How to not get banned here

Dire Badger kindly provides newcomers with a useful basic guide to commenting at Vox Popoli without getting publicly mocked and banned:

  1. It’s not about Vox Day. If you make it about him, you get banned.
  2. You cannot talk crap about VD unless it’s actually true. And relevant to the conversation at hand. And it ‘seems’ like VD revels in being called stuff like ‘arrogant’ and ‘uncompromising’.
  3. When he tells you the topic is over, shut up about it. Don’t try to get the last word, because the last word has already been spoken… and usually, when he says shut up about it, the rest of the board stops following the conversation… so getting the last word is pointless anyway, since mostly no one is going to read it.
  4. It’s not about you. Personal anecdotes to illustrate a point is one thing, as long as it is a a valid illustration… but “not all _ are like that” with a personal anecdote that shows a statistical outlier just makes you look like a stupid troll with nothing of value to add… and people with no value are likely to get banned since it really won’t hurt anything.
  5. Figure out your sociosexual hierarchy position, your personality profile, or any other shit like that yourself. No one wants to answer your ‘what am I?’ question. This is not a facebook personality quiz stream.
  6. Figure out what people here are like. You can disagree, but if you voice a disagreement that has been covered a million times, you are going to get hazed. Don’t post a million times countering a million arguments, and especially don’t respond to every single insult because you said something most people here think is stupid. That’s spamming. (see the last word comment)
  7. Cussing should be sparing. This is not HALO. Talking trash just for the sake of talking trash will get you banned as fast as making it all about VD.
  8. When someone asks you a direct question without qualifiers, answer it. Even if the answer is “I don’t know”, or “I googled it but my search Fu was weak, I will find it later.” if they ask you a question that starts with ‘considering that…’ or adds a weird goalpost-shifting frame like “Answer in a Haiku” or “Without using examples or Allegories…” feel free to answer or tell them to kiss your butt.
  9. Statements of known fact are okay. Patronizing statements sharing your secret king wisdom “Because you all need to know this” will get you mocked and banned, especially if you never bothered to notice that there was an article about that very thing less than two days earlier. I suggest lurking for at least a month before making your first post, so you can figure out what kinds of people are here, and maybe even learn a thing or two before you open your mouth.
  10. DO NOT GET DEFENSIVE! When you are wrong, admit it. Being able to learn from your mistakes is vastly more important (and more respect-worthy) than ‘winning’ an argument in the thread… mostly when you ‘win’ it’s because people have just gotten bored with arguing with you. That doesn’t mean apologize. Men only apologize when their actions have inadvertently harmed others. If you go off on a tirade and insult someone and find out later that you were wrong, an apology is cool, but don’t apologize for being wrong. Just admit it, fix it if you can, and move on.
I would add that this blog has been here for 15 years. Readers, moderators, and blogger alike, we know what we’re doing. VP was here before you. VP will be here after you. And the better you understand that VP simply does not need you or your comments, the more likely it is that your comments will be valued by the other readers.

Fake news, fake Right

The cucks are really, really desperate to keep the Littlest Chickenhawk viable:

I spend a few weeks every year teaching high-school and college students, and in my interactions with young people in and around universities I have noticed a trend. After class, at meals, and in walks around campus, the politically engaged students invariably ask me the same question: What do I think of Ben Shapiro?

Nor am I alone. Recently Eliza Gray had a similar experience while reporting on young conservatives in the age of President Trump. “Oddly enough,” she wrote in the Washington Post, “the person who appeared to be doing the most to shape the thinking of the new generation of Republican leaders was not the president of the United States—but Ben Shapiro, a 34-year-old anti-Trump conservative pundit who came up unprompted in more than a third of my conversations.” Again and again, students turn exchanges involving politics and ideology into discussions of Shapiro, his media presence, his ideas, and his mode of discourse.

As it turns out, I happen to think well of Shapiro, and admire not only his intelligence but also the way he is modeling political debate for an audience of millions. (We’ve corresponded once or twice but have never met.) More important, though, is what Shapiro’s celebrity tells us about the changing nature of media, the emerging sensibility of conservative youth, and indeed the future of American conservatism itself.

Shapiro owes a lot to social media. His appearances on Fox News Channel are not the cause but the consequence of his fame. It is by searching YouTube that teenagers come across his debates with campus lefties, his speeches, his appearances on like-minded podcasts, and his extended interviews with friends and other members of the so-called intellectual dark web.

The idea that Ben Shapiro is shaping ANYONE’S thinking, let alone the coming Republican leadership, is downright hilarious. The trend is clearly moving well away from his outdated open borders, free trade, Israel-first nonsense. Ben Shapiro may well be “the future of conservatism” because conservatism is dead. The cuckservatives fantasize about Generation Shapiro, but what they will get is Generation Zyklon.

As with the dog that didn’t bark in the night, what is significant is the fact that they have literally no one else. All of the genuine intellectual energy is on the nationalist Right. Jordan Peterson is a propped-up fraud. Sam Harris is a recycled, propped-up midwit. Shapiro has been propped up and pushed on conservatives since he was in junior high despite this being the quality of his political analysis.

No gammas

Okrane S. is now banned from commenting here.

Okrane S. August 04, 2018 7:50 AM
You seem weak and angry. Are these some of those nice Christian values you preach?

I neither know nor care who is the target of this comment, but this is exactly the sort of passive-aggressive gamma bullshit that is no longer tolerated here. If you’re an emotionally incontinent gamma male, just don’t try to comment here. It’s not going to go well for you and you will end up being banned sooner or later.

Read and learn, or read and go away and snark about it somewhere else, but either way, your comments are neither wanted nor permitted here.

Everybody’s Alt-Right now

I told you it was inevitable. But for the time being, conservatives are still determined to try to hold on to their bowties and good opinion of themselves as fine upstanding individuals who are above getting their hands dirty by actually laying hands on the enemy:

Ask any conservative hate-listed by the SPLC (me, for example) what it’s like to work for decades to achieve a successful career and then be labeled a menace to society based on some left-wing ideologue’s interpretation. The Left has been smearing the Right this way for so long — they did it to Barry Goldwater, they did it Ronald Reagan, they do it to every conservative — that we scarcely even notice it anymore.

What has happened in recent years is that the Right has begun to fight fire with fire, and the Left calls this “harassment.” This was the basic story of #GamerGate: Videogame enthusiasts had grown tired of their hobby being targeted by “social justice warriors” (SJWs) and decided to fight back. Defending themselves against the organized lobby of politically correct censors and critical-theory busybodies (e.g., Anita Sarkeesian), the #GamerGate crew were accused of “misogyny” and “haraassment.” And this exposes the double-standard: When the Left attacks the videogame industry, this is “activism”; when gamers fight back, this is “harassment.” Likewise, when left-wing outfits use the past words of conservatives to brand them racist, this is “research”; when the tables are turned, liberals call it “trolling.”

As John Sexton at Hot Air notes, the Left is defending Sarah Jeong’s anti-white hatred as simply “the way the social justice left talks”:

“White people” is a shorthand in these communities, one that’s used to capture the way that many whites still act in clueless and/or racist ways. It’s typically used satirically and hyperbolically to emphasize how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color, or to point out the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist.

Having engaged in a bit of satirical hyperbole myself, I call bulls–t here. It’s a blatant double-standard — one rule for liberals, another rule for everybody else — that permits “the social justice left” to engage in blatant hate-mongering, while conservatives are compelled to tiptoe carefully and watch every word lest they accidentally say something that might somehow be interpreted as “racism.” What conservatives need to do is to start calling the Left’s rhetoric what it is: hate propaganda.

That actually made me laugh out loud. I like Robert Stacey McCain, his intentions are undoubtedly pure, but like most conservatives, he simply has no clue that there isn’t a silent majority that is going to gravitate to whichever side can present itself as the least hateful. Calling the Left’s rhetoric “hate propaganda” is going to be even less effective than “Dems R the Real Racists” was.

What conservatives need to do, what they will eventually be forced to do whether they want to or not, is to embrace science, history, and reality, and finally accept that blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, Indians, and Jews are NEVER, EVER going to take their side or align with their idiotic, idealistic universalism. What conservatives need to do is accept that for better or for worse, they are the White American party now, and pursue their own interests accordingly. All anyone has to do to understand how any immigrant interest group is reliably going to vote is to look at how that interest group prefers to live in its own country. The dirt is not magic.

This really isn’t that hard a concept to grasp. Immigrants don’t move to the USA in order to live like White Americans any more than Californians move to Texas in order to live like Texans.

GenCon ignores violent attack on attendee

It’s really rather remarkable that the idiot SJWs who now run GenCon think that they can somehow make a violent criminal assault that took place in public disappear from the public awareness:

The story around the assault of The Quartering’s Jeremy Hambly appears to be getting worse. The promoters of the Gen Con are now silencing attendees who are fearful for their safety and are questioning Gencon’s silence over the assault. In fact, they are actively crushing ANY discussion on the manner.

They are specifically using 1984 style tactics on their Twitch channel. They first began giving users short bans if they brought up the assault, but then resorted to completely wiping their stream chat and limited it apparently to people who have been following for three months. Thanks to several Twitter users proof of the bans are clear. One user who was watching the GenCon live feed was told they were banned because “this isn’t the place to discuss this.”

While GenCon appears to be banning people and silencing those asking about the alleged assault against The Quartering, they have remained silent about his alleged assaulter despite their own Ethics & Conduct stating that “Violating any federal, state or local laws, facility rules or convention policies … constitute grounds for explusion from the convention without refund.”

In fact, their policy instructs people to “seek out Gen Con Event Staff or Gen Con Security to report the incident.”

Given they still have not released a statement regarding one of their one exhibitors being accused of assault one has to wonder if Gen Con’s silence means other attendees could be at risk. Are they protecting a client who has a booth over attendees?

Or could their silence be politically motivated? If you happen to think the wrong way, well then it appears Gencon won’t do its due diligence when it comes to any possible violence you might face.

It would appear that The Quartering’s mistake was to fail to identify as female. GenCon will leap in with guns blazing if a hapless dork stares at a female cosplayer for two seconds too long, but a violent attack on an attendee by an exhibitor goes unremarked. That’s not a viable strategy.

Pretty much

It’s not his fault. He was provoked.

NEW YORK, NY—Despite withering criticism of The New York Times’ recent decision to hire famed Communist leader and murderer of millions Joseph Stalin to the newspaper’s editorial board, The Times has defended Stalin and the move to allow him a platform to voice his far-left policies.

Upon the announcement of Stalin’s hire, thousands of readers pointed out that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of up to 25 million people. But on Thursday, The Times released a statement saying that editors were aware of Stalin’s sordid past before hiring him, and that it would not be bowing to “right-wing outrage” over “just a few million deaths.”

“His nationality as a Russian and his identity as a Communist have made him the target of much online harassment,” The Times wrote. “For a period of time, he responded to criticism by lashing out, fighting fire with fire by executing dissenters and implementing policies that sent countless people to their deaths. He now sees this only fueled the rage against him and was not entirely appropriate.”

The Times also wrote that Stalin has promised not to continue to kill people while he is employed by the paper. “He is an important part of the voice of our organization,” they wrote.

Fake Conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and David French both defended the new hire, pointing out that “as a private corporation, it is entirely within the rights of The New York Times to employ mass murderers” if the news organization “feels that will enhance their bottom line.”

The necessity of trade war

Greg Richards explains why Trump knows the trade war must be fought, and better yet, can easily be won.

Why is this chart important?

It is a death sentence for America.

Although it is a single series of data, the chart is essentially in two parts, split in the year 2000.  There is no manipulation to achieve this effect.  This is how the data lay out, which is why this chart is so significant.

From 1968 into 2000, you see beautiful, real-world steady growth (i.e., “steady” interspersed with recessions).  The red trendline is a trendline of constant percentage growth year to year (i.e., exponential).  When you calculate it, it turns out to be 6{f12d784dcf38f5c874d6442acbbe3c4b723260f34933916497ce8576f95e6112} per year.  This is roughly twice GDP annual growth over the same period.  There is no specific significance to that 2X factor except that we would expect capital spending to grow faster than the economy as a whole, as, in fact, it did.

Why is this growth in capital spending important?  Even in our increasingly service-oriented economy, it is capital spending – the stock of capital equipment – that sustains our standard of living.  Healthy capital spending is critical to – really identical with – a thriving economy.  This is why the flat capital spending that America has experienced since 2000 is so grave a condition.

American Thinker readers will be surprised to learn that they are now the only people in the country, aside from this author, who have seen this chart.  I could not be more serious when I say that.

Economists do not think of capital spending in terms of real-world numbers.  They think of it as a concept in their models that self-equilibrates.  There isn’t an economist from Harvard to Stanford or anywhere in between who knows this chart.  Believe me: I have worked with these people.  If you as a reader are in business or in academe, try me out.

The only person in public life who understands this chart is Donald Trump.  I cannot say he has literally looked at it, but he understands it.

Note that we are not talking about the “creative destruction of capitalism” here.  We are not talking about no longer making buggy whips.  We are talking about the staples of a modern economy, many of which we no longer have the capital equipment to manufacture.

We were the only country to emerge from World War II stronger than when we went into it, and our relative strength at the end of World War II was immeasurable.  It became our policy, and then our unconscious attitude, to “help other countries get back on their feet.”  This attitude became a permanent part of our trade policy-making, wherein we essentially opened our markets to other countries while accepting that their markets were closed to us.

The chart shows that our ability to sustain the Lord Bountiful approach to trade ended forever in 2000, although nobody in power saw it until Donald Trump came along in 2016.

If one looks at debt growth, one will actually achieve a deeper understanding, but this will do for non-economists. The most important part of the article is this section, which I have been trying to explain to people in multiple venues with varying degrees of success:

Economists think mercantilism can never work, thus Trump attacking it as practiced by China is a fool’s errand or worse.  This is based on the early 19th-century Theory of Comparative Advantage developed by David Ricardo.  It states that among trading parties, even if one party’s production costs are greater in all goods than the other party’s, the first party should focus on those goods where it has a comparative advantage – i.e., where its own cost of production is lower.  If the two countries then trade, both will improve their welfare.  If, under these conditions, a country practices mercantilism, it impoverishes itself.  This is a substantial insight.

But it depends on a key assumption: that capital is fixed.  Ricardo’s example was that the British should raise sheep and the French should make wine, and they should trade these goods with each other.  The example was based on climate, the ultimate in fixed capital.

With capital mobile, as it is now, mercantilism works.  By forcing a trading partner to move its assets, technology, know-how, intellectual property, and R&D to the mercantilist country in order to participate in its market, a country can build itself up at the expense of its trading partner.  Following its accession to the WTO, China has been strip-mining the U.S. economy of high value-added industries and high-wage jobs by doing this.

The USA can only benefit from a trade war. That, of course, is why everyone around the world is freaking out. The genie is out of the bottle and it is becoming more and more apparent to everyone that the economic foundation for the globalist world order has not only failed, but was built on intellectual sand from the very start.

Evolution evaluated

Fred Reed is among the growing number of evolution skeptics and he answers responses to his recent column on the subject:

Recently I wrote a column about the theory of Intelligent Design, which holds that that life, both in its origins and its changes over time, are the result of design instead of chance. Several hundred comments and emails arrived, more than I could read. This was not surprising as there seems to be considerable public interest in the question, while a virulent political correctness prevents discussion in most forums. In particular the major media prevent mention of Intelligent Design except in derogatory terms.

Interesting to me at any rate was that the tone of response was much more civil and thoughtful than it was say, a decade ago.

A fair few respondents quoted the Bible. I wondered why the Bible and not the Koran or Bhagavad Gita. The Bible seems to me the chaotic literature of a barbaric tribe and characterized by morally unpleasant stories. Why it is thought to have any relevance to abiogenesis is not clear to me.

Some readers, quoting Carl Sagan, said approximately, “Fred, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence to support it.” I don’t disagree. The claim that ocean water will in time produce Manhattan seems to me sufficiently extraordinary to require extraordinary evidence. So far, there is none. Evolutionists have not shown that sea water can produce any life at all, much less the New York Philharmonic.

Other readers insist that Intelligent Design is not scientific. If not, so what? The question should be not whether it is scientific but whether it is true. What an ideological group calling themselves scientists believe is not a valid test of truth. When I was in the eighth grade, I watched Crusader Rabbit on television. This is not science, yet it is true.

If science deals with the reproducible, then paleontology is not science, as neither is the chance creation of life, which has not proved reproducible. If science must make predictions, then physiology is not science, being entirely descriptive. If science is the study of the quantifiable, then evolution isn’t. What is the unit of selective pressure?

Fred has landed on precisely the aspect of evolutionary theory that made me into a strong TE(p)NSBMGDaGF skeptic. What many people who have not thought seriously about the issue don’t realize is that biologists are literally so stupid, and so innumerate, and so illogical, that they don’t understand the problems that quantification creates for their many unfounded assumptions.

You may recall that I confused a number of evolution advocates by asking them a very simple question: what is the average rate of evolutionary mutation. The problem was not that they could not provide a precise answer, although the fact that they couldn’t even work out a possible range as well as I could was troubling. The problem was that they did not understand that the question was a) entirely legitimate, b) the answer to it can theoretically be worked out, and worst of all, c) there ABSOLUTELY MUST be a precise answer to it.

What their confusion indicated to me, and what I later confirmed by analyzing undergraduate, graduate, and PhD programs, is that biologists are still essentially butterfly collectors. They are the least intelligent of the STEM field graduates and most of them have no ability whatsoever to even begin to grasp the relevant issues involved, let alone successfully address them.

For example, it is particularly amusing to note that I have encountered people who sneer at the idea of intelligent design while simultaneously admitting to being philosophically open to the idea that the world is some sort of digital simulation. I can’t even bring myself to point out to them that if the world is a digital simulation, this strongly implies that the intelligent design crowd was correct all along.

False flag averted

I told you the media was going to stick to the GG-Pizzagate narrative and try to stage a “violent” attack by “dangerous Q cultists” in order to disqualify and discredit the Qanon movement. But apparently, it’s happening already. NeonRevolt has the details about what happened behind the scenes at the Wilkes-Barre Trump rally:

Intel from 2anon friends at rally tonight.

  1. CNN 4 AM talking points stated videos ready of POTUS recognizing Q
  2. chatter suggested a disturbance would be recorded victimizing CNN by Q
  3. Secret Service noticed Q sign saying just the plan instead of trust the plan
  4. Two individuals with large Q signs very visible reference to the plan wrong refused to give up signs when asked

Moved off camera by SS then removed from premises

Anyway, now you know the media’s setup: they’re attempting to frame the #QArmy as violent and dangerous, and then air that footage nonstop across the nation to try to get the normies all riled up.

This won’t be their last attempt. The false narrative is all set to push “journalists are victims of the evil Q”. It’s Fake News in operation.

The ride never ends.