The weird devolution of Disney princesses

This sinister age-devolution of Disney princesses over time is not mere coincidence, nor is it a growing inclination to market their characters through appeals to neoteny, nor is it the influence of Japanese anime. To the contrary, it is overt and objective evidence of the growing influence of pedos inside the Disney corporation.

Now that I’m a dad, I realize I’m basically only going to watch animated movies for the next decade. And as I started thinking back about all the great Disney movies through the years, I noticed something weird has been happening to the princesses.

In the earliest Disney films, the princesses more or less look like real, human women. But through the years, something strange happens. Heads get bigger compared to their bodies and their eyes get bigger compared to their heads.

By the time we get to Elsa, this 22-year old Frozen princess has the body ratios of an 8 year old. Moana is supposedly 16 years old, but she has the body ratios of a 4 year old. Disney princesses have been looking more and more like children.

It’s more than something weird, it is something downright sinister. And for those who are constantly demanding, “where’s the evidence”, well, there is literally decades of evidence right there in front of your eyes.

Everyone always knows

It’s remarkable how often these big corporate scams are totally obvious from the start. And as a general rule, if the founder is putting on Ted Talks and blathering on about saving the world instead of desperately trying to keep their head above water, you can be pretty sure it’s a scam of some sort.

The biggest problem of all was the dysfunctional corporate culture in which it was being developed. Holmes and Balwani regarded anyone who raised a concern or an objection as a cynic and a nay-sayer. Employees who persisted in doing so were usually marginalized or fired, while sycophants were promoted.

Employees were Balwani’s minions. He expected them to be at his disposal at all hours of the day or night and on weekends. He checked the security logs every morning to see when they badged in and out. Every evening, around 7:30, he made a flyby of the engineering department to make sure people were still at their desks working.

With time, some employees grew less afraid of him and devised ways to manage him, as it dawned on them that they were dealing with an erratic man-child of limited intellect and an even more limited attention span. Arnav Khannah, a young mechanical engineer who worked on the miniLab, figured out a surefire way to get Balwani off his back: answer his emails with a reply longer than 500 words. That usually bought him several weeks of peace because Balwani simply didn’t have the patience to read long emails. Another strategy was to convene a biweekly meeting of his team and invite Balwani to attend. He might come to the first few, but he would eventually lose interest or forget to show up.

While Holmes was fast to catch on to engineering concepts, Balwani was often out of his depth during engineering discussions. To hide it, he had a habit of repeating technical terms he heard others using. During a meeting with Khannah’s team, he latched onto the term “end effector,” which signifies the claws at the end of a robotic arm. Except Balwani didn’t hear “end effector,” he heard “endofactor.” For the rest of the meeting, he kept referring to the fictional endofactors. At their next meeting with Balwani two weeks later, Khannah’s team brought a PowerPoint presentation titled “Endofactors Update.” As Khannah flashed it on a screen with a projector, the five members of his team stole furtive glances at one another, nervous that Balwani might become wise to the prank. But he didn’t bat an eye and the meeting proceeded without incident. After he left the room, they burst out laughing.

Khannah and his team also got Balwani to use the obscure engineering term “crazing.” It normally refers to a phenomenon that produces fine cracks on the surface of a material, but Khannah and his colleagues used it liberally and out of context to see if they could get Balwani to repeat it, which he did. Balwani’s knowledge of chemistry was no better. He thought the chemical symbol for potassium was P (it’s K; P is the symbol for phosphorus)—a mistake most high school chemistry students wouldn’t make.

The amusing thing, of course, is the way in which these idiot engineers were clearly more interesting in proving that they were smarter than Balwani than they were in the fact that he was the guy upon whom their paychecks, stock options, and careers all depended.

And almost everyone seems to want to believe. Remember, I called BS on this woman the moment I heard her talk, just like I did on Jordan Peterson. The only difference is that even the true believers now understand that Holmes was a fraud. Most people still don’t grasp that Peterson is a charlatan too.

Another phrase stuck out in the talk. She said something about transformative technology which has a magical ring, like Steve Jobs dancing on a cloud of air. From now until forever, if anyone ever says transformative technology in a talk, find the exit door.

Then she decried the appalling lack of access.

“People could not get copies of their own lab results!” she said. We can buy a snake! A military truck! A tank! Yet, we can’t order a simple blood-based pregnancy test.

Think about it! Someone is worried, nervous–distraught. There is a dark cloud. Anxiety. Nerves. You can feel it. And yet…you can’t buy a simple blood test on your own!

“When individuals have access to the information about their bodies they can begin to change outcomes,” said Holmes. She used plenty of interesting factoids. She said words like engagement, knowledge, and access. She shifted to a personal story. She lulled us, she calmed us. She talked about things we care about. That are quite serious.

And yet, we were not really listening.

She never really said anything about the science.

Or the tests.

Or the clinics.

Or anything concrete.

An important message

The God-Emperor and his Grand Inquisitor have sent the Deep State an important message: no, we’re not going to let you bury your sins and pretend that business is usual as you ride off into the retirement sunset to collect a fat government pension. We’re going to very publicly fire your corrupt ass even if you are already halfway out the door.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has been fired, effective immediately the Department of Justice said late Friday night. The decision comes as FBI officials recommended his firing, as they wait for a Department of Justice Inspector General report critical of him to be released.

In a statement, the Department of Justice said “the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions.”

The decision, not unexpected, came two days before McCabe was set to retire Sunday. The 49-year-old is likely to keep at least some of his pension.

In a phone interview with CBS News’ senior investigator producer Pat Milton, McCabe said he “rejects the findings in the [Inspector General] report,” calling it “misleading and unfair.” “I strongly believe this is the latest chapter in a yearlong attack on my credibility and service to the country,” McCabe said.

President Trump tweeted shortly after midnight that it was a “great day” for the FBI and “sanctimonious” former FBI director James Comey made McCabe “seem like a choir boy.”

 Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI – A great day for Democracy. Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choirboy. He knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!

This isn’t over. In fact, as far as the public disclosures go, it hasn’t even really begun. Despite their high FBI rank, Comey and McCabe are just third tier players, at most.

McCabe also said: “This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally.”

He’s right that his firing is one small part of a larger effort, only it’s not slander, he has no credibility, and the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals to whom he refers are a collection of corrupt Deep State criminals whose crimes in service to their globalist masters are going to be exposed, investigated, and prosecuted.

It’s also worth noting that while he is engaged in DRAINING THE SWAMP, the God-Emperor hasn’t forgotten about his other priority.

If we don’t have a wall system, we’re not going to have a country. Congress must fund the BORDER WALL & prohibit grants to sanctuary jurisdictions that threaten the security of our country & the people of our country. We must enforce our laws & protect our people! #BuildTheWall


I can’t say I’m terribly surprised to be informed that the Clinton Foundation accounting appears to be more than a little shady:

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation filed Its 2016 Annual Report to California on Form RRF-1 seven days past the final deadline on Nov. 22, 2017. This key document was subsequently rejected.

That means the best-known Clinton charity has not been operating in full compliance with California laws for months, an adverse fact that should have been disclosed in other U.S. states where Clinton charities solicit donations, especially including New York.

Another glaring problem with the rejected California filing is that the total revenues of $77 million declared for the whole of the Clinton Foundation are much less than the $217 million in combined grants and contributions claimed on its 2016 external audit, which is available on page 5.

The calculation is: Total contributions of $135,445,489 plus total grants of $81,153,172 equal combined revenues of $216,598,561, which rounds up to $217 million. This large discrepancy is only part of the problems facing the Clinton Foundation in California.

On Feb. 22, 2018, Becerra demanded receipt of information concerning “all government funding, including grants from foreign governments” received by the foundation during 2016. The deadline for receipt is March 24, 2018.

California charity laws are tougher than those in many other U.S. states. In California, for example, charities must disclose particulars concerning all government grants, including those by foreign government entities.

These particulars, including amounts, are available to state regulators because California also requires that charities disclose (confidentially) the names of all donors giving 2 percent or more of total revenues in a given year, as listed on Schedule B of their federal tax filings.

The Clinton Foundation’s 2016 federal filing poses additional problems. Total revenues declared in Part VIII, line 1h, were just $63 million, or $14 million less than the amount declared on the California RRF-1 filing — and a whopping $154 million less than the figure independently confirmed by auditor CohnReznick.

It’s also a little remarkable that the Clintons continue on their rapacious mission to rake in more and more money… and for what? They both look like death mildly reheated these days. Hillary can’t even navigate a simple set of stairs. What on Earth will another million, or ten million, do to improve their quality of life one iota?

Corporate fraud

I imagine there are probably a lot of violations that merit investigation, particularly among the Trump-hating technology companies.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating whether Apple Inc. violated securities laws concerning its disclosures about a software update that slowed older iPhone models, according to people familiar with the matter.

The government has requested information from the company, according to the people, who asked not to be named because the probe is private. The inquiry is in early stages, they cautioned, and it’s too soon to conclude any enforcement will follow…. Several weeks ago, the company admitted to slowing down the performance of older iPhones models to make their batteries last longer. Apple released a software update early in 2017 that throttled older iPhones, but didn’t specify that the action slowed the devices. In December, Apple apologized for not clearly communicating this information and vowed to release another update to mitigate the concern.

What, they think everyone forgot how Clinton and Obama audited and investigated conservative organizations and corporations?

Mailvox: remember the cartoon?

A small businessman asks if hiring a known SJW is an acceptable risk in certain specific circumstances:

I have a situation that I’d appreciate your perspective on, and which may be of interest to you as material for a blog post.

I have a business which operates full time. It’s small—just us and a handful of independent contractors—but it has provided well for us the past few years, and we are looking to hire someone on a full time or close-to-full-time basis, which would be a major investment of resources.

We have found what seems to be the perfect person for the job: a woman with the time to devote to our projects, and who has the right experience and skill set for the wide range of tasks she would be performing. She understands our industry and market, has also done some limited work with us, and we have been pleased with what she has produced. She appears to be a very self-motivated, hard-working person, one we could count on for the high level of productive output we need. Hiring her would be a tremendous help, and would enable us to branch out into new markets that we don’t have time to work on ourselves. But…

In the process of considering this person, I researched social media and found out that she was, to say the least, not in agreement with our theological, political, and social views. A summary:

  • Marion Zimmer Bradley fan
  • Belongs to a “Social Justice Committee.”
  • Aggressively pro-abortion
  • Aggressively pro-LGBTQ
  • Supports the SPLC.
  • Anti-alt-right, anti-white-nationalism
  • Defends Antifa while condemning white nationalists.

Basically, this woman couldn’t be more of a social-justice-minded leftist if John Stuart Mill spawned her from the dust of the ground.

Here’s the thing: I think it’s likely, in our context, that political discussions would never even come up. But I have all kinds of red flags popping up and alarm bells going off. In our small business situation, what kinds of dangers could we encounter from a person like this?

Is there a difference between a social justice activist and a social justice warrior? Our personal interactions with this woman have been good, and she seems very decent and kind—though I realize there’s a reason you chose a smiley face for the cover of your SJWs books, which I have read. I know it’s possible that she is a decent, honest, though deceived person, who would never dream of trying to destroy us if she found out that we stand against everything she stands for. On the other hand…

No, there is no difference. My advice is straightforward. Do NOT hire this individual. Do not even THINK about hiring this individual. Once she finds out that you are opposed to the sacred Narrative, she will devote her life to sabotaging your business in ways you can’t possibly imagine or anticipate, even if that is directly opposed to her rational self-interest. Since he has read SJWAL, the Chapter One cartoon should have been sufficient to answer his question.

Upon further review

Last night I made two comments that drew an amount of attention. Well, three, actually. Allow me to explain:

First, as a result of Marvel badly misplaying its hand in an attempt to bypass the two major comics distributors and go direct-to-dealer in the late 90s, Diamond managed to establish a near-monopoly over the comics distribution business. Like all monopolies, their customer service has gone downhill as their prices have risen. If you combine their own reports on total retail sales with Hoover’s report on their annual revenue, Diamond takes 22 percent of the total retail dollar that goes through the comics stores. That amounts to a 37 percent markup, 17 points and 85 percent more than is normal for a distribution business.

It’s good to be the monopolist. The additional markup amounts to $55.8 million annually, or $31,885 in lost profit to each of the 1,750+ brick-and-mortar comics stores in the USA. It’s no wonder these stores are struggling or that long-established retail establishments are closing down everywhere from Arizona to Iowa and Sacramento. Diamond isn’t evil or even particularly rapacious, they are simply failing to recognize that they have been devouring their own seed corn. The rise of digital delivery systems combined with the shrinking physical channel is going to place Diamond in an increasingly difficult position; I would expect them to buy some of the independent publishers and get into content production themselves as time goes on, since from what I hear they are pretty smart.

Second, we have found it difficult to establish Alpenwolf even though we have completed one DevGame game and have several others in various stages of development because the major free game sites, Addicting Games and Kongregate, have kept changing their strategies in ways that make it difficult to work for them. Since we already built a complete virtual goods and virtual currency infrastructure, there is no reason why we shouldn’t simply launch our own free-to-play site. It’s going to be very small by gaming standards, and will probably launch with 3-5 games, but at least we’ll have a vehicle for getting our games out there to the gamers. From there, its simply a matter of building traffic and that’s not a challenge that frightens us. Frankly, it’s probably preferable to be able to grow slowly and steadily int his regard. Look for announcements asking for volunteers concerning forum moderation and writing trivia questions for everything from the NFL and NCAA football to comics and television shows in the next few months.

Third, if you think Neil Gaiman is a great novelist, or even a great SF/F novelist, you are simply wrong. He is a successful, talented and much-loved SF/F author, and understandably so, but he is also little more than a very successful stunt writer with two or three tricks in his bag. There is a reason that all of his notable books involve mythology of one sort or another; his true gift is translating ancient myth into a form that pleases postmodern palates. He also has the ability to convey that sense of the numinous that I lack. But Neal Stephenson, William Gibson, Alan Moore, John C. Wright, China Mieville, Nick Cole, and even George R.R. Martin are all better, more original SF/F writers with considerably more to say about the human condition than Gaiman.

When I have thought about the writers whose work I would like to be able to emulate or surpass over the years, Neil Gaiman never once entered into the equation, not even for a moment. Consider that American Gods is described as “Neil Gaiman’s best and most ambitious novel yet.” I liked that story considerably better when it was called Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul and On the Road. That being said, of the various comics I have read, Sandman is head-and-shoulders above the rest.

As for my own writing, you might contemplate this: How many other authors flow as easily across as broad a range of genres as I do? How many authors have historically done so? Perhaps my inability to focus precludes achieving greatness in any one genre, but I think that sort of unusual breadth at least merits consideration.

UPDATE: this guy has a skeptical, but reasonable perspective on the situation.

To say Arkhaven has been controversial is an understatement. From the moment the company’s flagship title, Alt-Hero, was announced the internet was debating whether a right wing perspective would “save” comics, or further damage an already fractured industry. But as I said before, what’s lacking is a shared notion of what “saving comics” really means. That said, there is a general consensus that Mark Waid’s head on pike would be a good start. Which brings us back to Vox Day and Arkhaven. Most criticism directed toward Vox can be boiled down to: “The last thing comics needs is another goddamn writer with an agenda.”

A self-described libertarian nationalist and member of the Alt-Right, Vox Day has never been shy about his politics. Likewise, his yet to be release Alt-Hero series looks to be something of a satire of today’s overly politicized comics. The project is still months away from completion, so for now we’ll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, Arkhaven has two titles digitally available on Amazon—Quantum Mortis and Right Ho, Jeeves. Both are selling well. Neither are political in nature. And there’s the rub—Alt-Hero could be a political screed. Then again, maybe not. But so far Arkhaven’s catalog hasn’t shown itself to be a mouthpiece for anybody’s politics. If only we could say the same for Marvel.

Does this signal a new dawn for comics? Well, if bringing content to an ignored demographic is Arkhaven’s end goal, it’s not a bad start. And drawing new readers to the medium is a net gain for everyone. But as Green Lantern artist Ethan Van Sciver has been quick to point out, the company currently has no presence in Diamond’s monthly Previews catalog, which is a prerequisite for getting books stocked in comic book stores. And in Sciver’s eyes, if a company isn’t moving product through brick-and-mortar shops, it’s contributing absolutely nothing to the overall health of the industry.

I’ll be blunt, if Arkhaven can eventually become successful enough to provide comics shops with enough monthly product to pay the rent, Vox will not only save the industry, he’ll be the motherfucking Batman.

Better yet, the Shade.

The most hostile work environment on the planet

James Damore’s lawsuit is making it clear to everyone just how toxic the work environment is at Google. It is so extreme that even Rod Dreher has taken notice of the lethal convergence.

7. ‘Discourage them all throughout the industry’
“If we really care about diversity in tech, we don’t just need to chase serial offenders out of Google, we need to discourage them all throughout the industry,” a lengthy internal post on Damore read. “We should be willing to give a wink and a nod to other Silicon Valley employers over terminable offenses, not send the worst parts of tech packing with a smile …”

8. ‘I will hurt you’
Damore’s memo prompted another employee to post this quote: “I’m a queer-ass nonbinary trans person that is fucking sick and tired of being told to open a dialogue with people who want me dead. We are at a point where the dialogue we need to be having with these people is ‘if you keep talking about this shit, i will hurt you.”

9. ‘Relies on crowdsourced harassment’
Google encourages employees to enforce unwritten norms by harassing and ostracizing those who break them, according to the suit, and by allowing employees to create “blocklists” on their communications systems. “[Google] relies on crowdsourced harassment and ‘pecking’ to enforce social norms (including politics) that it feels it cannot write directly into its policies,” the suit states.

11. ‘You’re being blacklisted…at companies outside Google’
Google manager Adam Fletcher wrote in 2015 he would never hire conservatives he deemed hold hostile views. “I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team,” he wrote. “Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up. You’re being blacklisted by people at companies outside of Google,” he added. “You might not have been aware of this, but people know, people talk. There are always social consequences.”

It’s really rather remarkable how completely out of control the big technology companies are. And it’s going to be even more remarkable to see how fast they collapse once the artificial circumstances keeping them afloat change. They are like hollow, cancer-ridden giants and I expect that several of them will vanish as soon as the debt-equity bubble pops.

Convergence tends to metastasize after a company hits its peak. We’re seeing this in industry after industry, and particularly in corporations whose executives start to believe their position is unassailable.

You can’t even hope to contain him

James Damore files his much-anticipated lawsuit against Google, and reveals a number of surprising facts about Google policy:

Google Provides Internal Tools to Facilitate Blacklisting

Google’s internal company systems allowed employees and managers to maintain a “block list” of other employees with whom they did not wish to interact. For example, if A adds B to her block list, B is not able to look A up in the company directory, communicate with A through the internal instant messaging system, view A’s contact information or management chain, or see A’s  posts on internal social media. A and B would not be able to work together constructively on an engineering project if either person blocked the other.

It is common knowledge within Google that employees were habitually added to block lists for expressing conservative political views. In these comments, employees and managers discussed using block lists to sabotage other Googlers’ job transfers onto their teams.

When an employee was blocked by a manager in another department in retaliation for reporting misconduct, Google HR defended the practice of blacklisting co-workers, stating: “Thanks for sharing this. Co-workers are allowed to control who can access their social media accounts (like G+ and hangouts). Unless your inability to access John’s social media accounts is negatively impacting your ability to do your job, we don’t find any information to suggest that John is retaliating against you in violation of policy.”

 On a separate occasion, another Googler posted: “Another day, another entry on a  blacklist I wish wasn’t necessary to keep.” This was reported to Google HR. Google HR responded that the employee “was just expressing his own personal opinion on who he likes working with, [therefore] we did not find his comments to violate Google policy.”

At a “TGIF” all-hands meeting on October 26, 2017, an employee directly asked executives about the appropriateness of employees keeping political blacklists. Kent Walker, the Senior Vice President of Legal, dodged the question rather than repudiating the practice of  blacklisting.

On September 8, 2017, a group of conservative employees met with Paul Manwell, Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s Chief of Staff, to raise concerns about the ongoing problem of politically motivated blacklisting, bullying, and discrimination at Google. This meeting was a direct response to the company’s handling of the Damore situation.

The conservative employees shared their own experiences with discrimination and asked the management for three major reforms. First, they asked for clarity around communication  policies, recommending that Google publish a clearer statement on what is acceptable and unacceptable employee communication, and that any and all complaints about communication be adjudicated through “a documented, fair, transparent, and appealable process.” In the meeting, the employees pointed out that company leadership was sending mixed messages on whether it was even  permissible to criticize diversity policies. Second, the employees requested protection from retaliation, asking the leadership to make a public statement that conservatives and supporters of Damore would not be punished in any way for their political stances. Third, the conservative employees asked the company to make it clear that the hostile language and veiled threats directed at Damore and his supporters were unacceptable, and in the interest of making Google a healthier environment for employees of all political stripes, the managers and VPs who made such statements should retract them. On information and belief, none of these reforms ever took place.

In or around October 2017, a number of diversity activists at Google indicated that they had met with VPs Danielle Brown and Eileen Naughton in order to ensure that they would be able to continue blacklisting and targeting employees with whom they had political disagreements. On October 22, 2017, a conservative employee asked HR to help put him in contact with company leadership to discuss the issue of targeted political harassment. This request was acknowledged by Employee Relations on October 31, 2017. On December 22, 2017, Employee Relations indicated to the employee that they would not be following up on his concerns about the systemic problems he raised, and they considered the matter closed.

Google Maintains Secret Blacklists of Conservative Authors

On August 26, 2016, Curtis Yarvin, a well-known conservative blogger who has reportedly advised Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, and other members of the Trump administration, visited the Google office to have lunch with an employee. This triggered a silent alarm, alerting security personnel to escort him off the premises.

It was later discovered that other influential conservative personalities, including Alex Jones and Theodore Beale, are also on the same blacklist.

On or about September 15, 2016, a Google employee asked HR if the writers could be removed from the blacklist. HR refused to help with the request, and instead, reconfigured the internal system so that it was no longer possible to see who was on the blacklist.

Google Allowed Employees to Intimidate Conservatives with Threats of Termination

In the midst of any heated political discussion at Google, it has become commonplace to see calls for conservatives to be fired or “encouraged to work elsewhere” for “cultural fit” reasons. Googlers are extremely proud of the fact that the company has created a “shared culture of shared  beliefs” and openly discriminates against job applicants who do not share the same political ideology.

I’m flattered, of course. Is it not better to be feared than respected? But it’s not as if it has done them any good, as Google leaks worse than the average White House.