SJWs shift the Narrative

Classic virtue signaling trigger manipulation. The Left is now being pulled into defending pedophiles by hardcore SJWs at Salon:

I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine. My pedophilia essay outraged the right. My attempt to humanize a real problem brought out their nastiest rage

My article
“I’m A Pedophile, But Not a Monster”
was published last week and it has been a whirlwind since. I’ve spent
days doing radio interviews, even an appearance on TV (HLN’s Dr. Drew on Call), but mainly just answering the hundreds of emails that have poured in. Yes, the vast majority of them have been supportive.

there has been a visible backlash, predominantly from the political
right, in private it has been a different story. This piece has
generated debate and controversy all over the world, well beyond my
wildest imaginings. When I first approached Salon with the idea, my
editor was receptive, but throughout the process of refining the piece,
she asked me if I really understood what I was getting into. Her concern
was palpable. I assured her I did, which was mostly true; I had no idea
it would blow up as quickly as it did, and the bigger it got, the more
of a tempest it became. Even so, I have no regrets. I knew when I wrote
it that it was going to be an important piece, something unique and
necessary. And so it was.

Remember, SJWs are all about the Narrative. And what we’re seeing here, as many have recognized, is the SJWs deciding that it’s time to move on from Bruce Jenner and “transphobia” in order to start normalizing pedophilia. Because he “outraged the Right” and brought out “their nastiest rage”, that is the signal that his position is the virtuous one. As for the pedophile’s claims to have never touched a child sexually, do recall the truism: SJWs always lie.

We will see all the same arguments that we’ve seen since homosexuality was normalized. It’s not their fault, love is love, no one is harmed, you’re a bigot and on the wrong side of history if you dare to judge them on the basis of a sky fairy, and so forth. These are the early days, and we’ll know they’ve been officially normalized in SJW eyes when McRapey hires Nickerson to do some art for him in order to signal his virtue.

But we are not the previous generation and we do not fall so readily for their moral modification sequence or the ever-shifting narrative. Our answer is a straightforward one. We reject tolerance, we reject pedophilia, and we reject pedophiles. They are monsters and there is no place for them in any rational or moral society.

Reviewing the reviewer

It’s amazing how predictable SJWs can be and how easy it is to smoke them out. I posted this tweet about SJWs Always Lie this morning:

Vox Day @voxday
172 five-star reviews in a month and the #1 bestseller in Political Philosophy. What more do you need to know?

Which quickly prompted this “review’ by one Jeremy Lance Software Engineer, Educator, Project Manager, Utter Geek, Jack of All Trades (Master of a Few), who works at Perficient in the Greater Detroit Area and is on the Penguicon Board of Directors.

I feel like I’ve seen better delivery mechanisms for these thoughts on …
ByJeremy K. Lance on September 30, 2015

Not especially well written, and not very well thought out. Even if I agreed with the subject matter, I feel like I’ve seen better delivery mechanisms for these thoughts on bus benches and bathroom stalls.

I feel like I’ve read more convincing fake reviews by people who don’t speak English and have never heard of the book being reviewed. Of course, Jeremy Lance is precisely the sort of SF-SJW loser you’d expect to engage in Amazon activism. He’s a tech nerd with a blog who isn’t very intelligent, went to community college, and just happens to be – surprise, surprise – an overweight alcoholic with drug problems prone to depression and “suicide”.

It was during this narrow window of my life that I found myself sitting in the bedroom that I rented from a friend holding the shotgun he kept beneath his bed and crying. It was a place I found myself in a lot around that time. Several times each week—sometimes several times in a single day—I would find myself sitting with that gun simply trying to work up the courage to use it. For weeks I kept returning to that familiar position, wanting so much to no longer be alive and being trapped in life by a fear of literally and figuratively pulling the trigger.

On this occasion, though, I was committed. So much so that I had written my note, had dressed in the clothes that I wanted to be found in, and had gone and sat in the bathtub with the shower curtain pulled closed—I certainly didn’t want to make my exit more of an imposition on anybody else than it needed to be, they’d already put up with so much.

So brave. Thank you for this. Fucking Gamma drama queens. Those “suicide attempts” sound about as genuine as the “book review”. I’ll bet he found himself in that place a lot. For weeks, he kept returning to that position, waiting for someone to find him and stop him in the nick of time.

Anyhow, if you happen to work at or with Perficient, you should probably be aware that Jeremy K. Lance is a mentally unstable SJW. Can a responsible corporation really afford to take the risk of continuing to employ an individual like Jeremy K. Lance who is known to have access to firearms, to abuse drugs and alchohol, and who observably poses a risk to himself and others?

I was a bit amused to see Lance call himself “the David Foster Wallace of software development” when he’s quite clearly not qualified to call himself that.

UPDATE: The icing on the cake:

Milo Yiannopoulos ‏@Nero
@voxday You are cruel, vindictive, mean and heartless. Never change!  

Russian airstrikes in Syria

Vladimir Putin was not bluffing:

US officials are now widely briefing that Russia has started carrying out airstrikes in Syria, following a vote by the Moscow’s upper house of parliament this morning approving military action in Syria.

Valentina Matvienko, the speaker of the Russian upper house of
parliament, says senators approved Vladimir Putin’s permission for
airstrikes in order to crush the “hydra” of terrorism:
We proceeded from the fact that first of all it is in the interests of national security of Russia for many reasons. Because
if today this hydra is not crushed at its roots, where it is already at
war, if we do not destroy “Islamic State” today, Isil could come to
threaten the entire world, including Europe and Russia.

This is very interesting from a grand strategic perspective. Note that Russia is portraying itself as a defender of Europe against Islam, and an ally in that fight, whereas the USA has been actively fostering the Islamic invasion of Europe.

A lesson learned

Since I hammered Ken White of Popehat for his howler on the UN report on “cyberviolence”, it only seems fair to point out that unlike an SJW, he did not double-down:

I was right in saying that we need to scrutinize any specific proposed laws or policies that arise from this report. But I was wrong to downplay the rhetoric as mere rhetoric, and to say it was premature to criticize it. On a more serious look, the report’s rhetoric suggests an effort to use the language of violence to cover non-violent and protected conduct. That is of particular concern since it is directed at the UN….

I screwed up. I didn’t blow a closing argument or put the wrong pacemaker in someone or crash a car, but I offered my thoughts without exercising due care. The easy reason was that I rushed, because I was busy. The harder reason is that some of my attitudes colored my approach.

I expected that the report would not be read, that its contents would be overstated and distorted, and that it would be treated as an open and explicit call for censorship because of the people involved with it. I wasn’t wrong to think that. But I was wrong to let that thought stop me from a more careful examination, and to allow myself to breeze by the implications of the rhetoric while looking for the specific proposals that weren’t there. If I had looked at it from a “is this rhetoric bad or not” standpoint, instead of a “imagine the reaction to this” viewpoint, I would have gotten it right.

People have been getting suckered by the Left’s “it’s only rhetoric” and “it’s just this one brick” for over a century now. That’s how the income tax got started. That’s how Britain joined the European Union. If there is one lesson to be learned from White’s mea culpa, it is this: rhetoric is not irrelevant.

Rhetoric is a form of persuasion and it is MORE effective than logic, science, data, reason, and dialectic for the vast majority of human beings. It is never to be dismissed lightly or ignored, not even by the dialectical thinker, because the manipulation of human emotion is one of the most powerful means of inspiring human action.

Furthermore, one should never assume that facts are either true or false on the basis of how one feels about the individual supporting or opposing it. Even the Devil can quote Scripture, after all. But if someone is known to be dishonest, or an SJW, or affiliated in any way with the United Nations, one should always take the time to carefully scrutinize any assertion they make as well as any source they cite.

Subhuman scum

I wouldn’t have thought it would be possible for me to think less of McRapey. I was wrong.

And yes, in case you’re wondering, I support Planned Parenthood, and have the donation receipts to prove it.

I’ve always found the idea that I, of all people, am jealous or envious of John Scalzi to be bizarre, as I think anyone would have to be insane to want to have anything to do with such a grotesque, twisted creature.

Although this was rather funny.

JartStar ‏@JartStar
@scalzi Did you get the baby parts you ordered with your donation?

Thoughts on tolerance

RationalCyclist contemplates the contradiction of an increasingly intolerant society extolling tolerance:

It occurred to me that things have a tendency to engender their
opposites. I’m no anthropologist / sociologist; surely there is a
buzzword or catchphrase to describe the phenomenon where prominence
given to any one particular human virtue ends up bringing about its
opposite, either by necessity filling a void, or by stimulating an equal
and opposite reaction.

This preamble, being a roundabout way of introducing a rather neat
assertion that I have assembled relating to the nature of tolerance in
societies founded on Christian and Islamic systems.  In a nutshell:

I) Tolerance is a virtue intrinsic to societies built on a Christian foundation, often taken to grotesque ends by members not possessed of its corresponding virtues of modesty/humility who prefer to exploit it to flatter their moral vanity.

II) Tolerance is a necessary coping mechanism in structurally hypocritical cultures subject to endless strictures on every form of activity, as is often found in Islamic cultures, where it accordingly finds more natural limits.

To many, the first statement will sound baffling.  The second outright offensive.  Allow me to explain.  Firstly, it is worth clarifying that the ability to express intolerance of certain actions and behaviours is probably as essential as the capacity to tolerate individual differences is to the moral health of any given culture.  Which brings me to a second point of clarity relating to terms.  It merits a brief iteration of the six possible attitudes one may adopt toward any given point of principle:

Rejection = disbelief + opposition
Tolerance = disbelief + passivity
Submission = disbelief + support
Denialism = belief + opposition
Acceptance = belief + passivity
Celebration = belief + support

It is surely a sign of how progressive we have all become that we can move so nimbly between Rejection and Celebration these days, no? Perhaps another category is needed to describe criminalising people for failing to celebrate things that were illegal less than five decades ago.

On the surface, celebration and rejection would appear to be the most principled stances to take on any given subject, which is no doubt why those who have an existential need to think well of themselves avail themselves of their use with such frequency.

I have no criticism or analysis to offer here, I just thought it was an interesting way to go about looking at the subject. 

A non-nation of non-Americans

Better hope that trusty Magic Dirt continues to exert its amazing transformational power. The Pew Research Center releases a report on post-1965 immigration to the United States.

Fifty years after passage of the landmark law that rewrote U.S. immigration policy, nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States, pushing the country’s foreign-born share to a near record 14%. For the past half-century, these modern-era immigrants and their descendants have accounted for just over half the nation’s population growth and have reshaped its racial and ethnic composition.

Looking ahead, new Pew Research Center U.S. population projections show that if current demographic trends continue, future immigrants and their descendants will be an even bigger source of population growth. Between 2015 and 2065, they are projected to account for 88% of the U.S. population increase, or 103 million people, as the nation grows to 441 million.

In other words, the country – one can no longer credibly refer to the USA as a “nation” – will belong to their posterity. Not yours. And it will not be at all surprising if those new “Americans” harbor even less allegiance to the U.S. Constitution than we, our parents, and our grandparents have demonstrated by betraying the very purpose of that document.

That’s the problem with “a propositional nation”. Changing the population changes the proposition and pretty soon, the “nation” is no more.

I very much doubt those “current demographic trends” will continue. Remember, most of those homogeneous nations originally came out of heterogeneous nations. History has a harsh way of ensuring that the nations remain largely homogeneous, one way or another.

You had ONE job

If the central banks eliminate cash, people will no longer need banks:

It has long been believed that when it comes to interest rates, zero is as low as you can go. Who would choose to keep their money in the bank if they had to pay for the privilege?

But for the people who control the world’s money, this idea has recently been thrown out of the window. Many central banks have pushed their rates into negative territory and yet the financial system has still to come to an abrupt end.

It is a discovery that flips on its head the conventional idea of how authorities could respond to future economic crises; and for central bankers, this has come as a relief.

Central bank policymakers had believed they had run out of room to support their respective economies, with their interest rates held close to the floor.

Traditionally, it was thought that if you wanted to boost the economy, the central bank would reduce its interest rates. Normally, the rates offered on savings accounts would follow, and people would choose to spend more, and save less.

But there’s a limit, what economists called the “zero lower bound”. Cut rates too deeply, and savers would end up facing negative returns. In that case, this could encourage people to take their savings out of the bank and hoard them in cash. This could slow, rather than boost, the economy.

What is happening now should not – according to conventional thinking – be possible.

As central bank rates have turned negative, the rates offered on bank deposits have followed. Yet rather than stuffing cash under mattresses, people have left their money in the bank or spent it.

Nowhere is the experiment with negative rates more obvious than among Nordic central banks. Sweden – the first to dabble with negative rates – is perhaps the prime candidate for such experimentation.

The country already has high savings rates, the third highest in the developed world according to the OECD and, despite growing at healthy rates, there appears to be plenty of slack left in the economy to prevent an overheat.

Unemployment is unusually high for an advanced economy at more than 7pc, still well above its pre-crisis levels of sub-6pc. Crucially, the Riksbank’s mandate suggests that such a radical experiment is necessary. Policymakers have battled with deflation since late 2012, and with inflation at minus 0.2pc in August, it remains well below the central bank’s 2pc target.

To a great extent, the Riksbank’s hand has been forced by the plight of the eurozone. A tepid recovery in the currency union has required the European Central Bank (ECB) to bring in ever-looser policy.

As the ECB’s actions have weakened the euro against Sweden’s krona, the cost of importing goods into Sweden has fallen, and weighed down on inflation. The Riksbank has had to cut its own rates in response in an attempt to avoid deep deflation.

Sweden’s flexible approach to monetary policy has won it the plaudits of leading credit ratings agency. Standard and Poor’s recently reaffirmed the country’s triple AAA sovereign rating, remarking on the benefits it derives from “ample monetary policy flexibility”.

Noting that the Riksbank had introduced both negative interest rates and quantitative easing, S&P said that “should inflation rates stay low or the krona appreciate materially, the central bank could lower the repo rate further”.

Many City analysts believe that the Riksbank will continue cutting, reducing its key interest rate to minus 0.5pc by the end of the year. Switzerland’s is already deeper still, at minus 0.75pc, while Denmark and the eurozone have joined them as members of the negative zone.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that people are willing to accept low negative interest rates. After all, banks began as institutions that charged people to hold their gold for them. It wasn’t until they began creating money by handing out multiple certificates of ownership that they needed to start paying “interest” rather than receiving “fees”.

However, banning cash will go too far; the reason people use “money” is that it is less of an annoyance than barter. In their desperate attempt to remain profitable in a deflationary environment, banks are taking the risk of rendering themselves irrelevant.

LibreOffice turns 5

I’m a big fan of LibreOffice. I’ve used it to write everything from A THRONE OF BONES to SJWs ALWAYS LIE and it’s been a big help in preparing the works of others for formatting into ebooks. If you’re not using it yet, you really should take a serious look at it, because whether you need to replace all the italics or kick out a PDF, it just works.

While I’ve been experimenting with Scrivener for A SEA OF SKULLS, I still find myself returning to LibreOffice for short stories like “Amazon Gambit” and pretty much everything else. And, let’s face it, it’s impossible to beat the price.

Merkel knew about VW cheating

From Zerohedge:

 German Greens Claim Merkel Government Knew Emissions Tests Were Rigged

    The German Green party has claimed that the German Government, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, knew about the software car manufacturers used to rig emissions tests in the US. The Green party has said it asked the German Transport Ministry in July about the devices used to deceive regulators and received a written response as follows, the FT reports: “The federal government is aware of [defeat devices], which have the goal of [test] cycle detection.”

    The Transport Ministry denied knowing that the software was being used in new vehicles, however. The timing of the questions has raised concerns over whether the German government knew about the activities at Volkswagen stretching back to 2009. “The federal government admitted in July, to an inquiry from the Greens, that the [emissions] measurement practice had shortcomings. Nothing happened,” said Oliver Krischer, a German Green party lawmaker.

That written response the Financial Times reports on either exists or it does not. Let’s see it. Simple. If it does exist, Merkel’s in trouble. Then again, the EU knew about the defeat device at least two years ago. It’s starting to look as if everyone was involved. And you can’t fire everyone.

EU Warned On Devices At Centre Of VW Scandal Two Years Ago

    EU officials had warned of the dangers of defeat devices two years before the Volkswagen emissions scandal broke, highlighting Europe’s failure to police the car industry. A 2013 report by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre drew attention to the challenges posed by the devices, which are able to skew the results of exhaust readings. But regulators then failed to pursue the issue — despite the fact the technology had been illegal in Europe since 2007. EU officials said they had never specifically looked for such a device themselves and were not aware of any national authority that located one.

At this rate, Angela Merkel is going to be on trial for treason by this time next year.