When the parties change but the policies remain the same, what you have is neither a democracy nor a republic. It’s just democracy theater, or as they say in France, le théâtre de la démocratie factice.
Today it is impossible to imagine any of the ultra-left repeating the words of Georges Marchais, the leader of the French Communist Party, in 1980: “It is necessary to stop both illegal and legal immigration. It is totally unacceptable to allow more and more migrant workers into France when our country already has 2 million unemployed French people and immigrants who have already settled here.”
Today, the number of unemployed has reached almost 5.5 million, the amount of legal and illegal immigrants has increased tenfold, but the left does not see this as a problem and devotes itself primarily to fighting ‘all discrimination’. The Socialists seriously discredited themselves during the government of François Hollande, who positioned himself as ‘the enemy of international finance’ but did very little to protect the poor, presenting the ‘marriage equality’ law as his main achievement…
Opponents can be as radical as they like in words, but when it comes to action they are unable to offer a real alternative to the policies of their predecessors. This can be seen in other European countries where ‘extremists’ have been in power. The French far-right and far-left have toned down their criticism of Brussels and, if they come to power, a relatively smooth integration into pan-European structures is more likely than an attempt by Paris at radical reform (as the representatives of the National Rally and the leaders of France Unbowed recently insisted). The statements and actions of the opposition may be vibrant and demonstrative, they may cause riots and protests, they may lead to internal chaos. But they are unlikely to be able to break the general development trend.
The economist Frederick Farah has pointed out that “over the past few decades, we have seen that whatever majority is in power, it implements roughly the same policies, leading to the deterioration of working conditions and stable employment, the dismantling of public services, increased poverty, the reduction of the country’s industrial base, strategic vulnerability and the rise of populism.”
This is why the sovereign nations are finally winning the rhetorical battle against Clown World and its fake democracies, false freedoms, and inverted rights. Seventy years of empty promises and false assurances have not brought about the shiny, sexy, seculartopia of the future that convinced the people of Christendom to abandon their traditions, their faith, and their cultures, but have instead delivered invasion, poverty, depravity, and soon, military defeat.
Forbes has been met with fierce criticism over a recent opinion piece about two Bridgerton characters being in a ‘mixed-weight romance’ – suggesting that the world is ‘still not ready’ to see two people of different body types dating on-screen.
The piece, which was written by Virgie Tovar, a ‘leading expert on weight bias’, focused on the relationship between fictional characters Penelope Featherington, played by Nicola Coughlan, and Colin Bridgerton, played by Luke Newton. Tovar said that the on-screen relationship between the two characters ‘defied romance plotline convention’, seemingly because Nicola is ‘larger’ than Luke.
But Tovar’s use of the phrase ‘mixed-weight romance’ has sparked a bitter backlash from readers, with many questioning why the need to call attention to their size was ever necessary. Fans of the Shonda Rhimes series took to X, formerly known as Twitter, in their droves to slam the writer and the publication, furiously mocking the use of the ‘mixed-weight’ phrasing.
Savage. Absolutely and beautifully savage. And really, what’s wrong with a mixed-weight relationship? You aren’t some kind of hateful fattist or something, are you?
You know a term is rhetorically effective when its mere existence triggers the susceptible.
If you really want to eviscerate a man, compliment him on his open-mindedness…
This is a quote from the 1966 Philadelphia symposium, but it is precisely the same sort of argument that any substantive critic of Neo-Darwinism keeps running into from the Neo-Darwinians:
Combinations of different genes occur such that every individual is a unique combination, and the selective assay of the value of each random mutation is performed simultaneously in this framework for thousands of mutations at a time. The acceptance of the neo-Darwinian concept of evolution appears to be eminently valid on this basis. However, a critical feature is the occurrence of mechanisms for genetic combination and recombination, and a major criticism of the neo-Darwinian concept which has been raised at this meeting is premised on the lack of such a mechanism in the initial steps of the evolution of a “sense” sequence of a polypeptide or polynucleotide from an initially “nonsense” sequence. It does not, however, seem an extreme extrapolation from the known facts of nucleic acid replication and transcription to envisage that combination and recombination are inherent features of polynucleotides, and the evolution of “sense” sequences then becomes a process of reasonable probability. – Dr. Alex Fraser, Professor of Genetics, University of California Davis, California
Let’s break the argument down into its component parts:
There is no mechanism. This is readily admitted.
This lack of a mechanism renders the hypothesis impossible.
But it doesn’t strike the Neo-Darwinian true believer to be an extreme extrapolation to imagine what this nonexistent, never-observed mechanism could be if it existed, which it doesn’t.
And if we simply imagine that this nonexistent mechanism existed, then the proposed process that requires it in order to function becomes theoretically possible.
Therefore, the process works as imagined
What sort of philosophical ineptitude and logical retardery is this? Who is stupid enough to accept this as a legitimate argument, let alone an established fact? This isn’t science, reason, logic, or math, it’s just maleducated handwaving combined with wishful thinking. They’re playing poker with Uno cards.
Evolution isn’t science. It isn’t even philosophy or religion. It’s just the vacuous rhetoric of the innumerate, as even its leading champions were forced to admit at the end of the 1966 symposium.
I hope the biologists have shown the physicists that evolutionary theories are not totally vacuous. I think the physicists have shown us that they are certainly as yet very incomplete, and I think we are ready to realize they are very incomplete. – Dr. C. H. Waddington, Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Monday called for the “total annihilation” of Rafah and other cities in the Gaza Strip.
“There are no half measures. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat – total annihilation. ‘You will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven’ – there’s no place under heaven,” Smotrich said.
Smotrich’s reference to “Amalek” was from a line in Deuteronomy, a book in the Hebrew Bible. Amalek is a nation the ancient Israelites were commanded to destroy, and in the book of Samuel, the Israelites were told to “slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously compared Gaza to Amalek, which has been cited as evidence of genocidal rhetoric in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
I’m not sure that “Putting the NAZI in Ashkenazi” is a particularly great campaign program, but then, I don’t know much about Israeli politics these days. Hitler’s rhetoric went over fairly well in his time, after all.
However, I think it’s bizarre to see conservatives, Boomers, and conservative Boomers to be complaining that American college students are protesting against the genocidal actions of the Israeli government when the IDF is literally killing tens of thousands of Palestinians while top Israeli government officials are openly calling for a literal genocide of an entire people.
The Gazacaust isn’t going to be forgotten any faster than the Holocaust was, so Israelis had better get used to the idea of paying reparations to the Palestinians and their descendants for at least another 70 years.
I’ve been visited 4 times in 3 days by Cheshire Police. Asking for a Voluntary interview about something I’ve tweeted. Including a couple of women police officers knocking at 9.30pm last night when my kids were in bed. I’ve given them my solicitors information and number. He then called to arrange an interview. No answer, so he left a voice message for the Sergeant who’d visited on the 1st occasion. The last two women didn’t know there had been 3 visits in 3 days, apparently! Either it’s a shambles or an attempt to intimidate me and my family. Welcome to North Korea.
Remember, hypocrisy is always a virtue in the inversion that is Clown World. The servants of Clown World genuinely believe they are upholding freedom as they oppress you, believe they are defending basic human rights as they threaten violent force to silence speech, and believe they are defending people while they murder innocent civilians.
And the more trivial the thought crime, the more popular the opinion expressed, the more overt the attempts to intimidate.
But don’t think that they’ll be mustered in your defense when you are openly slandered, libeled, defamed, and insulted, even when you have an iron-clad case against those who have clearly violated the law more egregiously than the thought criminals they are pursuing. Then, it’s suddenly “well, no actual harm done” and “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” and every other subjective excuse they think will somehow conceal the obvious fact of their shameless hypocrisy and double standard.
Which is why it is best, if you are at all active on social media or even a minor public figure, to stick relentlessly to telling the truth, using rhetoric that is soundly based in proper dialectic, and preferably, utilizes terms that are defined as positive by the Clown Worlders themselves. This doesn’t mean that they won’t try to prosecute you for directly quoting someone stating an uncomfortable truth, but it does significantly complicate their ability to do so successfully.
Rolling Stone journalist Amanda Robb once complained in an article that she interviewed me for three hours without me ever giving her anything “useful”. What she was looking for was a kill-quote and I knew it. Her problem was that I expressed my opinions very clearly, without hiding anything, but in an entirely non-pejorative manner, with no vulgarities, obscenities, or emotionally-charged terms that have been defined as offensive. Of course, her confession confirming her intentions is why I no longer give interviews to anyone with any associations with the mainstream media.
That’s why, 11 years later, they’re still using the same half-sentence quote taken completely out of context to try to discredit and deplatform me. They just don’t have anything else; they have to invent totally false positions I’ve never, ever, held or expressed just to take a shot even though there are 27,000 blog posts, 512 columns, and 15 books to comb through if they need material. Here is the entire quote, which you will note never appears in its entirety on Wikipedia or anywhere else beside this blog, because it shows that I was not only responding to an series of outrageous lies and accusations made, completely unprovoked, by Jemisin, but that my response to her absurd and dishonest “call for reconciliation” in Australia was not only reasonable, but prescient.
Jemisin has it wrong; it is not that I, and others, do not view her as human, (although genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens), it is that we simply do not view her as being fully civilized for the obvious historical reason that she is not.
She is lying about the laws in Texas and Florida too. The laws are not there to let whites ” just shoot people like me, without consequence, as long as they feel threatened by my presence”, those self-defense laws have been put in place to let whites defend their lives and their property from people, like her, who are half-savages engaged in attacking them.
Being an educated, but ignorant half-savage, with little more understanding of what it took to build a new literature by “a bunch of beardy old middle-class middle-American guys” than an illiterate Igbotu tribesman has of how to build a jet engine, Jemisin clearly does not understand that her dishonest call for “reconciliation” and even more diversity within SF/F is tantamount to a call for its decline into irrelevance. Nor do the back-patting Samuel Johnsons wiping their eyes and congratulating her for her ever-so-touching speech understand that.
There can be no reconciliation between the observant and the delusional.
I have never retracted, apologized, or backed down from what I said, why it’s still all right there on the blog for everyone to see, and why they had to give her no less than three successive Best Novel Hugo Awards in order to elevate her imaginary standing in the science fiction world to distract attention from the observable truth about one of their leading poster diversities.
Eleven years later, events have proven my assessment was absolutely correct. Thanks to the convergence of the various industries involved, Jemisin got the “even more diversity within SF/F” for which she was calling and SF/F is now observably in marked decline in every single format, from comics to film. And it never ceases to be amusing how the midwits in the media showed themselves to be incapable of understanding the science in the genetic science reference, although word must have eventually gotten around because they all suddenly dropped that one about six years ago.
In any event, never give them the ammo with which to shoot you. Force them to manufacture it without ever stepping back one inch from that which is true and True. For we will continue to observe while they continue to delude themselves, and there will never be any reconciliation until the day Reality comes for them and shatters their delusions.
Oi! We ‘eard you been thinking some criminal thoughts!
(see Terms to Avoid) Outdated clinical term considered derogatory and offensive. The Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post restrict usage of the term.
Same-Gender Loving
Also known as SGL, this is a term used by some African American people as an Afrocentric alternative to what are considered Eurocentric, or white, identities like gay and lesbian. Coined by activist Cleo Manago in the 1990s, the term and its usage explicitly recognizes the histories and cultures of people of African descent.
Fake and SGL. I like it. How long do you think it will take before “SGL” is considered derogatory and offensive? Sadly, like the once-official term “Afro-American”, I doubt it will ever catch on sufficiently to generate the sufficient rhetorical heat.
But, in the meantime, if you happen to be a self-described gay, lesbian, or homosexual, please be advised that you are now officially a) outdated and b) racist.
We were fed up with the p*rn profiles, JIDF propagandists, and other subversive behavior that we’ve encountered over the years all emanating from the same IP sources in the same country. It was time to put an end to it, so we did.
He’s the Oskar Schindler of our day. And yet, mysteriously, those he saved from what we’ve been repeated assured is the worst evil that ever eviled appear to be less than grateful.
Shouldn’t they be thanking him and planting trees or something?
You know, the whole point of kicking people off your platforms means that they go somewhere else and leave you alone. You aren’t supposed to follow them to their new platforms and then complain that they are doing what you told them to go and do somewhere else. Gab simply isn’t “far-right” or “known for neo-Nazi users”. It’s full of Boomer conservatives who love God, guns, and the Republican Party, which is about as extreme as vanilla ice cream with butterscotch on top. As was recently demonstrated on Substack, all the “neo-Nazis” on the platform are fake, and most of the “antisemitic” posts are posted by paid propagandists who are literally paid to play neo-Nazis online in order to justify false charges of “antisemitism”.
And many, if not most, of those propagandists just had their IP addresses blocked. It’s going to be fascinating to see how the boys who cry antisemitism for a living will explain the sudden disappearance of “neo-Nazis”, and the huge decline in the number of “antisemitic posts” on Gab, in the aftermath of Israeli IPs being banned. And it won’t be a surprise to see a sudden increase in the number of “antisemitic posts” appearing from IP addresses located in Manhattan either.
Anyhow, in light of the world’s reaction to the Gazacaust, if I were an Israeli citizen, I wouldn’t worry about access to Gab. I’d worry about access to BRICSIA. See: Yemen.
Israel has a right to exist. It has a right to self-defense. But it does not have any right to anyone else’s property, be it a neighbor’s land or an American online service, no matter what some pompous satanic esotericist declared back in 500 Anno Domini.
There are reports that in the aftermath of the International Court of Justice telling him to stop the Gazacaust, the Israeli Prime Minister is not only going to reject their demands, but order the IDF to invade Lebanon:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to start a full-blown war against the pro-Palestinian armed group Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Lebanese broadcaster LBCI reported on Saturday. Hezbollah has been firing rockets and mortar shells at Israeli positions since the start of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. The barrages have prompted retaliatory strikes from the Israeli army.
According to LBCI, an intelligence report on Israel’s plans has been provided to Hezbollah by an unnamed Arab country. The potential IDF campaign would be aimed at compelling the militants to abide by UN Security Resolution 1701, which was adopted after the end of the last Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, the TV channel said. The UN document facilitated the creation of a demilitarized zone along the Israeli-Lebanese border.
I understand the political pressures driving Netanyahu to try to find a military success somewhere as Israel comes under increasing international and economic pressure even as the internal political pressure on him reaches a boiling point. But this would be a pretty serious roll of the dice, and one that would indicate something akin to desperation on Netanyahu’s part.
The problem is that mainstream opinion in Israel is becoming literally genocidal as the fear there grows, which tends to confirm the very worst opinions of Israel’s enemies in the Arab world as well as in what were previously less hostile BRICS countries. While China has limited itself to simply telling the US it will not lift a finger to help prevent the Yemenis from preventing US, UK, and Israeli cargo ships from transiting the Red Sea, Russia is prepared to start shooting down Israeli warplanes attacking Syria, and presumably, Lebanon. And even in Clown World, people are openly rejecting the neoclown narrative about the moral sanctity of mass-murdering civilians with a side of ethnic cleansing.
When even the most loyal of Israelis, like the great historian Martin van Creveld, are troubled by the obvious falsity of the Israeli rhetoric, it’s probably not very effective on anyone else.
One thing, and by no means not the least important thing, war always produces a tsunami of kitsch. The kind that seeks to show how utterly wicked, utterly cruel and utterly depraved, the enemy is. The kind that claims to weep for, and commiserate with, the losses on one’s own side. The kind that contrasts our heroes’ indomitable courage and commitment to the sacred cause with the dastardly cowardice and treachery so characteristic of, so inherent in, the other side. The kind that, by its very nature, stokes the flames and undermines any kind of rational thought. If, indeed, it does not prohibit such thought altogether. Needless to say, Israel—my Israel—is not exempt. Some of the stuff that has been drowning us since the 7th of October is the product of genuine emotion. But much of it—especially that pronounced by, or commissioned by, politicians—is patently false. At times, so obvious is the fakery as to make one want to puke.
These days, Israel’s political discourse is marred by the likes of Eliyahu Yossian, a mainstream opinionator… “Hamas is not the enemy,” he vociferates, “Gaza is. You level the area, and you kill the largest possible numbers, because the woman there is an enemy, the baby there is an enemy and the first grader is an enemy …and the pregnant woman is the enemy.” Yossian goes on to explain that Israel must not entertain “Western values” because these “blur basic logic.”
And so the IDF has done. Should you want proof that this man’s views have gone mainstream in Israel; look at Gaza. It’s a moonscape…
It used to be that leaders like “Yoni” Netanyahu charged with their men into battle. Not anymore. Nowadays, celebrity, champagne-swilling generals give the order, after appearing on Fox News, to chubby men in front of AI consoles to bomb the anthills from above and afar. The broad and short of it is that, no reparations can fix an irreparable Gaza, although these are owed. The Israel of my formative years was no Eden before the Fall, but it was not a terrorist state. Jewish supremacism, like the American exceptionalism driving the United States’ foreign policy, breeds barbarism.
Jewish exceptionalism is every bit as stupid, evil, murderous, and false as the German exceptionalism that led to the horrors of the National Socialist imperialism and the American exceptionalism that led to the establishment of the imperial USA and subsequent downfall of the American nation. And, if the rumors about another invasion of Lebanon are true, I doubt it will end any better for the Israeli leaders than it did for their Nazi counterparts.
The leader postures. Frightened people shout for war. Will it never end?
UPDATE: It won’t end now, anyhow. It appears US soldiers are already dying in the Middle East again. Why are there US Army soldiers in Jordan?
Three US Army soldiers have been killed and many others wounded by an overnight drone attack in Jordan, President Joe Biden has announced. The strike on a US army outpost represents a significant escalation of simmering tensions in the Middle East.
“A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” — Michael Kinsley
I would like to use the rest of my time to describe how appalled I am that people are bringing up the Holocaust. Do not use other genocides to describe this one! I have been… oh!
Oops! That’s not so much letting the cat out of the bag, as a sabretooth tiger. Must be that vaunted 115 IQ, operating at levels far beyond our meager powers of comprehension.
But in all fairness, a potential Gazacaust can’t really be legitimately compared to the historical Holocaust. No roller coasters, no gas chambers, no eagles, no bears, and no bizarre medical experiments. Just bullets, bombs, and bulldozers.
What’s fascinating about the current situation is the way in which the invasion of Gaza is, rightly or wrongly, justified by an answer to the very question that isn’t even allowed to be publicly asked about the Holocaust.
Precisely what did the victims do that inspired this genocidal impulse on the part of their victimizers?
MSNBC and CNN refused to air former President Donald Trump’s Republican Iowa caucus victory speech Monday evening, while airing fellow candidates’ speeches.
To say that they don’t have any grasp whatsoever on the current situation would be an understatement. And their justification for ignoring the winner’s words while broadcasting the speeches of those candidates who have not only been rejected, but overwhelmingly rejected, by the voters is downright risible.
There is a cost to us as a news organization, knowingly broadcasting untrue things as a fundamental truth of our business and who we are and so his remarks tonight will not air here live.
I’m not saying that Trump tells the truth. I’m certainly not at all thrilled about him in the aftermath of his abject failures with regards to the vaxx, the Deep State, and the integrity of the 2020 election. But the implication that he is the first politician to ever say anything that is an untrue thing is astonishing and accomplishes absolutely nothing except add yet another strike to the credibility of the ABCNNBCBS cabal.
NBC Sports reposted its post-game interview with Texans quarterback C.J. Stroud on social media following the team’s playoff victory against the Browns on Saturday. But NBC suspiciously edited the video, omitting what Stroud would consider the most principled line in his response: His mention of Jesus Christ.
Here’s the line NBC removed, Stroud’s very first line: “First and foremost, I just want to give all glory and praise to my Lord, Jesus Christ.”
