Wednesday, August 3, 2016

The Shitlord, Master of Social Media

Redpilling on the JQ often begins with noticing a curious trend among the (((masters of mass media))).

It's all a cohencidence, goy.
Explanations abound. Personally I tend toward less conspiratorial explanations, favoring cultural and social explanations. But it can't be denied that Jews are uniquely talented for rising to the top of mass media. I believe a major reason for this is that mass commercial media is highly profit-driven. Over a thousand years of cultural selection in Europe uniquely prepared Jews to do very well in a market-driven society free of hereditary aristocracy. Jewish overrepresentation in mass media is no different on a fundamental level than Jewish overrepresentation among the financial elite of Manhattan. I think this is due not so much to nepotism (although humans naturally exploit their ethnic social networks when the EEOC doesn't punish them for it) as it is the lack of any feeling of cultural loyalty Jews have to Western culture and institutions, as they themselves are fond of pointing out.

Much like success in high finance is awarded to those who never let moral priors get in the way of making the right call (Wall Street does not care if you invest in arms manufacturers or sex toy companies as long as you get a return), success in mass media is awarded to those who never let their moral priors get in the way of appealing to people's base instincts.  Sex sells, and no one has to know what media you consume, removing the power of social sanction. And hey, don't forget, Hollywood Jews made Bible epics back when they drew big crowds, and they still test the waters now and then when they remember that evangelicals are still a big, underserved market. Whatever turns a profit.

By contrast, Jews are completely ineffective on social media. Jews with a lot of followers tend to be already famous from mass media, and they come up with absolutely shit tier memes that go nowhere.
By contrast, viral memes are not planned or planted. I think we've all been around in /pol/, secret FB groups, comment threads, and forums when a meme was created for the lulz. Then you watch it go viral, and it's like...holy crap! Echoes are mainstream now! HA!!! You can't force a reaction gif to go viral or a hashtag to trend.

While the platforms themselves need to make a profit, the content-creators don't. This means that rather than creating media people want to pay for, it's driven by creating media that people want to show to others. People pay for the news, for fantasy, and for titillation. But they share things that trigger reactions---laughter, outrage, sympathy, you name it. And you know what triggers reactions like nothing else?

Suppressed truths.

Mass media is great for suppressing truth. Social media is great for spreading memes. Sure, bullshit memes (SOLAR FREAKIN' ROADWAYS) spread, but so do hatefacts. Social media caters to the edgy renegade, and in today's society, the boundaries of social acceptability are inhabited by the right-wing shitlord and fenced by a wall of Pepe memes.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Rape is a Cultural Value

Multiculturalism founded on the belief that culture consists of culinary traditions, religious festivals, traditional garb, metaphysical belief, holidays, and observances such as prayer times.

As it turns out, culture also includes things like concepts of law and punishment, the treatment of women, sexual consent, the proper use of violence in everything from enforcing religious norms to protecting honor, and slavery. Pressing children into sexual service is a genuine part of Pashtun culture.

That is, multicultists believe that Islamic culture is couscous, hijabs, and praying five times a day. Pointing out that it also includes bacha bazi and namus is a hate crime in many European countries already.

I suppose it's pedestrian on the alt-right to point out that the spike of heinous crimes that follows mass Muslim migration everywhere in the world comes from their culture, not "poverty" or "oppression" or whatever, but it is worth reminding yourself every so often how progressives conceive of reality.

This comes from the Western tendency to universalize. We all do it. Seeking universal principles is why we invented science in the first place. We're all familiar with how libertarians try to universalize their own distaste for being controlled and are flummoxed again and again when they meet people who would rather live in a controlled society. And in the case of multiculturalism, progressives universalize their belief in equality, fraternity, and sodomy, genuinely not comprehending that the dusky-skinned folks around the world do not find the prospect of an eternal eco-friendly pride parade enticing at all.

The left does not understand that in Islam, rape is a cultural value, and morever, they are unable to understand.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Why Conservatives Plan to Lose in November

The wildly different reactions of the left and right to having nominated rather unpleasant human beings as candidates is due to the difference in left and right morality.
Donald Trump is a greedy, poorly-mannered, philandering blowhard. Hillary Clinton is the sort of corrupt politician who thinks nothing of sending people to their deaths or selling out national security for power and profit.
Liberal morality is about "the good guys winning." Going back at least to WW1, for a liberal, the most important thing is that the good guys win any conflict of power. Once we know who the good guys are, there's no bridge too far. So in the case of Clinton v. Trump, it is an easy choice for them. The people that liberals consider the "good guys" (minorities, environmentalists, socialists, etc) stand to win more if Clinton wins than Trump, regardless of Clinton's personal corruption and criminality. The case any Democrat has to make to his or her base is, "If you vote for me, the good guys will win." The choice is obvious: vote for Clinton. With any luck, Clinton's corruption and greed will be offset by the benefits accruing to the good guys from having a left-wing Court and bureaucracy.
Conservative morality is about "being a good person." To a conservative, a political victory where you sacrificed your personal morality is worse than a loss where you kept your principles intact. To them, Clinton vs. Trump is a devil's bargain. Sure, Trump is to the right of Clinton on nearly every issue (and to the right of many mainstream Republicans on a number of issues), and a Clinton victory will permanently end conservative legal and political aspirations via stacking the Court and immigration policy, respectively. But Trump is a bad person, and conservatives believe that voting for a bad person makes you a bad person, too. The case any Republican has to make to his or her base is, "If you vote for me, you'll be a good person." The choice is obvious: Don't vote, and loudly boast to everyone that you have too much integrity to vote for Trump.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Another Note on Europe's Coming War

A Brit whose account got shoahed made a response to an article I wrote on TRS about Europe's coming war. Essentially, he argued that with Europe's population disarmed by gun laws, they are sitting ducks for a Muslim takeover and won't fight back.

Those same laws theoretically disarm Muslims, yet French and Belgian authorities are finding caches of automatic weapons all over their countries in the hands of their swarthy guests. Well, why is that? The answer is simple: Muslim migrants don't regard the host government as legitimate in any sense whatsoever.

European authorities are willfully stupid about Islam. They have bought into post-1965 lies propagated by Jewish academics about nationalism being the cause of WW2. They have vigorously purged their own minds of crimethink about culture and nation. So they genuinely believe they are just a few policies and law enforcement strategies away from getting Muslims to live peaceably side-by-side with Europeans. They genuinely believe this is going to happen:


So we can discount right away the possibility of European governments doing anything other than hastening the inevitable.

The problem people have is two biases: rationality bias and normalcy. They are overly pessimistic because the obvious, rational thing for Muslims to do is wait until they're 60%+ of the population, vote in a sharia government, and wait until they're 80%+ to purge the remaining indigenous people. At that point, of course it would be nearly impossible for Europeans to reclaim their homelands. But Arabs and African Muslims aren't rational. They're inbred, violent, and impulsive. Look at our own Democrats. Despite being led by high-IQ whites and Jews, they started acting like whites are already 20% of the population, and the backlash has led to Trump's rise. 

Europe's Muslims are not going to wait until they're a supermajority to start blowing up buildings, massacring people in public, and kidnapping little children to rape them. They're literally already doing this.

This is where normalcy bias kicks in. The pessimists look at the fact that Europeans aren't fighting back except at the ballot box, that the nationalists already lack the numbers to vote out the globalists, and conclude that all is lost. But we only need to look into the past. In Bismarck's Prussia, the idea of a street fight between the patriotic Freikorps and the Judeo-Bolshevik Communists was unthinkable. But by 1919, it was a reality. In a normal situation, people respect, fear, and honor the government more than any other organization. Most of our assumptions about how people behave has this as a background assumptions. 

In England, for example, it is still the case that the indigenous Britons fear arrest and imprisonment by their own government enough to refrain from seizing their own children back from the Muslim rape-gangs. But what happens when the government is too overwhelmed with Islamic crime to bother with anything else? What happens when the Muslims are so violent that imprisonment doesn't seem that bad? What happens when a generation of youth is raised seeing the state not as their benefactor and protector, but as weak, abusive, and useless? That's when you start seeing native street gangs and organized crime taking things into its own hands. Remember, good people turned to the Mob because they knew the police wouldn't help.

As Europe becomes more Islamic, the violence will reach a fever pitch to the point where EU governments will have a choice: Either lose legitimacy, or wage war. If it's the latter, it's anyone's guess as to whether it will be for or against the people. 

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Ted Cruz Couldn't Win. Sad!

If Jeb Bush was the anti-Trump, Ted Cruz was the mirror-Trump. What I have to respect about him is he was willing to do whatever he could to win, which sets him apart from most of the GOP. I don't think that if he had won, he would have been reluctant to attack Hillary. I don't think that if he had become President, he would have been eager to throw conservatives under the bus in order to nominate another Sandra Day O'Connor or cram an amnesty bill down America's throat (no, I don't believe he's bona fide on the issue, but I believe he's not stupid and can see which way the political winds are blowing).

Ted Cruz was a long shot from the beginning, but he ultimately blew it because, despite being willing to do what it takes to win, he was completely tone-deaf. He's still living in the fictional world of Conservatism, Inc, where elections are about issues and won by having the best arguments in televised debates.  So when leftists physically attacked Trump rallies, Cruz thought the right thing to do was attack Trump.  With that one move, he totally blew his credibility as the "like Trump on key issues, more conservative than him on the others" image he'd been trying to craft for the previous several weeks.

Now, of course, conservatives are in full meltdown mode. That big meany Trump beat Cruz by being unfair---as though Hillary has any intention of fighting fair! The reality is that Cruz has no one to blame for his defeat than himself. He didn't get that this election isn't about any single policy, but about one question: Whose side are you on? Cruz said to Trump supporters, "not yours," and a whole lot of other people said, "Wait, does that mean he won't be on my side, either?" And that's why he lost.

Monday, May 2, 2016

Inuits Are Nativist Bigots

NPR has what would be a great article on Inuit suicide in Greenland if it weren't for the backdrop of their utter viciousness toward the same phenomenon among working-class whites. The summary is quite simple: A massive wave of foreigners arrived, drawn by economic opportunity, and in doing so totally disrupted their communities, broke their social bonds, and changed their way of life so much that they couldn't adapt.

Of course, when working-class whites commit suicide in droves for the exact same reasons, everyone from NPR liberals to National Review's Kevin Williamson says it's because they're nativist bigots who refuse to embrace diversity and adjust to the global economy. When Inuits do it, it's because their traditional way of life is being destroyed and communities are being broken up by soulless institutions that care only about power and profit.

The article is laden with quotes absolutely dripping with leftist double-think:

"There's also something broader — a loss of identity that happens when a culture, in this case Inuit culture, is demonized and broken down."

In the case of Inuits, this is a good thing. See, Inuits are noble savages whose culture deserves to be preserved for the sole reason that it's theirs. Yes, yes, they've got a bit of genocide, human sacrifice, and cannibalism in their history, but hey, you're a bigot for even knowing that. They're much more enlightened now (please don't ask who enlightened them, bigot). White Americans and Europeans, by contrast, are born bigots whose culture deserves to be destroyed for the sole reason that it's theirs.

There is no such thing as a native European. There is no such thing as American culture. Sweden is a proposition nation. Speaking French makes you French. The Mexican flag means diversity and is good; the American flag means racism and is hate.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Liberals Are Hypocrites, And So What?

Every so often, I see articles pop in my news feed about this or that conservative speaker giving a talk about some random crap at somewhere or other. This week, it's Dinesh D'Souza speaking at UW on how liberals don't value true diversity because they don't admit contrary viewpoints to discussion. He's not wrong, of course, but what struck me is how blind conservatives are the utter futility of calling out liberal hypocrisy. You've heard it all before: Democrats are the real racists. Liberals don't value true diversity. Leftists don't really care about the poor. And so on.

It's seductive because, like I said, they're not really wrong. The first time I came across rhetoric of this stripe was in National Review some time in the early 1990s. But in the 20+ years since I first picked up the formerly conservative rag, the left has instituted gay marriage, made Marxism part of the course curriculum at most colleges, and turned tranny bathrooms into a social mandate.

So, uh, it doesn't seem to be working.

What conservatives like D'Souza don't seem to understand is that the left doesn't care about "hypocrisy" because it's winning. In this case, why would any of the Marxist deans at UW allow conservatives into faculty positions? See, they're winning. The departments that shape students' morals and worldview are run by other Marxists. They've got a good thing going. How does it benefit the left to let the right into the faculty lounge? Because then they wouldn't be hypocrites? I hate to break it to you, pal, but only conservatives believe in losing on principle. The left just believes in winning.

Nothing this man has done stopped mandatory tranny bathrooms.

This is also subtly harmful because it validates left-wing moral premises.  By holding up leftist ideals as good and noble, then trying to show that leftists just don't live up to them very well, the conservative emasculates himself and loses his ability to fight the left. Valuing "intellectual diversity" is precisely why Marxists are able to gain institutional control in the first place. Conservatives don't believe in purging leftists, but leftists do believe in purging conservatives, so in any given institution, it is only a matter of time before a leftist ends up CEO, President, dean, director, or whatever, and can start the purges. Crying that "Democrats are the real bigots" is why conservatives can't fight for white men in the face of the left's vicious attacks.

You want to give a subversive speech on campus? Give talks on how to run leftists out of their seats of power, how to dig up dirt on university deans to get them fired, how young lawyers can find cause to sue leftist organizations into bankruptcy, or how you can exploit the rules to get leftists expelled. Stop acting like this is a gentlemen's game. It isn't. This is a fight for our civilization, and right now, its enemies have all the power and no reason to give it up.