Tuesday, 17 January 2017

The shitlord and the Cold Whore files


You just know that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Donald John Trump are both laughing their arses off at the patently ridiculous Buzzfeed "dossier" that was released a few days ago. They are having a very good giggle at the expense of the entire legacy media- and who can blame them? In fact, I'd say that the rest of us bloody well ought to join in:
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday brushed aside accusations in a recent discredited report that President-elect Donald Trump had once cavorted with prostitutes in Moscow. While doing so, however, he managed to plug the local sex trade. 
Trump is “a grown man,” Putin said, according to Bloomberg News, “and secondly he’s someone who has been involved with beauty contests for many years and has met the most beautiful women in the world … I find it hard to believe that he rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world.
Given what we know of Russian women and their often staggering beauty, I'd say old Tsar Vlad there is onto something.

More to the point- that sound that you hear is the lovely, awe-inspiring sound of a thousand SJWs suddenly crying out in terror, and being just as suddenly silenced. It is the sound of world peace, of the promise of a better future, of blue skies and green fields, and of gorgeous Russian girls lining up to show us all just how great life can be when the men are masculine, the women are feminine, and everything just makes sense once again.

In fact, in that spirit, in our never-ending quest for greater mutual understanding between East and West, let us take a moment to appreciate the great beauty of the Russian empire that good old Vladimir Vladimirovich so rightly touted.

Alina Boyko:
A photo posted by boyko🍒alina (@boykoalina) on





Viktoria Bogatir:
A photo posted by @viktoriabogatir on





Tanya Mityushina (again, because- well, do I really have to explain?):



Alina Akilova:





Yana Yatskovskaya:





Y'know, boys, there are times when this whole "posting crazy shit on teh internetz for teh lulz" thing is very, very good fun.

Monday, 16 January 2017

War and Culture, Pt. 2: The shooting starts when the talking stops

This is the second post in what will probably be at most a three-part series, the original intent of which was to provide a very pessimistic civilian's views on several questions that I have been trying to explore for some time now.

The first post looked at the intersection between war and faith, and asked the question: why is it that Western civilisation, which up until about the middle of the 20th Century had a really rather spectacular record when going to war against other civilisations going back at least 400 years, even ones just as advanced as it was and is, keeps losing pretty much every war that it fights?

This second post follows on from that by noting the following: faith that your own point of view is superior is indeed vital to winning a war- but what happens when you run into another point of view that is equally convinced that it is right, and is more willing to defend or express itself with force of arms?

The answer to that one is of course quite obvious in a general sense: the more aggressive, violent, militant ideology beats the other one like an unwanted stepchild. Nothing new about that, it's basic common sense. (Which of course brings to mind another truism- that common sense is in fact anything but common.)

When we're looking outward, at the longstanding war between Islam and Christianity, that answer suits the question perfectly. Dar al Islam is a highly aggressive, expansionistic ideology driven by an absolutist conviction that the triumph of Islam over Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and everything else, is ordained by Allah. Although that ideology is riven by internal differences and contradictions, and is every bit as factionalised as any globally prevalent ideology must be, it is still relatively monolithic compared to its competitor faiths and forms of government. Its rivals are politically weak (though not necessarily militarily so, at least not yet), squabbling, and fractured.

There is no point in holding "dialogue" with the Islamic world. You cannot negotiate for your life and freedom with an enemy that wants you dead or enslaved; the best you can do is bargain for time, so that your end comes in 20 years instead of 5. And that's about it.

But if we look inward instead, strictly at what is happening throughout the Western world right now, the answer to that question becomes a bit less trite and hits a lot closer to home.

For what we are seeing today is the clear and increasing separation, within the borders of sovereign nations, of populations into two very broad camps- and each one hates the other's guts.

If you were to look at the electoral map of the United States in 2016 by county, not by state, you would see, well, this:



And if you look at the racial composition of the United States of America, you will see this*:

The "United States of America" is in fact nothing of the sort, and has for the past twenty years or so slowly been transforming itself into (at least) two countries.

This has happened once before in America's history, of course- and the scars created by the War Between the States have still not healed. That war started because the North and the South had drifted apart at a very fundamental level. Economically, politically, and culturally, the North fundamentally different from the South, and both sides knew it.

Eventually, those differences caused the two sides to stop talking to each other completely. And that is when the worst and bloodiest war that Americans have ever fought, came to pass- because the South eventually realised that its issues with the North could no longer be solved through dialogue, and had to be settled using blood, fire, and steel.

What I am seeing brewing right now indicates that the probability of another rupture, of even greater magnitude, is now large enough to start taking seriously. And this time, the side that is most likely to cause the shooting to start is going to be on the losing side.

The Coastal Elites

One the one side, we have what has come to be called "The Establishment", a term that used to be used with a fair amount of reverence and is now pretty much a four-letter word.

This is a group that is characterised by a rigid commonality of thought ideology. The people within it believe in, as articles of faith, the key tenets of globalisation, multiculturalism, free trade, free movement of labour, tighter political union between historical enemies, and that secular liberal democracy is the highest and finest form of government ever achieved by human intelligence.

These people are defined by an almost complete disdain for bedrock values like patriotism and duty, which they regard as gauche and provincial in the extreme. They pay a great deal of attention- though most of it is lip service- to notions like "social justice" and "equality", but in reality exist primarily to perpetuate, well, themselves and their standards of living.

For all of their high-minded rhetoric about how much they want to help the less fortunate, they show a suspicious aversion to actually, y'know, helping in concrete ways. They rarely have such strength in their convictions as to put their lives and physical safety on the line to defend them.

They think largely the same way, too. They all go to the same schools and private academies and universities, they all belong to more or less the same clubs and societies, and they largely live in the same neighbourhoods- many of which are safely locked away from the great unwashed masses that they presume to rule over by electric gates, iron fences, and security guards.

They are, in fact, the "intellectuals yet idiots" of this world.

The Great Unwashed Rest

As the first map from above shows, the "Establishment" is basically concentrated in the northeast, starting in New England and stretching on down through the American coastline, through Florida, on through the Texan and Arizonan border counties, and then on into loony-lefty California and the other Left Coast states.

This is news to precisely nobody, of course, but it illustrates nicely the nature of the division of the United States. Urban versus suburban and rural. Coastal versus heartland. Cosmopolitan versus small-town. Atomised and secular versus familial and religious. The list of polar opposites that describe "them" versus "us" goes on, and on, and on.

The problem for the coastal elites is that they think that they are the real America, because they have never had to listen to or talk with anyone who thinks differently from them. Yet the real America is not in the big cities and fashionably wealthy (and almost always lily-white) suburbs. It is to be found in the American heartland of small towns, back roads, sleepy little villages, and decaying Rust Belt factories.

That America is not nearly as densely populated as its urban counterpart, which is why Donald Trump won the electoral college with a 30-state victory but lost the popular vote by 2.5 million votes. America, like most Western societies, is heavily urbanised, so the majority of its people live in the big cities and towns.

And that is why the heartland of the country is usually forgotten- because the people who are supposed to make decisions on their behalf, at least at the Federal level, are almost completely divorced from the reality of the people who sent them to the Capitol to defend their rights.

The end result is that the country is not-so-quietly tearing itself in two- and neither side is interested in talking to the other.


It's Always Been Two Countries

It is tempting to argue that this sundering of America into two (or more) separate nations- at least one of which will likely be overwhelmingly white, made up of creators and inventors and workers, and more-or-less productive types- is something to be avoided at all costs.

In reality, however, this country has pretty much always been split along ideological lines- going all the way back to the Founding itself.

On the one side, we have always had the small-government libertarian types. Back in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they were the Southern Democrats. They were primarily advocates of an agrarian-focused, decentralised, minimalist, small-government philosophy that generally left people the hell alone to get on with their own business.

On the other side, we have also always had the mercantilists, the industrialists, the big-government centralists. They believed that a strong central government was absolutely required to prevent the new nation from being overwhelmed by its competitors and sinking into irrelevance or slavery under a foreign power.

That ideological difference has persisted, in various forms and espoused by various parties, all the way through to the modern day. That is of course well known. Eventually, the divide became so deep and so bitter that it resulted in the War Between the States, which Northerners rather oxymoronically refer to as the Civil War, and Southerners somewhat more accurately refer to as the War of Northern Aggression.

That divide was eventually papered over, at least somewhat, by the North's crushing victory over the South. To this day, the South still hasn't fully recovered from that defeat and the years of the Reconstruction Era that followed- and the wounds and scars inflicted by that defeat still linger on.

But- and here is the key difference between then and now- even throughout those times of bitterest division and discord, the two sides were able to talk to each other, right up until the time for talking was over and there was nothing left to do but start shooting.

And that is precisely what America has now lost.

You will not find finer exemplars of the two spirits of America than Presidents Adams and Jefferson. One believed completely in a strong central government; the other believed equally completely in a weak one. The two argued, often contentiously and always with eloquence and conviction, in favour of their respective positions.

Yet the two of them were also closer than brothers. Their respect for each other transcended their political differences and united them in their love for their new country, and their desire to see it succeed. Not for nothing have they been called "Founding Brothers".

This is what America has lost today. The two sides of the debate no longer talk to each other. They talk past each other.

I do not necessarily claim this to be a bad thing, by the way. The reality is that the Right understands full well how the Left thinks by now. But the Left has absolutely no bloody CLUE how and why we think the way we do.

Our positions- particularly those of the alt-Right- are rooted in evidence, fact, and a cold-blooded appreciation of the realities of the human condition. Our predictive models are better than theirs because ours actually work, and because we modify the assumptions going into them when they don't work. Our ability to adapt, react, and overcome is far greater than theirs because our thought process is predicated on the fundamental axiom that Man is Flawed, Fallen, and broken, and cannot be redeemed by his fellow Man no matter how hard we try; as such, we don't get hung up on stupid shit that doesn't work.

Their mental model is outdated and deeply flawed. Their predictive skills are woefully inadequate for the new realities that they face. They are having the devil's own time adapting to the new world- a world that they never expected would exist in the first place.

I've seen this in my own family; when Donald Trump was elected, my parents and especially my sister simply could not fathom how on Earth such a disaster could have befallen the world- but because I had been paying attention to things that they hadn't been, and because I was capable of looking far beyond my own experiences at the realities on the ground, I had predicted a Trump victory since late May and was not particularly surprised when he actually did win.

And since then, as I had also predicted, he has proven to be a far more sensible President(-elect) than his campaign rhetoric had led people to believe.

But the fact remains that the two sides of the country are no longer talking to each other. And that is extraordinarily bad news- for one side, not the other.

As you see from the map above, the Left Coast elites are concentrated in specific bastions and surrounded on just about all sides by the very people that they so despise- and yet depend upon to supply all of their basic necessities in life.

I'm no military strategist, but even I can figure out that it's generally a very stupid idea to piss all over your own supply lines when surrounded by potentially hostile forces. Yet that is exactly what the Left has proceeded to do by throwing a truly epic shit-fit ever since the election of the God-Emperor.

The outcome of this increasing divide is almost surely going to be war, once again. The talking has long since stopped; I'm pretty much just waiting for the real shooting to start. The question that every American then must ask himself is, "which side do I choose?"

If you believe in what a predominantly white, productive, small-government America once stood for, then the answer is obvious: it's that sea of red out there in "flyover country" that has been treated like a cross between fungus and vomit for the better part of a quarter century by the very people who now demand that the will of those same folk be overturned by force.

*Hat tip to LTC Tom Kratman, who found that map and used it for his EveryJoe column from a while back- from whence I duly pinched the same.

Sunday, 15 January 2017

It's not science-fiction anymore


In the sci-fi anthology Riding the Red Horse, Vol. 1, the very first story in that set was a work by Eric S. Raymond called "Sucker Punch", in which Mr. Raymond provided an idea of what future naval and air warfare would look like the day that high-intensity lasers were introduced to the battlefield. Basically, the highly impressive but hugely expensive Carrier Battle Groups that every major sea-going power loves to show off, would be rendered completely obsolete in a single day.

In fact, manned air combat craft would overnight be turned into three hundred million dollar piles of flying scrap.

British soldiers, ships and warplanes could be going into battle armed with Star Wars-style lasers. 
The Ministry of Defence has signed a £30million contract for a prototype weapon from a consortium called UK Dragonfire. 
It will fire high-energy bursts of light capable of destroying rockets, ships and missiles in the blink of an eye. 
Defence chiefs also want the system, which is expected to have a range of about a mile and a quarter, to be able to take down drones. 
It is currently under development, with researchers aiming to find out if ‘directed energy’ technology could benefit the armed forces. 
If successful, the programme could come into service in the Army and Navy by the mid-2020s, and then fitted to future generations of fighter jets by the 2030s. 
One of the major advantages laser weapons have over traditional systems is that the munition is potentially unlimited – the system needs only a power source. 
It also operates at the speed of light so the time from when a operative presses ‘fire’ to the weapon hitting its target is more or less instantaneous. 
Peter Cooper, from the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, said the project ‘draws on innovative research into high-power lasers’. 
He added that this could ‘provide a more effective response to the emerging threats that could be faced by UK Armed Forces’. 
The laser will ‘target and defeat aerial threats’ in three ways. It could bring down an aircraft by burning a hole in it, destroy its capabilities by overloading its sensors with light, or blind aircrew.
As was also pointed out in the same anthology, it is a basic truism of warfare that cheap and effective always beats out expensive and over-engineered. In this case, a relatively simple but very powerful laser, costing maybe a few hundred grand per unit, is going to be the death knell for all of the super-duper whiz-bang stealth jets that anyone- American, Russian, Chinese, whatever- is ever going to come up with.

Stealth technology sounds really cool on paper. Essentially, you use shaping and radar-absorbent materials to reflect, refract, and diffuse radar waves away from and around an aircraft, so that its radar cross-section appears to be the size of, oh, a bumblebee- or even smaller.

Back in the day when the F-117 Nighthawk stealth "fighter" was being tested (it was actually a bomber, not a fighter), the testers stuck steel ball bearings of ever-decreasing size on the nose of the thing and then zapped it with radar waves. The F-117's cross-section handily beat every single ball-bearing tested against it- including one that was just one-eighth of an inch across.

The stealth jets that have come along since then, such as the F-35 and especially the F-22, are even more stealthy (supposedly) than the venerable old F-117. The Russians are developing a fifth-generation fighter called the Sukhoi PAK-FA that aims to be able to go toe-to-toe with an F-22. The Chinese are doing much the same with their future combat aircraft.

And all of them are spending money on precisely the wrong technology.

The major problem with stealth is that it is more of a marketing exercise than a realistic offensive technology. Don't get me wrong, it absolutely does work- when used under exactly the right circumstances. It worked brilliantly against the Iraqis in the first Gulf War, because the Iraqis were using then-contemporary Soviet-built radar systems as part of their C&C network. Those radar arrays were tuned to the kinds of high-frequency bands that American stealth bombers were specifically designed to beat; hence, they were able to slip in undetected and land those laser-guided bombs that they dropped on the Iraqi command bunkers to such devastating effect.

But modern stealth technology is not, by and large, designed to defeat older radar systems that use lower frequency radar waves.

And that is precisely why the Serbs, during the 1999 Kosovo War, were able to shoot down an F-117. They were using older, "obsolete" long-wavelength Soviet-era radar systems, which had a much easier time detecting the "stealthy" jet despite its design and its radar-absorbent coatings. When they combined that with knowledge of the local F-117 squadron's takeoff, landing, and attack patterns, shooting down the Nighthawk turned out to be a lot easier than the airheads in the US military command thought.

Now, imagine what will happen when America decides to get all up in Russia's grill, or China's, and sends in a squadron of F-22s, or a couple of B-2 bombers, to make a point. All that the Russians and Chinese have to do is dust off a couple of those old "obsolete" long-wavelength radar arrays- which they've been developing and refining over the last twenty years for precisely such a scenario- and they'll get a general idea in an awfully big hurry of exactly what is heading their way.

And then imagine what will happen when you pair a radar array that can spot American stealth aircraft coming with blood in their eyes, with a giant big-ass Death Star-style laser beam that can boil the eyes in the pilots' skulls and blast holes through the fuselages.

Yeah. You've got a catastrophic, and colossally expensive, military defeat just waiting to happen.

A single B-2 bomber costs the United States, on the hoof, over $2 BILLION. That's with a "B". A single F-22 fighter costs... well, I'm not sure if anyone actually knows what the true unit cost is, but the last time I checked, it's somewhere on the order of $600 MILLION. And a single F-35 costs something on the order of over $200 million by now.

These aren't exactly cheap toys. And now they are about to be rendered completely and totally obsolete- along with all of multi-billion-dollar carrier battle groups.

The face of warfare is changing, fast. It won't be very long before laser weapons like these are no longer just the realm of fevered speculation on the part of eight-year-old boys drawing in the margins of maths textbooks because they're bored out of their gourds in class. Very soon, laser weaponry like this WILL hit the battlefield. It WILL fall into the hands of America's enemies- I'm thinking specifically of the RIFs in both the Sandbox and the Rockpile, and Lord only knows how many other locations besides.

And then it won't be long before America's military suffers one costly loss after another to cheap, simple, highly effective weaponry that will blunt America's much-vaunted technological edge in a very big hurry.

The time for such expensive, over-engineered, overly complicated toys is long done. The time to return to a simpler, more direct, and far more lethal philosophy of warfighting is long overdue. Let us hope that America's new leadership is up to the challenge of refocusing this country's vast military machine toward the challenges of future warfare against non-trinitarian opponents, instead of trying to fight the Cold War all over again.

If they don't, it is distinctly possible that America will once again send dozens or hundreds of brave young men off to their deaths in overly complicated steel-and-carbon-fibre death traps without any hope of victory.

Friday, 13 January 2017

Friday T&A: Page 3 Girls Edition

Somewhere in the middle of the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean is a wet, damp, dark, moss-covered, miserably gloomy, perpetually cloudy large hunk of rock called "Britain". Its people are drunken and morose. The food there ranges anywhere from merely offensively boring to inedibly so. Their idea of "beer" involves amber-coloured warm flat liquid with bits of soil floating around on the top which they call "ale"*.

All told, Britain is generally not a terribly appealing place at first glance.

But the Brits do have one rather pleasant tradition that almost makes up for the rest of their deficiencies.

You see, several of the mass-market newspapers have a special page dedicated solely to... how does one put this delicately... gratuitous displays of the lovely naked lady lumps of young, nubile women who clearly struck gold in the genetic lottery.

There, I'm sure that was PC enough.

These pictures of some of the top Page 3 girls in Britain's long and glorious history of epic boobies, on the other hand, are not PC.

They're trashy, they can be truly stupid (see: Katie Price), they can and do make appalling life choices (see: Jodie Marsh), and they are usually not the sorts of girls that you bring home to mum (see: Katie Price, again).

But you have to admit, they've got plenty going for them otherwise. Especially in the front-and-centre department.

Enjoy, lads. Time to go drink some winter ale.

Danni Wells:



Sophie Howard:


Michelle Marsh:



Britain's favourite hot mess, Jordan:



Helen Flanagan:


Keely Hazell:

And now for the best of the lot- the one, the only, Lucy Pinder:

You know what? It's Friday, I'm in a pretty good mood, and it is Lucy Pinder we're talking about. Y'all deserve one more. In fact, let's make it a twofer:


Considering what I've seen of British girls, and how poorly they compare with ladies from, say, Eastern Europe, it's astonishing what kind of talent you'll find floating around there in the North Sea.

*In fairness, the Brits consider the frozen horse-piss that you Americans call "beer" to be an offence to God's Law. I have to admit, I'm thoroughly inclined to agree with them on that subject.

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

Bitch gets bitchslapped

The God-Emperor Ascendant just gave the world an absolute masterclass in how to handle the legacy news media:


That. Was. BEAUTIFUL.

Of course, we know that The Donald knows how to handle the media. He has proven it over and over again. What he has shown us, though, indicates that he will be far less tolerant of their stupidity and nonsense than, say, George W. Bush, the last Demoblican Republicrat President from the Stupid Wing of the One Party of Big Government to occupy the White House.

And that is a very good thing indeed.

The problem with President Bush's handling of the media was that, basically, he never fought back. I may not have particularly liked President Bush- he was one of the most progressive (read: bad) Presidents this country has ever had. But I respected him. I believe that he was a fundamentally good and decent man trying to do what he thought was the right thing in a bad and indecent time. Most of the time, he failed, because his worldview gave him a mental model that did not accurately reflect reality.

Of course, because he was a straight white and supposedly conservative male, he was Public Enemy #1 as far as the fake news media went. And they went after him with a level of viciousness and venom that, in hindsight, was quite astonishing.

President Bush made the same fatal mistake that all cuckservatives make: he tried to be honourable and play nice. He thought that his enemies would play by the same rules that he did. And he was completely, totally, hopelessly wrong.

He did not realise that he was not dealing with regular progressives. As noxious and odious as their ideology is, most progressives are still, by and large, fairly decent people. They may be utterly deluded and incapable of seeing reality for what it is- they have a highly defective mental model, by definition. But they mean well (which is about the best thing that can be said about them).

In fact, he was dealing with social justice warriors. And back when he was President, there did not exist a straightforward, well-written, concise, and easily understood taxonomy of social justice warriors. (We do have one now, and it is essential reading.)

SJWs are not bound by the same rules of honourable combat that we are- or rather, that we used to be. They will use whatever methods they deem necessary to achieve their objectives- no matter how foul, immoral, disgusting, or evil. They are very good at it; their tactics are terrifyingly effective and extremely destructive when used to its maximum effect.

The "SJW Swarm" depends on overwhelming numbers, speed, intimidation, and the highly precise targeting of vulnerable points. There are times when I think that some of these SJW hate-mobs could have given the old Sturmtruppen of the Wehrmacht a few key lessons on the subject of double-envelopment manoeuvres.

But they pretty much have only one tactic- and its effectiveness relies solely on the sheer terror that it inspires in its target.

The moment that they run into a hardened target without the usual vulnerabilities, who is willing and able and ready to fight back, they immediately run out of ideas.

And as Trump-Muad'dib has repeatedly and ably demonstrated during his campaign and ever since he won the election, the SJWs of the fake-news media cannot handle it when their targets decide to fight back.

The Donald is doing rather more than just fighting back, in fact. He is winning- and winning big. He is taking the fight directly to his enemies- and they are now running in disarray, unable to fight back. It's glorious to watch.

After thirty long and terrible years, America once again FINALLY has a President Badass in charge, who knows exactly how to fight a war against Enemies Foreign And Domestic.

Godspeed, President Trump. The next few years are going to be EPIC.

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

I WANT ONE

A few video game fans who also happen to be master metalsmiths decided to entertain a hugely popular fan request and managed to create an actual working Warhammer 40K CHAINSWORD:


Holy shit. That is BADASS.

I have the highest respect for people who work with their hands to craft things like that chainsword. It takes years of practice at the highest level to become a master craftsman- and in that video we got to see several such men expressing their craft to the utmost level to create something astonishing.

Now if only we could go find some Chaos Marines or Orks to use it on...

Monday, 9 January 2017

Attagirl


Chaps, remember how, back in late November, there was a really rather fetching young woman who promised to blow any man who voted "No" in Italy's constitutional reform referendum? Which then won in a landslide and forced Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to resign?

Turns out, she's a woman of her word:
An Italian actress who promised to perform a sex act on everyone who voted no in her country's referendum has completed the first date of her tour. 
Paola Saulino, 27, told fans that she was a 'woman of [her] word' after announcing tour dates in 10 Italian cities in December. 
She posted a photograph of herself on Instagram on Saturday, along with the caption: 'First step of #pompatour is gone! A little bit tired [but] everthing is okay.' 
The actress and glamour model added: 'This year is started in a best way as possible.' 
Ms Saulino, whose Instagram page features a number of suggestive shots, has flown from her home in Los Angeles to begin the first leg of her Pompa Tour. 'Pompa' is an Italian slang word for oral sex. 
She initially made the promise to perform a sex act on everyone who voted no in Italy's referendum on November 23, before announcing tour dates in December. 
Ms Saulino said she would be visiting Rome, Florence, Bologna, Verona, Milan, Turin, Naples, Bari, Lecce and Palermo this month for the first leg of her tour, urging people to fill in a booking form if they had voted No.
Before I write anything else, let me just point out one thing for the record:

This lady IS NOT wife material.

Yes, I realise this should be blindingly obvious, but I have no doubt that there is some chap out there who would be willing to put a ring on it just because she could suck-start a leaf-blower. Poor bastard is going to find himself divorced in an awfully big hurry. Never turn a ho into a housewife- especially if her N-count is in the triple digits.

Any woman who would happily give dozens or hundreds of men blow-jobs for votes is going to be terrific girlfriend material, to be sure (at least for a little while). But no more than that.

That aside, I really must commend Ms. Saulino on keeping her word. I don't think much of her beyond that, obviously, but I do find it hilarious that we of the new Right have so much more to offer, in every way, than our opponents do.

After all, it used to be that men in the sixties and seventies would take up radical leftist politics because, well, all the hot women were there. Nowadays, though, look at the difference between women on the Left and women on the Right:


Can I just ask, though- why is Michelle Malkin considered hot? It's just my personal opinion but I don't see anything much there.

At any rate, the true test of Ms. Saulino's commitment to her promise is, as LTC Kratman pointed out back in December, whether she will keep it if a woman shows up to claim her, uh, prize for voting "No".

In which case:


Yep.

Friday, 6 January 2017

Not watching that, then


The folks in charge of the films division over at Disney are evidently running out of ideas, because now they've gone and made the upcoming live-action remake of their animated classic Beauty and the Beast into a love-letter to feminists:
“Beauty and the Beast” might be a tale as old as time, but that doesn’t mean its gender politics have to be in the dark ages. 
Details are slowly trickling out about Disney’s upcoming live-action remake of the classic love story, and we’re happy to hear that there’s a feminist twist in store for Emma Watson’s Belle. [Uh... you might be, bub, but the rest of us are not interested.]
“In the animated movie, it’s her father who is the inventor, and we actually co-opted that for Belle,” Watson told Entertainment Weekly in a recent interview. “I was like, ‘Well, there was never very much information or detail at the beginning of the story as to why Belle didn’t fit in, other than she liked books. Also, what is she doing with her time?’ So, we created a backstory for her, which was that she had invented a kind of washing machine, so that, instead of doing laundry, she could sit and use that time to read instead. So, yeah, we made Belle an inventor.

There are still young girls who are not able to go to school because of cultural restrictions. Children are being married off at a young age. This inhibits their opportunities to a better life and future. 
In addition, the Beauty and the Beast actress is not far off from her role in the movie. In the movie, Belle is a vibrant young woman full of strength and passion. She lies in a conforming society and she strives to be more than that. This is why Belle is a different take on Disney‘s usual reputation of having its female characters as a damsel in distress. 
Much like Watson, her character loves to read and has goals and aspirations. This Beauty is known for her bravery, intelligence and independence. And this can scream feminism. Something that Vanity Fair even points out. 
Moreover, even Emma Watson makes it a point to evolve the character with a fresher feminist twist. Aside from the original back story, Watson adds more depth. In addition, she makes sure that her character is not just into books but also invention.
Question: does being a feminist require one to undergo a lobotomisation of the part of the brain that deals with facts, logic, and evidence?


Notice anything in that list? Like, say, how virtually EVERY SINGLE NAME is male?


Notice how it's very, very short?

That would be because just about anything of any serious note has been invented or discovered by men.

The few notable female exceptions are just that- truly exceptional. The name of Marie Curie, one of the greatest scientists ever, springs to mind. But, again, that is because Madame Curie was totally devoted to scientific analysis and exploration- and was assisted in no small part by her husband, Pierre Curie, who gets far less credit than he should for his discovery, with his wife, of radiation phenomena.

So that's the whole "amazingly talented female inventor" thing dispatched, then. Making Belle an "inventor" in the new movie is about as realistic, and approximately as palatable, as yours truly singing soprano in a dress.

(If you're about to hurl, don't worry, I find the idea even more horrifying than you do.)

Now, how about we deal with the fact that Emma Watson is playing the part of Belle?

I was recently watching one of the earlier Harry Potter movies again with my family- the second one, I think, the one that involved the giant-ass snake at the end. It's not all that bad as a movie, I suppose, but one thing in it makes my teeth stand on edge these days: Emma Watson's character, Hermione Granger.

She is quite simply insufferable.

And apparently, Miss Hermione there is not far off from what Ms. Watson is like in real life.

Now, when I noted how irritating Hermione was on film, my sister, who I am truly sad to say calls herself a feminist, retorted that "she's basically a female version of you, y'know". And she's actually right about that. As a child I was extremely precocious and quite annoyingly keen to demonstrate my knowledge of... well, anything to anybody who cared to listen.

However, smart-alecky young boys have one highly effective corrective mechanism that girls don't: if we run our mouths too hard, we get bullied for it. Sometimes mercilessly- as I was.

I'm guessing that the even more precocious Ms. Watson probably didn't have enough people telling her that her precious-snowflake opinions are not actually that interesting to most others when she was young. That would explain why she thinks that she needs to inject more feminism into Disney's already highly feminised take on a traditional fairy tale.

This movie is going to be one of the clearest demonstrations ever recorded of the Third Law of Social Justice: SJWs always double-down.

The animated Beauty and the Beast was successful because Belle's intellectual appetites did not get in the way of her feminity. She was bright and a voracious reader, to be sure- but she was also pretty, pleasant, warm, and caring. That film showed that a good woman can bring joy to a man's life, and can change him from a self-centred egotistical jackass into a good and decent human being.

That is right, correct, and completely in line with observable reality.

The new film is going to insist on taking a not particularly attractive (in my personal opinion) actress who is clearly a feminist and borderline SJW, and letting her force her own feminist agenda down the throats of movie-goers. They are going to force us to believe that a woman can be an inventor with her own career, in mediaeval France- where women were generally not literate unless they were part of the nobility- and is, at the same time, so beautiful and wonderful and warm and caring that she can transform a terrifying beast into a loving man.

Yeah, right.

For the record, I am not against strong female protagonists in films. I am a big fan of the Underworld film series, for instance- and not just because Kate Beckinsale looks like... well, this in skintight leather and latex:


I like the series because there is a real story in there along with all of the action and shit blowing up and vampire versus werewolf battles. I like the series because Selene's powers and abilities are explained. When she initially takes on far stronger opponents, she gets her ass kicked; then she drinks some ancient superblood and becomes far stronger and ends up winning her fights, albeit with difficulty.

She is not, in other words, a Mary Sue.

The new Belle, by contrast, looks to be every bit as much of a Mary Sue as Rey was from STAR WARS VII: A Lost Hope.

Put this new Beauty and the Beast film in the do-not-watch bin. Everything I'm seeing tells me it's going to be terrible.

Friday T&A: Make Air-travel Great Again Edition

I hate traveling. The absolute worst part about "going home" is the "going" part. For me, it requires two flights and nearly 25 hours of travel time, door to door. It is, quite simply, miserable and I truly hate the trip. (I hasten to add that what awaits me on the other end of that trip makes it worthwhile.)

And now I have to make the trip in the other direction in a few hours. Which is going to blow. And not in the fun way that a certain rather fetching young Italian lady promised if her compatriots voted "NO" in her country's recent referendum.

So, to make the arduous journey a little bit more pleasant- and, of course, to brighten up the Friday nights of my faithful readers, all 7.3 of you- I decided to go hunting for some pictures of hot women in skimpy outfits and exotic locations.

You're welcome. Now go enjoy your Friday night while I spend mine sleepless and miserable blasting through the sky in a pressurised metal tube at 35,000 feet that smells of stale farts and B/O.

The first two are from the Daily Mail, the rest are from Heavy.com.

Kelly Brook - yes, this lass has more boobs than brains, but are you really going to complain?


Chloe Khan (no idea who she is):


And now for a random assortment of hot women posing as stewardesses. (Is the politically correct term "flight attendants" now? I never could figure that one out.)





Thursday, 5 January 2017

Fixing the "magic dirt" problem


A couple of days ago I posted a comment to LastRedoubt's thoughts on immigration that proposed some solutions to the current, massive, problem of immigration to Western nations that I think bears some expansion.

Before digging into policy proposals designed to stop the current immigration crisis in the West, let's be very clear about a few things.


Just the Basics


First: strictly limited immigration that involves bringing over only small numbers of the very best and the brightest professionals from other nations is a Good Thing.

Bringing in highly qualified doctors, engineers, mathematicians, chemists, biologists, and even managerial talent in small numbers from places like India, China, Singapore, the Western allies, and a few other places that genuinely produce good people is of great benefit to the United States of America. These people can come and make good money, pay taxes, build businesses or contribute to local workforces, and transfer knowledge and expertise to Americans.

That is actually somewhat similar to the way that I ended up in the USA. I've been living there for ten years now and consider myself incredibly blessed and fortunate to have been giving that opportunity.

However, the emphasis has to be on keeping the numbers low. In America's case, given a population of about 330 million right now, this means less than 30,000 highly skilled immigrants (that's a growth rate of 0.01%) per year- and even that might be too many. That chart above shows that, as immigration has increased, native labour-force participation has decreased (which is to be expected).

This spells disaster for the United States, and any other nation that follows a similar pattern, if not checked and reversed.

Second: just because immigrants are a source of exceptional skills and qualifications, that does not mean that they should be given citizenship right away. Moreover, a distinction must be created between having the right to stay and work in the West, and having the right to vote in the West.

The reason for this is self-evident. First-generation immigrants almost always feel a greater sense of loyalty to their native lands than to their future nations. Many such immigrants tend to head right back to their nations of origin.

The fundamental problem with just giving people citizenship, simply because they showed up and stuck it out for a bit, is that they likely will not have "skin in the game". More on that shortly.

Third: the soil of the United States of America is not "magic dirt". You are not going to magically transform Nigerians, Indians, Chinese, French, Japanese, or whatever, into Americans simply by bringing them all over and letting them set foot on American soil. It does not matter where you look in America's history; the fact remains that every wave of immigrants that has ever come through, has brought with it the ancient blood-feuds, hatreds, prejudices, and traditions of their pasts.

This is as true today as it was during the infamous New York City draft riots of 1863, in which Irish and German immigrants ended up attacking blacks in the city. The Army had to go in and sort that one out; it wasn't pretty. You simply cannot bring over thousands or millions of immigrants from less advanced nations- even if you restrict yourself to just the really bright and educated ones- and expect that they will automatically get past their previous hangups with other races and all get along holding hands singing kumbaya.

Kumbaya-thinking gets people killed. And it is what the US government, and large swathes of its people, have been engaged in for the better part of fifty years when it comes to the question of immigration.

Fourth: mass immigration is simply war by another means, for precisely the reason I outlined above.

Let's get past the emotional arguments against immigration and think about things logically for a moment. The country's big business leaders and open-borders advocates all argue that free mobility of workers, and the cheapening of labour that results, is unambiguously good for business and profits.

That is in fact true; a business that can build a product expensively using small numbers of high-quality American workers, or cheaply using large numbers of poor-quality foreign workers, is usually going to go for the latter.

So if this is true- what exactly is stopping America from opening up its borders completely?

Every single African country, most of South America, pretty much all of Eastern Europe, and vast parts of South and East Asia, would simply move right into America. And that is because many of those countries are- not to put too fine a point on it- shitholes. (Literally.) Many of them lack basics that Americans take for granted- like, say, running water, readily available and stable electricity, and the ability to walk in public without being shot or stabbed or raped.

Compared to the life that awaits people in hellholes like Venezuela or Honduras or Sudan, even living in inner-city Detroit would be a step up.

Problem is, if you decide to let, say, Iranians into the country en masse along with Arabs, you're also going to be importing a religious feud that dates back some 12 centuries with them. You want American town and city streets to be slick with blood? Go right ahead with that, then.

The same is true for just about any other major ethnic group, race, or nationality that you care to name. All of them have blood feuds and prejudices and beefs with others. All of them will turn violent sooner or later.

If you Yanks did open up your borders fully- as many of your politicians want you to- everybody would want to come to America. And that is because America is a great place to be.

But it didn't get that way by accident. It got to be a great place because its people made it that way- not because of "magic dirt" or kumbaya, but because people with something to lose tried to build a better country for themselves and their descendants.


Skin in the Game


The fundamental problem with kumbaya thinking is that it leads to some seriously perverse incentives for recent immigrants to the United States. This is because "magic dirt" theory argues that there is no distinction between people from other countries, and Americans.

This is not borne out by experience or evidence.

We know by now that the majority of immigrants from poor nations- like, say Central America- are poorly educated, poorly qualified, and not exactly likely to become rocket scientists and nuclear engineers. We also know that they are far more likely to be on welfare than native-born citizens.

If you then insist on giving those same people the ability to vote, you should not be surprised that they will vote for the exact same policies that allowed them to get to the USA and gain access to American welfare systems.

In other words, by letting in millions of people with no skin in the game, and then giving them the literally unlimited power of the ballot box without the burden of responsibility to wield that power judiciously, America guarantees that it becomes a nation of destroyers and not builders.

It has already become that, to a large extent. This must stop. And it must stop now.

Some Modest Proposals

So that's the problem. How do we go about solving it?

I've got a few ideas.

They all involve holding immigrants to a far higher standard than native-born citizens. Immigrants (like me) must prove that we have earned the right to wield the power of citizenship. If we fail that test, what the hell are we even doing here in the first place?

1. End Birthright Citizenship
So you were born in the United States of America to foreign-born parents. Big whoop. What makes you American? What, exactly, qualifies you to vote in elections and decide the fate of future generations of Americans whose ancestors have been here far longer than you?

You are no more "American" than I am- in fact you are considerably less so, given that I regard the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the closest thing to holy writ outside of the Bible. You were simply fortunate to be born into the greatest nation on Earth by way of a happy accident of geography and timing- nothing more. You have not earned your right to vote any more than I have.

2. Restrict citizenship only to men who own property, pay taxes, and are over thirty, without criminal records
This one will probably prove controversial, but it is also in line with what far wiser men than I proposed. They were called the Founding Fathers, and they understood, as current generations do not, that citizenship is a privilege, not a right.

As a result, they restricted the sovereign franchise to free men of good character and standing who owned land.

This approach will solve a number of problems very quickly. The "free rider" problem disappears instantly because men with land are far less likely to vote for taxes upon themselves to pay for others.

Because it takes years to build up the kind of wealth required to buy property, and because with age comes a certain degree of maturity and wisdom (though this is debatable with the current Millennial generation, it's true), restricting the vote to those over thirty would immediately weed out the hordes of idiots who vote in every election cycle based on muh feelz instead of a genuine concern for the nation.

And because women are far more likely to vote for big government and the welfare state that it brings, restricting the vote to men once again will immediately eliminate the problem of the government taking men's hard-earned wealth and resources and simply transferring it to women. Let's see how long third-wave feminism lasts without Big Daddy Guvmint to keep it alive.

However, with respect to immigrants, specifically, this particular change isn't enough. For that, we need to ensure additionally that:

3. Immigrants to Western nations must have lived in their nation of choice for at least three generations before being allowed to vote
The benefits of this are fairly self-explanatory. I had originally thought that forcing immigrants to stay for at least twenty years before being allowed to vote was sufficient, but I have an aunt who has been in the US for forty years and applied last year to become a citizen just so that she could vote for the Hilldebeast, because vagina.

Her children aren't all that much better. My youngest cousin, for whom I have immense respect, is a liberal- though he's considerably more moderate and realistic than his sister, who is my age and works for the United Abominations, and is of course a true bleeding-heart liberal.

Will their children be better at considering the fate of the nation and their people? I sure as hell hope so, but it's clear to me that expecting any real long-term thinking from first-generation immigrants is fairly unrealistic these days.

There is precedent for this, by the way. There are descendants of Korean immigrants to Japan whose families have been there for seven or eight generations, and who are still not eligible to vote. The Japanese turn xenophobia into a fine art. I think that's probably a little extreme- but you can't argue with the way that the Japanese have managed to preserve their culture.

4. No more anchor babies, green card marriages, or access to American welfare systems
So your parents undertook an extremely dangerous border crossing from Mexico into the United States in the dead of night just so that you could be born an American? Big whoop. You aren't American. You're a Mexican and all of the prevaricating and hand-waving in the world won't change that fact.

So you're a Filipina and you found the perfect guy to marry who promised you a green card and eventual American citizenship and a house and a car with all the frills? So what? How does that make you American? You're still Filipino and that will not change by marrying some white guy with no game and more money than brains.

So you're a dirt-poor immigrant from Somalia who came to America to make a better life for himself? What exactly entitles you to be given money that Americans paid into their own welfare systems for their own people?

These are all basic, common-sense solutions to serious abuses of America's immigration system. Why, I wonder, do so many Americans seem to regard them as extreme?

5. Want to jump the queue? Join up and be all you can be
Any immigrant who wants to avoid all of the hassle and the multi-generational waiting periods and so on, because he feels deep down in his soul that he is an American, can do so quite easily.

Just sign up for a term of at least two years, and as much longer as the nation requires, in the Armed Forces.

This is not, in and of itself, a magic solution to America's invasion by immigrants. The Romans tried something similar with the barbarian tribes that insisted on settling in the north and east of their empire. The net result was that eventually the "Roman" military became overwhelmingly Germanic in character. By the time of the Fall of the Empire, the Germanic chieftain Odoacer didn't have to do terribly much to force the last Roman Emperor to step down and hand him the crown- because, as far as the Army was concerned, he was one of them.

But it would at least ensure that, whatever their other manifest failings as human beings, immigrants who undertook arduous and difficult voluntary service in America's armed forces do put the welfare of the American people ahead of their own. And it would automatically ensure that those who aren't really serious about their commitment to becoming Americans, never do.

6. No dual-citizenship
While we're on the subject of civic duty- let's have done with this silly practice of allowing people to retain citizenship of their original nations.

If you want to be an American, bloody well be an American. If you insist on retaining your passport from Thirdworldhellistan, just so that you can go back and visit family now and then, well, sorry, but you're just not American.

An American passport allows one to travel to most parts of the world without a visa. Those that do require visas for American citizens are generally fairly quick to give them- particularly pro-American parts of Europe and Asia, like Poland in the former and the Philippines in the latter. If you want the privileges that come with being an American citizen, then you should jolly well be prepared to put up with a few inconveniences along the way.

Moreover, being a citizen of another nation means that your allegiance to the American Republic, people, and way of life is deeply suspect. Let's not pretend otherwise- if you have loyalties of any kind to another nation, how exactly are Americans supposed to expect you to help them out in times of war and crisis?

7. Your guest is your responsibility
So let's say you're an immigrant of good standing who has been in America for a long time- twenty years, maybe more. Let's say your little brother wants to immigrate and join your business and be a part of the good life. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Sure, let's have him in- provided you post a $20,000 bond for him, you are held responsible for his behaviour, and if he turns bad and becomes a criminal, you go to jail along with him.

Draconian? Yeah, it is. It also ensures that immigrants become really careful about exactly who they bring over.

8. No Muslims
I realise that arguing this in public is the fastest route to a lynching. However, it is well past time that Westerners realised that Islam is not a religion or a race. It is a political ideology that is fundamentally opposed to all of the ideals that the West holds dear. Freedom of conscience, association, religion, speech? All anathema to Islam. Freedom to keep and bear arms? Not allowed for dhimmi under Islamic law. Freedom to live without fear of persecution? Non-existent. Freedom to love who you want, regardless of sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Islam is hostile to the West in a way that most Westerners just don't understand. Better by far to stop allowing it into Western nations as a preventative measure, than to wake up one fine morning and see headlines showing yet another car-bombing, truck rampage, or public shooting perpetrated by Muslims against innocent bystanders.

Sense and Sensibility

None of the ideas noted above are particularly extreme if you bother to stop and think them over. They are designed specifically to prevent a nation from being destroyed from within by immigrants who do not obey the laws of their new home, who do not respect its norms and traditions, and who have nothing to lose from their (often very bad) decisions.

Until November 2016, even thinking these things was practically illegal. But now, with the God-Emperor's election to power, and with nationalist movements rising across the Western world, perhaps it might just be time to dust off these supposedly racist and bigoted ideas, and give them a whirl again.

People like me, and Paul Joseph Watson, are right: the West is best. Why shouldn't Westerners want to keep it that way?