Apparently, our media is so stupid that it has no idea when it is being played. They managed to convince a bunch of people to come out and talk about how “politics is manipulating science” because the NOAA affirmed Trump’s statement, which was essentially that the hurricane path was variable enough that we should include a threat to Alabama in our assessment. He saw it as important but not a big deal; the media, sensing blood, have attacked, forgetting that their target is not cowed by what they think is their power. He can play with this, provoking them into even more silliness, because it fills the headlines with spam, makes media look like spam, and allows him to act behind the scenes because no one is focusing on what he is doing. While the Left deliberately misdirects, Trump simply waves the red flag and watches the bull rush past and crash into a heap of garbage. It turns out that giving failed English majors the massive power of the voice of the media was probably a bad idea.
European anti-Semitism is out of control — oh wait:
According to Barak Kashpizky, his brother Yotam came to the assistance of a group of his friends also on the study program who were attacked by a group of “Arabic speakers,” after they left a night club in the city at 4am Saturday morning.
The assailants first asked the group if they were Israeli. When the students answered in the affirmative, they were attacked and cursed with phrases such as “f**k Israel.”
Hey guys, you should at least try the “No, we’re Canadian” line before telling the hostile Arabs that you are Jewish.
And so now we see the end of the “Me Generation”: everyone got so individualistic that they had no connections except ideology and transactions, and it turns out that both of those use people, instead of having mutually beneficial organic relationships like culture, heritage, hierarchy, customs, and social order do.
Governments are agitating for the ability to bust people for “white supremacist” and “white separatist” (really: nationalist) thought so that they can avoid terror events in the future. In theory, at least, this is their reasoning. In reality, our system of government — liberal democracy with entitlements — is failing just like the Soviets and Jacobins, and those who are in power are trying desperately to quash dissent so that those in power can hang on to that power, which shows you that those in power are tyrants and not people concerned with the well-being of their nations.
It turns out that, like all things Keynesian, borrowing money provides a temporary boost and then sends us spinning toward crash. The debt bomb is what will end liberal democracy, since people no longer have faith in it and when it impoverishes them yet again, they are going to go looking for alternatives. Specifically, they want government without ideology that simply takes care of defense and lets the markets breathe on their own. At the end of the day, we either have good (intelligent + moral) people in power at every level of government and industry, or we have a situation that no amount of regulations, lawsuits, unions, and laws can fix. The “government of laws, not of men” has failed as an idea.
In the midst of this, Magashule said what was needed was black solidarity that could make the African continent a powerhouse.
“We must never despise people who have the same skin colour as us. Their colour, whether they are people from Mozambique or Angola or Nigeria or everywhere in the 54 countries in Africa… you must know you are an African,” Magashule said according to a video clip posted on Facebook page named Supporters of Ace Magashule.
First point: diversity does not work, and South Africa proves this as it spirals downward into oblivion.
Second point: Magashule’s plan will fail for the same reason that “white nationalism” does; nationalism is ethnic, not racial. Race alone — like politics, ideology, economics, and legal system alone — is not enough to unite a society. Only the organic force of nationalism, or those “born together” from the same origin, can maintain culture, which is necessary because it holds people together before they act, where government can only punish afterwards.
Populism presents to politicians the question of whether they side with The System, or the “spirit of the people” which no longer means plurality/majority rule, but what actually benefits the people. Voters have given up on themselves. They know what when groups go to the polls, they tend to converge on an average, which is bad because it is both mediocre, and that mediocre level falls year after year. Democracy means death. However, if you have strong leaders who are good (moral + intelligent) you can have them pull society toward future objectives instead of looking toward the past, dividing up wealth to subsidize grievances, and buying off voters while borrowing money to keep the entitlements state running.
This is what losing faith in liberal democracy (democracy + civil rights + entitlements) looks like. People are slowly realizing that giving government an ideological mandate to make us all equal turns government into an ever-expanding, self-promoting state motivated only to maintain its own power, and this takes money, power, and social status from the productive and gives to the unproductive in order to maintain the appearance of equality, fairness, and contentment. In reality, this simply enslaves the useful in service to the useless, making more of the latter and sending society down the path to collapse. The system will have to be overthrown.
Merkel belongs to the variety of politician who is strictly ideological. Her conservative flavoring merely serves to conceal her basic Leftist assumptions; “cultural Marxism” after all works by changing the political culture of a nation, making Marxist ideas into normal assumptions upon which people act and then, by inertia and precedent, end up at Marxism while not consciously intending to do so from the outset. Her party finds itself shocked that not all of its members are 100% ideological, and might defer to the practical, like choosing an NPD candidate when no one else of competence presents themselves in a local election.
[[[ SINEAD O’CONNOR ]]] fell into the usual Leftist trap, which is that in order to believe that a need for “equality” exists, you have to believe that nature is bad, therefore everything successful in the history of your people is bad, and you need this “new” (not really, at all) way of doing things to make everything right again. She would be happy if relocated to Venezuela, it seems.
Although the global scope of the challenge is enormous, the science is already telling us the steps we need to take to effectively respond to the wildlife extinction crisis. We must protect at least 50 percent of the planet by 2050, achieving the first milestone of 30 percent protection by 2030.
The United Nations effectively just endorsed ecofascism. They are not wrong, but they have not pointed out the obvious, which is that setting aside half of the land for nature will require smaller populations, which points to strong ethnic populations, one per nation, as the best solution. Immigration will have to go, as will diversity. With that, globalism will go. With that, the entitlements state and its borrowing from tomorrow to pay for today will also have to go. In fact, in order to avoid this crisis, we are going to have to unravel our system entirely.
Nature beats nurture, as usual.
Man laughs off media, as if mocking the complete fall in its status from “trusted informer” to “distrusted propaganda”:
Bedford Public School District board member Todd Bruning said he will continue to live by the motto written on the banner that hangs in the window of his Michigan gun shop: “I will not censor myself to comfort your ignorance.”
Mr. Bruning said Facebook recently banned him from using the site for 30 days in response to “inappropriate” content on his page, but he waved it off, saying it happens often. And though he says Mr. Shultz has talked to him about his posts in the past, he has no intention of being politically correct.
But are the posts racist?
“If people want to assume that, that’s fine,” Mr. Bruning said.
As usual, the unnamed source afraid of reprisals appears with a statement that might have come straight from the SPLC or USSR. As usual, there are complaints about statements made on a private company website by an individual acting in his own capacity only, but no indication of bias in his professional performance. The only thing unusual is that lately, these media blitzes seem to have outlived their welcome.
The findings, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, hint that this human bias toward negative news might be a large part of what drives negative news coverage.
There are some evolutionary reasons as to why negativity bias exists, the scientists pointed out. For one thing, it can be much riskier to ignore negative information (a storm is coming) than good news (a dog rescued a boy from a tree). Paying attention to negative news, the researchers said, is generally an effective survival strategy.
As with all things utilitarian, the media caters to the lowest common denominator. They make money by having more people interested in their content. This clashes with how people used to view the media, which was as noble defenders of truth and our civilization. Nope, they are simply more hucksters out to make a buck.
Egalitarian societies pity those who have less and blindly take their side against those who have more. It turns out that this only legitimizes bad behavior by the lower group, and this produces a backlash as the higher group notes that if we are talking about equal rights, it should have rights too. However, that was never the plan; averaging society into a uniform grey race of people dependent on government, ideology, and jobs was. That way, society can have “control,” which is what people desire when they can no longer have organic unity, or perceive that they cannot.
This provides a big opportunity, since this lawsuit implicates the question of whether race has a “scientific” basis. Since genetics has answered that question, the court must either rule against science in favor of ideology, or rule against ideology in favor of science. They will punt with a Fourteenth Amendment argument, as they always do, or find a procedural reason, but this issue will not go away and so the courts now know that, eventually, they will have to take this on.