in the process of receiving a very harsh lesson about the costs associated with ignoring the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

If anything, we should be making it harder for women to climb the corporate ladder, and easier for them to quit and become mothers and wives.

We should be giving them incentives to work part-time for lower pay but with generous benefits. Western governments, in particular, might need to start thinking about subsidising children of native-born parents (not immigrants, let's get that straight).

Most of the Western world, and most of the Far Eastern world, does not need more childless, stressed-out, unhappy, pill-popping HR ladies and marketing managers in their late twenties and early thirties working themselves into infertility and misery.

Those parts of the world do need masculine sons and feminine daughters- which will not happen if their women are stuck in the same stupid rat-race of promotions, anti-depressants, binge-drinking, and meaningless short-term flings.

Tuesday, 14 February 2017

Powersliding in Anne Hathaway's cottage

One of the absolute best things about being an Amazon Prime subscriber has GOT to be the fact that TOP GEAR series 2-17 are all available, FOR FREE, as part of one's subscription.

Which allows petrol addicts like me to binge-watch the great heresies of the Lord's very own Prophets of Oversteer- and allows me, in particular, to relive the glory days of the show back before the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation's nanny-statist ninnies got a hold of it and forced out the mad geniuses who made it such a monumental success.

One of my favourite episodes has always been the one in which Jezza took an old Mercedes S-class and decided to... umm... quaint his ride. The results were predictably hilarious, and involved numerous (completely justified) shots at the French nation, which as we all know is of course a land of pretentious cheese-eating Communists who all smell of garlic and cigarettes and wouldn't know a good glass of wine if they were hit in the face with one.

But as funny as all of those lovely insults against the Frogs are, they pale in comparison to the sheer genius involved at putting a dining room on wheels and then sending it around a track for a power lap- in the wet.

If you've ever wondered what it would be like to drive a cottage, and you didn't have the money or the desire to buy and drive, say, a Cadillac Marmalade Escalade, then wonder no longer, because that is exactly what it is like. And it's RUBBISH.

It's really a rather good thing that we have the blokes from THE GRAND TOUR around to explain these things to us, eh?

Monday, 13 February 2017

Eigo de, onegaishimasu?

Those of you who were introduced to the balls-out batshit insanity that is BABYMETAL probably know this already, but when it comes to music, Japan is actually considerably crazier than you might be led to believe initially.

This is especially true when it comes to my beloved genre of heavy metal.

If your entire exposure to Japanese music consisted of bland J-pop played in shopping malls- not a common experience for my American readers, I know, but those of you who have been to Asia know what I'm talking about- then you probably don't think terribly much of modern Japanese music. J-pop is even more lowest-common-denominator music than your average Western boy-band.

You see, the Japanese are actually HUGE metal fans. Legends of the genre, like IRON MAIDEN, MEGADETH, and JUDAS PRIEST enjoy massive, if underground, followings throughout Japan.

And of course, it turns out that they do in fact have some very good homegrown heavy metal talent of their own.

One band, in particular, has been flying the flag of Japanese power metal high and proud for the better part of twenty years now. They're called GALNERYUS (no idea what the name means), and they combine the speed of DRAGONFORCE, the musicianship of ANGRA, and the lyrics of... well, considering that their lyrics are completely incomprehensible, I have no clue who to compare them with, other than maybe, say, GWAR?

Anyway, they're really pretty damn good.

I'm not kidding about their lyrics, by the way. I actually speak a little Japanese- not particularly well, mind you, but enough to hold a very short conversation- and I have absolutely no bloody clue what the lyrics are, even though I grew up watching and listening to Japanese anime.

The distant mirror of heresy

The modern attack will not tolerate us. It will attempt to destroy us. Nor can we tolerate it. We must attempt to destroy it as being the fully equipped and ardent enemy of the Truth by which men live. The duel is to the death.

-- Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies
Reading through historian Hilaire Belloc's superbly written account of the five great heresies that have riven and nearly destroyed Christian civilisation over its two-thousand year history, one is much struck by the fact that many of the ideas and arguments advanced by the great heresiarchs of the past are almost identical to the ones put forth by the degenerates of the modern age.

In this book, which I started last year and then (rather stupidly) more or less forgot about for months, the great historian laid out five great schisms that have shaken the Catholic Church and all that it stands for. He starts with the Arian Heresy, which was (supposedly) resolved by the Council of Nicaea and the resulting Nicene Creed but festered on for several decades afterwards; continues with the great and devastating heresy that is Islam; carries on into the Albigensian Heresy which very nearly tore apart European Christian civilisation in civil war; delves into the Reformation at some length; and finally, writing in the late 1930s, looks at the attacks brought forth by scientific atheism and modernism upon the Faith.

Belloc himself was an an ardent traditional Catholic, and was in his lifetime one of the foremost defenders of the Faith; this point of view clearly colours the entire book, but in my opinion it is the better for this. In the hands of a lesser writer, such impositions of one's own point of view would be jarring and irritating, but Belloc's deft touch and superb eye for history make it possible for him to mount arguments using his faith in a way that persuades the reader by showing, not telling.

This, however, is not a book review- even though I highly recommend the book. I want to look in particular at the Albigensian Heresy and its roots, because the results of that heresy, and the extremely bloody way in which it ended, offer us a clear glimpse into the future that awaits us.

The Albigensian heresy started out as a complete rejection of a number of core teachings of the Catholic Church. Specifically, it rejected the doctrinal teaching of the universality and omnipotent goodness of God the Creator, taking the rather Manichaean view that there was a "good" God and an "evil" God. The Albigensians did this because they found the Catholic teachings concerning the fundamental problem of the existence of evil to be insufficient, claiming that Man's priceless gift of free will was just too simple an explanation.

The Albigensians didn't just abandon the core teachings of the Church on the subject of the nature of God- which would have been bad enough. They abandoned all appreciation of mortal beauty, arguing that alcohol, sex, physical pleasure, music, art- anything that is to do with the mortal realm and not the spiritual- is evil.

They refused to acknowledge the province of Earthly law; since civilian authority was derived from the corporeal world, according to their doctrine it held no sway or authority over them. They took to true extremes the teaching that one should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's".

As Belloc explains, 
Hence derive the main lines which were completed in detail as the Albigensian movement spread. Our bodies are material, they decay and die. Therefore it was the evil god that made the human body, while the good god made the soul. Hence also our Lord was only apparently clothed with a human body. He only apparently suffered. Hence the denial of the Resurrection.
Among the most controversial of the Cathar teachings, though, were the proto-feminist ideals of their heresy. The Cathars, at least initially, allowed and even encouraged women to become prefects and own property, evangelise, and proselytise in favour of their heresy.

The Cathars were hardcore vegetarians, arguing that killing animals was immoral. They were also dead-set against marriage; because they viewed mortal human flesh as evil, they believed that reproducing, and therefore perpetuating evil, was a great sin.

Rather unsurprisingly, to traditionalist and mainstream eyes, these folks were, quite simply, nutters.

Which brings us rather neatly to the realities of our modern age and our present afflictions.

It should be clear by this point why I brought up the Cathar Heresy and its eventual extermination. Almost all of their heretical beliefs are today mirrored in modern Western society- but in our case, these heresies have long since become acceptable mainstream ideas.

Vegetarianism and veganism, once jovially tolerated as merely the quaint and childish follies of men and women who simply do not want to consume animal protein, is now fashionable. In some circles, proclaiming that you are in fact a carnivore is a very good way to get yourself excommunicated permanently. (This is not a particularly Bad Thing in most cases. Be honest: if you're at a dinner party, would you prefer to be snacking on beef steak tartare, or tofurkey sausages?)

Materialism and hedonism, which eventually the Cathars began to commit in excess, are the order of the day- sanctified and encouraged by a ruling elite that denies the existence of an absolute Truth, and therefore delegitimises the power of God over His Creation.

Marriage is increasingly regarded as an unnecessary anachronism by women, and (correctly) as an incredibly high-risk, low-reward gamble with devastating consequences in the highly likely event of failure by men. This, despite the clearly established historical fact that monogamous marriage is the only proven way to provide any kind of lifelong guarantee of sexual access for men while giving women the financial security and emotional stability that they need.

Marriage is, quite simply, the only way humanity has yet devised to achieve any kind of functioning compromise between competing and often conflicting interests. Men satisfy our sexual needs and genetic drive to procreate through marriage. Women satisfy their need for protection and stability.

And, most importantly civilisation is kept alive, for two reasons.

Firstly, one of the most dangerous threats to any civilisation is a large population of young, sexless men, whose frustrations are expressed through lawlessness and rage against a society that denies them the ability to satisfy their most basic desire, one that is literally hard-coded into their genetics.

And secondly, there is the hard fact that civilisation endures if and only if there are successive generations to inherit it.

The modern heresies that have now become mainstream are nothing more than a mirror image of heresies of the past. It is simply a case of the old becoming the new once more.

That, however, is not a source of comfort for anyone who knows anything about how heresies tend to resolve themselves.

As we gaze through the dark distant mirror of the 13th Century, in which the Cathar Heresy flourished and failed, we will come across a particularly bloody and brutal episode called the Albigensian Crusade. This was a 20-year military campaign, called together by Pope Innocent III, designed specifically to exterminate the Cathars- so great had their heresy become, so terrible a threat did they pose to established order, and indeed to civilisation itself.

Between the 11th and 13th Centuries the Cathars had converted many thousands to their cause, away from the Faith and toward a rejection of everything that the Faith stood for. Conflict was inevitable; the surprise is not that it erupted, but that it took nearly two hundred years for the Catholic Church to bestir itself into ridding European civilisation of what had become a truly grave threat.

The lesson for our modern age is absolutely clear: any prolonged attempt to defy the laws of Nature, and of Nature's God, inevitably ends in bloodshed and disaster.

The heretical pseudo-religions of our modern age, whether they be "man-made climate change", forced veganism and vegetarianism, feminism, equalitarianism, globalism, or scientific authoritarianism, are direct violations of logic and stand against the entire weight of historical evidence that we have proving that such passing fads are dangerous and foolish in the extreme.

For those who are religiously inclined, or at least have some sense of what God intended for His Creation, these things go beyond merely silly ideas with no basis in evidence or logic. They go far beyond simple heresy. They are, in fact, abominations.

The Cathar Heresy ended with the massacre of thousands of followers of their pseudo-religion and the burning alive of over 200 Cathar prefects. It resulted in the establishment of the Inquisition, a deeply maligned and thoroughly misunderstood organisation that nonetheless has gone down in history as one of the most infamous and feared defenders of the Faith ever seen.

The outcome for our modern age is going to be even worse, even more bloody, and far more brutal. The Time of Testing that is to come will make the Cathar Heresy look like a pleasant diversion by comparison- because our modern heresies are far greater, far more dangerous to both body and soul, and far less sustainable than even the follies of the Albigensians.

We would do well to pay heed to the lessons of our past. Only by recognising just how far we have deviated from the paths of sense and reason do we have any hope of recovering at least some dignity from the tattered remains of Western civilisation.