The House of David

"dawnbreak in the west"

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Edgelord profile in The New Yorker

I was browsing the stacks at a Barnes and Noble - gotta do that whilst I still can - and I ran across The New Yorker. It had a piece on "Mike Enoch" of Since I'm, you know, me I had to read it. It turned out to be fair. And frightening.

Mike shares a few traits with me. He grew up with some Issues that caused him to be outcast by his peers. As an adult, he turned to the Internet basically to find his way intellectually, because he wasn't finding his way socially nor through work. Also like me, Mike found himself on the hard Right. Unlike me, he showed a real talent for hard Right trolling...

The thing about talent - as Michele Catelano learnt a decade before us - is that if you're good at something, then people will pay you to do more of it. As you are getting paid, you naturally learn what pays the most. So you start honing your skills to hit that niche. And then you tweak your style... and your own thoughts. After awhile you've become a servant to ideologues. Catelano, for one, couldn't do it.

Mike Enoch, The New Yorker is saying, has ended up in a place even I won't go. He has now lost his family. His parents are doing the Baltic-Sea Gentile equivalent of sitting sheva and his wife (Jewish, what else) has, I dunno, sort-of left him. She is at the least taking a leave of Extremely Upset from him. 'Tis hard to blame her.

The New Yorker has a moral to deliver to its readers: don't be That Guy. Most readers will rest reassured at their own life-choices, that they didn't take that route. Unfortunately a subset of them are taking that route to the hard LEFT, through so-called "Antifa". Whether The New Yorker will follow up with a similar piece aimed at one of their online heroes... I suppose that depends on whether its editors choose to remain simple opponents to the Right, or if they have an interest in true political moderation.

posted by Zimri on 19:26 | link | 0 comments

The Ashkenaz baseline

Last April we had a genetic study of the Ashkenazi origins. They can't really tell you exact years; they go by generations. There was a bottleneck thirty generations ago.

Before the bottleneck we were about half "south European", the other half Levantine. The bottleneck is presumably when the founding population separated from its peers without possibility of reintegration. Thirty generations of 25 years looks to me much like the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Which makes sense to me. I don't see a large community of Torah readers and lawyers moving to Hun territory during the Dark Age.

Elhaik has been proposing the Khazars. If so (or if, say, Kiev) that has to be pre-bottleneck. The Slavic (and Turkic?) influx would then have to be pre-bottleneck too. However: that's not what's in the genes. So Elhaik is now considered a "crank". (Although calling this theory "antisemitic" is snowflake.)

The pre-bottleneck genes say "south European" to the tune of about half the genome. Everyone is talking Italy. I wonder, why not Dalmatia or southern France? These were going concerns until various Bogomil / Cathar crusades.

Moving forward, as far as I know no geneticist is even considering the "Gefilte Line", that Galician / Lithuanian split. This tells me that the biologists haven't (yet) found it interesting. It appears there was only one founding population for both, the two splitting after that. I would, however, like to see to what extent the Galicians are Slavic and to what extent we Litvaks are more Finnic, Turkic, or Asian.

posted by Zimri on 07:50 | link | 0 comments

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

The Weinsteins' culture of critique

I noted here that among the Weinstein movies I'd seen was Who's Your Caddy?. I'd also seen The Mist and The Great Debaters; also interesting in this context. But I mostly want to talk about -Caddy?. As a movie, it was terrible. As a Weinstein Brothers movie, though...

A generation before, some mostly-Jewish funnymen put out a structurally incoherent but nonetheless hilarious picture Caddyshack. This movie pitted various "white ethnics" - mostly Catholic - against Old Money WASPdom, whom the drones of Current Year would term White Privilege. The catalyst for this holy struggle was - well, they'd cast yet another white boy, Rodney Dangerfield; but the producers did stick a Polish (read, possible Jewish) last name on him.

Here was the wish-fulfilment and revenge-fantasy of a certain generation of American Jewry. It's seen in many Jewish-written movies for a gentile market, like (especially) Princess Bride. The people these movies wants us to love might not be Jews exactly but said movies make damn clear whom we are supposed to hate. It's the Buckleys and Vanderbilts: the old Dutch and Anglo elites, who exiled these poor upper-middle-class Jews from the country-clubs of Long Island, and loaded them into cattle-cars for the uninhabitable wastes of the Catskills.

Who's Your Caddy? is the updated, meaner child of Caddyshack. This movie had the effrontery to cast no less than convicted paedo Jeffrey Duncan Jones in its Judge Smails role. In general it played the same notes: new-money outsider, who happens to be black this time (therefore, is a rapper), runs up against a tony golfcourse and wins.

This movie gave the outsider a semitragic backstory: that his father had been a great golfer but was forced to be the caddy. At the time I saw that scene I rolled my eyes really hard to the tune of "If I Was A Rich Man". The movie also had a subplot of turning Jones' own son into a ghetto gangsta against his family's values. At THAT time, I'd wondered what use C-Note would have found for the poor kid after they'd been done with him. Probably about the same use Jones had for the kids he'd done over.

Among those other Weinstein "distributed" movies I'd seen: The Mist subverts conservative Christianity; and The Great Debaters is about communist-inspired black debaters from a Southern college who enter a debate against preWW2 Harvard. Where else? (I've always wondered if Harvard had thrown that debate because, you know, Clerisy. These things happen. But the Weinsteins won't admit that.)

That's what the Weinsteins were all about. They fertilised the office folia hired Hollywood pariahs like Jones, often pariahs for good reason; but they didn't do just that. They were mainly about inciting a revolt of the proletariat against (their straw man of) The Man. They were a Manson Family.

And that's what Lorne Michaels is all about too.

UPDATE 10/14: Ed Driscoll got more. Mostly from Mr Nolte over at Breitbart.

posted by Zimri on 17:43 | link | 0 comments

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Kurt Schlichter

Kurt Shlccitter poses as the Great Right Hero against the Hollywood / New York elite. Rose McGowan, for her own reasons, is fighting the same battle. But instead of joining forces the two have wasted each others' time in a tiff.

I don't much like Rose McGowan's style either. She's playing Joan Of Arc too much. SLAY DRAGONS, flaming sword.... yeah... ooohhh kay.

I also raised a hackle at McG's, er, rebuttal to Schitrtr's obtuse white male act. Frankly I cannot decipher this sentence. No, seriously; I have no clue. It is always tempting in a debate to say, you're in this group I hate so your argument is invalid; women who pull this card call us "mansplainers". McGowan MIGHT be playing this card. But then, McGowan might instead suspect that Shclslr is a huckster playing an act for his own fanbase. Several of us not fully on the Trump (or Bannon?) train do share her suspicion.

All that said, in a Twitter tiff, the first to delete his or her tweets is the bitch. And over the last day or two, that's Slchtchler.

posted by Zimri on 21:59 | link | 0 comments

Monday, October 09, 2017

Political Christianity runs deep in Syria

It looks like we have a new opportunity to air out Christianate Mimetic Theory. In Syria today Hafez is the Father, and Bashar is the Son. The Holy Spirit... is Nasrallah.

The original Alawites, also known as the Nuṣayriya, lodged themselves into Lebanon and western Syria by the exact same means. Except I'd been told they'd said Muhammad was the Father and 'Ali the Son; Allah was the Spirit. It is hard to tell because Nuṣayrites hold their beliefs in secret. In this they are much like the Donmeh crypto-Jews in Turkey.

At base it's really not personal. It's Syrian Arab / Byzantine-era political poetry. It's Umayyadism; it's God's Caliph as Crone and Hinds have explicated.

I do feel for the (nonpolitical) Christians stuck in Syria and dealing with this mess. Christians have to see this Assad family / coastal-Syrian posturing as the rankest blasphemy.

On the other hand... Assad is keeping them alive. As is Nasrallah. And pro-Syrian Catholics here know it...

posted by Zimri on 17:41 | link | 0 comments

The Weinstein movie list

Now we know that Harvey Weinstein is a thug, a pervert, and *ahem* some value of the intersection of the two, I just took it on myself to run through my Weinstein Company movies and -

- huh, looks like I just have the one: 1408. This Stephen King / John Cusack one-room drama was okay I guess. I think I've watched the DVD three times... in the past decade.

I've also seen The Road, once, on a Redbox special. I didn't want to watch it twice. And I heard that No Escape wasn't PC so I was planning to watch that too but never got to it. (UPDATE 16:35 MST Pierce Brosnan made an antiWest speech in it.)

OKAY OKAY. You dragged it out of me. Back in Houston I also saw Clerks 2, Zack and Miri, the Halloween prequel, Who's Your Caddy?, The Mist, The Great Debaters, and Inglourious Basterds. I was dragged into most of these on dates. Much later I saw The Giver. THEY WERE ALL AWFUL. Happy now?!

It doesn't look much like the Weinsteins have a lot of clout in Hollywood - anymore. Back in the Miramax days, yeah, they had more. This may explain why the allegations are clustering in 2004. From 2005 on, it's lowbudget indie releases and liberal bait. Conservative bait in that one case. Not the stuff of power players.

UPDATE 10/11: I'm alright, nobody worry 'bout me; Why you got to gimme a fight ...

posted by Zimri on 16:26 | link | 0 comments

1954, American Chalcedon

For some time this blog has opposed both the Bellamy Pledge and the 1954 Congress's illegal insertion of "Under God" in it. I haven't always appreciated the actions of my "allies" much here, either. So I'm on record as disliking ... pretty much everyone involved. I figure that just might make me impartial.

As you know I have a byline in the Byzantine transition of the Roman Empire. More exactly I sometimes brag that I am University Trained in (the first) Justinian. That's true insofar as that goes; except that, at the time, I didn't fully understand all the controversies. For Maas's class, we had to write a thesis. My thesis involved the Justinianic religion. I cannot boast my project as in any way a success. Especially after I'd caught the pneumonia during the weeks I was supposed to be finishing it up and taking finals.

So, since the winter 1996, I have had plenty of time to consider what I'd done wrong and about What Christology Meant - in a political sense. For those who'd read the first essays in A Garden For The Poets, that's where I believe I finally sussed it out. I'm not going to touch on that, much, here; because I hope you'll purchase the book. I can talk about an analogy in postwar America.

Under the reign of Constantine, in what Western Christians would come to declare the early fourth century Anno Domini, the Emperor decided to lighten up on certain definitions of "Christianity". Really what the Emperor needed was for a hierarchy of Christians which he could hold accountable for whatever their flock got up to. The most powerful hierarchy, at the time, are the ancestors of what we know as mainline episcopal Christianity. They came together at Nicaea and hammered out a definition of God, man, and the bridge(s) between them which were Jesus the Word Of God, and the Holy Spirit. The Christians outside this hierarchy were already weak and ineffective except in the hinterlands; Nicaea pretty much killed them off.

The real threats were internal. Some Christians, like Arius, wanted the Son to be subordinate to the Father. If so the Emperor, if ever he himself should become Christian, might decide to identify himself with the Father and institute a Pharaonic regime. At Nicaea, the more independent-minded theologians, which was most of them, declared "Arianism" to be a heresy and assured the equality of the Son in the Trinity. Their fears proved justified as the Emperor did, in fact, become Christian only to support the Arian minority - "Eunomians", as they called themselves. The subsequent Emperors were even more strident as we may read in Philostorgios.

The post-Nicaean Church inherited the pre-Imperial Church's ability to withstand Imperial meddling. So they outweathered the Eunomians. The Emperor instead grabbed a march on the post-Nicaeans and declared himself even more Nicaean. He and his allies in the Church forced a new council, this time at Ephesus, which merged the Son and the Father beyond equality; that the two were a near identity. Thus Monophysitism was born. And churchmen like Nestorius who were fully orthodox by Nicaean standards, and who had actually held best to the spirit of Nicaea, found themselves excommunicated. Many of them fled east to Persian-ruled northern Iraq.

In 451 AD, the Church was back to where it was in Nicaea. Except that now, Nicaean Christians straddled the Imperial border to the east. Those Christians still in the Empire had to, somehow, restore the spirit of Nicaea whilst at the same time proving to the Emperor that they weren't Sasanian moles. Also, unlike under Nicaea, the Imperial-leaning faction had gained more power and deeper roots in the community. Particularly in Egypt and Syria, the Monophysites had taken the time to relate their vision of the Son to the death and resurrection of the Nile and of the seasons (respectively). (I mention this much in House of War.)

The Church met for that third time in Chalcedon. The formula they hacked out officially upheld Ephesus whilst neutering it of all meaning. As a result it reads incoherently to this day. And here's where I leave this sordid tale; centuries of Christian disunity all over the Near East and, in the end, Islam. So: back to the future and back to America.

The old Bellamy Pledge was, as readers of Jonah Goldberg know, at its base a Fascist oath. A salute to the one Union banner is fine for the military... but Bellamy had schoolkids reciting this thing as well. And here it was, again, Christians, including Jehovah's Witnesses but also I think Catholics, who objected to this; because they consider themselves citizens of a City Of God that transcends all states, even a state as fine as post-Civil-War America's.

The "Under God" in the Pledge, therefore, denies that this flag deserves our ultimate loyalty. As with the Chalcedonians' professed loyalty to Ephesus and Empire, American Christians who recite the new Pledge can profess loyalty to America only to the extent America itself remains godly. Should America secede from the Kingdom Of God, American Christians may once again honourably secede from the Pledge.

Atheists, like me off-and-on, are still left in a bind. Well, unless we join the military. But that brings us to Sparta and to Israel, to Starship Troopers territory, to whatever extent we call that "fascist".

posted by Zimri on 11:48 | link | 0 comments

Winter diary?!

Autumn sure didn't last long here...

This is my seventh Colorado fall/winter season. From that perspective the leaves have now caught up with our normal fall timetable. This time o' year is usually about the time we get our first good frost. The next stage in fall is the snow-flurry that doesn't stick to the road; that's maybe the week preceding Halloween. Second half of November is when to expect our first real blizzard.

I took road-trips the past two Novembers: late November 2015, earlier November 2016. I needed the snowtyres in the former. Coulda done without 'em last year.

I have the day off. And I am glad of this. I'll spend most of the day watching the baseball instead. Go Astros!

posted by Zimri on 06:00 | link | 0 comments

Sunday, October 08, 2017

(((New York)))

Lorne Michaels did some stuff last night on Saturday Night Live. None of it was about Harvey Weinstein. When confronted with that, Michaels emitted (((echoes))).

Remember in Godfather 2 how Corleone broke a Nevada Senator? After that, during the Congressional hearing about the Mafia's doings, that same Senator stepped up and changed the subject to what these proceedings were REALLY about: anti-Italian bigotry.

That is what Michaels is doing here. Michaels cares naught for Queens-borough aṣabiya or else Michaels would have had nothing to say on the Trump Question. He's signaling hard that he's covering for a fellow Jew. And he's daring the rest of us to mention that.

Well: I'm a fellow Jew, or at least can pass as one for this purpose. And I'd tell Michaels right now finstere leyd zol nor di mama oyf im zen except that his mama could probably beat me to it.

posted by Zimri on 17:03 | link | 0 comments


Some journal published a pro-colonial article recently. I didn't like it myself but I did like that the case could still be made.

Some commenters however didn't see it as an article that could be addressed on its (dubious) merits. They called it incendiary. Or, more coherently, incit[ement] of violence of colonialism.

There is, of course, no risk that proColonial sentiment in some stupid think-piece, already widely derided, will inspire freelance colonialism by the aging and dying inheritors of the Western tradition. Also Trump himself had run on an ANTIcolonialist platform, despite his moves lately toward rehabilitating Cristóbal de Genoa himself. Which means no-one else need worry about state-sponsored colonialism from us.

Reuben Rose-Redwood and elliot owens are spewing cant. They know they have no case, so they are delivering buzzwords tangentially related to their case. They are plausibly-deniably not inciting to violence... as they lay out their case that their enemies have stricken the first blow. They cry out in pain as they prepare to beat you.

posted by Zimri on 16:04 | link | 0 comments

Salman Rushdie: still my hero

Gender reassignment is not for kids.

Now, if someone in Britain (or Australia, alas) could dare say the same about homosexual "marriage", or about age-of-consent under 21....

posted by Zimri on 15:36 | link | 0 comments

Older female stars love Harvey Weinstein

Judi Dench and Meryl Streep love this scamp Harvey Weinstein. Dench must have known; I can't believe Streep didn't know either. I propose that Dench and Streep think that what he did was a form of hazing.

Dench and Streep went through the casting-couch and survived, and they made careers even in middle age and beyond - which is, we'll all agree, hard to do. (For male "character actors", likewise.)

But it means those two have no empathy for the younger stars trying to keep the potted-plant between them and the producer. Less than none.

posted by Zimri on 15:00 | link | 0 comments

The third act of the trilogy

The Buffalo Wild Wings I used to attend, in Superior Colorado, is no more.

The chain has always gone with the Political Winds and, last year, I noted Stalin-tier commies in the waitstaff. And now that these winds have blown in an Ugly Direction, at least from the black players and fans involved: we are not Standing With.

Take a knee, raise your fist; I'll be gone, you shan't be missed.

UPDATE 14:10: just heard that Vice-President Mike Pence has walked off the Colts game after they pulled this stunt.

posted by Zimri on 14:00 | link | 0 comments

Saturday, October 07, 2017

Upload #160: works and days (okay, months)

I swear I had not given up my Islamic researches since last January. I have been tweaking several projects these past ten months. So forgive me if I don't remember exact details in what follows...

When last we met we were dealing with sura 39, which I'd locked 38>39>21. This time, the turn is sura 40's; up to now floating adrift some time after 39. I have long known of sura 16/40 parallels, but most are explicable as independent uses of base material... like sura 39. Today I found a true 16/40 link, which turns up 16 <- 40. So that's a change to "Plots against the Qurra". "The Reformer From Pharaoh's Family", therefore, cannot have sura 40 quoting from suras 9 or 61. And "In Ranks" on sura 61 can now parallel sura 40 in peace. These changes are minor for those particular projects but yuuge for the overall "Zimriel Project" of reordering suras by composition.

An essay that did take on more weight is "Islamic Alimony" on sura 65, my first change to it in three years. This was due to Lahcen Daaïf's 2015 discovery of a private letter of 102 / 721 that parallels Q. 65:2b-3.

"What Waits Beside These Roads" is still trying to figure out sura 34. I've already mooted that Q 34 belongs between suras 22-and-41 and 25, so arguably should be noted in House of War. But no edition has included such speculations... because I haven't figured out sura 34. "Ledger of War", dealing with likewise-mysterious sura 9, is doing better: I think that sura attacks Christian-Arab allies to Islam who, the qurra have decided, must become Muslims now. That fits with late 'Abd al-Malik, and/or with al-Walid, 85/705ish or later.

I added van Putten's "tatran" actually "yatran" to "The Ararat Tax"; and her musings on taghê to "Blasting the Sultan". "The Manṣûr of Damascus" refers more closely to Isho'yahb III. I added an Armenian legend to "Return of the Shah"."The Sinners at Caesarea" now takes stock of whether Theophilus was a "Melkite" or a "Maronite", whatever either meant in the late eighth century AD. "Against Jihad" notes where sura 29's Lot declares himself a muhajir. "The Book of Nathan" takes account of Florence 267 as David Vishanoff has translated it.

Among those tweaked in ways I can't remember offhand: "Defending Jesus", "The New Plague", "Sura 4 and the Dome".


posted by Zimri on 13:58 | link | 0 comments

Friday, October 06, 2017

Shot in the arm

Back in 1996 when the Kansan Senator Bob Dole was running - and losing - Bob Dole got it into his head that, hey, the Republican base wasn't yet on board with the Bob Dole record of... whatever it was.

Bob Dole had by the mid-1990s learnt some inkling of what the mid-1990s Republican base liked. Mid-1990s Republicans liked that earlier President, Ronald Reagan; whose profile Right promoters like Rush Limbaugh were then raising as an historic President/cy. (Remember: during the preceding Bush-Senior years, we were all being told that Reagan wasn't kind and wasn't gentle... by Bush.) So Bob Dole went over to visit Ronald Reagan... at his assisted-living facility.

So we got that photo, of Dole shaking hands with Reagan. Dole bruited it about to the media as a "shot in the arm". Oy.

That Reagan / Dole photo looked like our family-photo from the late 1970s... with my grandmother... when she was deep into Alzheimer's. This malady was, coincidentally, the same malady then afflicting Reagan. And our RICO Media had the perfect comeback to Reagan / Dole: they reported that Reagan was "subdued".

Maybe that Shot In The Arm reinvigorated Bob Dole. It did not do much for the Bob Dole campaign. In November Bob Dole was stuck researching Viagra whilst his opponent was getting his stimulations under his desk by more natural methods.

Anyhoo, Marvel is now trying something similar by rolling Stan Lee out to support Diversity And Inclusion And Social Relevance. Because that's what a 94 year old retired white man really wants in this stage of his life.

It doesn't at all smell like the cologne of desperation. It doesn't at all smell like Bob Dole in 1996 grinding out a smile whilst invading someone else's nursing home.

posted by Zimri on 23:57 | link | 0 comments

Alpha-game is partiarchy; caste is matriarchy

Every now and again some female or other attends this or that convention or conference, logs on to twitter, and reports on the Sexual Harassment she suffered there.

I hasten to concede that sometimes it's for real. Guys shouldn't creep on girls when stuck in a lift alone together, as occurred at an atheist convention a few years back.

But usually it's not done in an enclosed space; usually it's just a flubbed pick-up line by a doofus nerd loser. Doofus nerd loser, remember, is a doofus nerd loser. He hasn't had a lot of luck, in his normal rounds, finding female companionship. He's gone to this convention, in part, to Network. That includes maybe finding like-minded females. Or, so he'd thought, before being shamed on Twitter.

Single-woman in such an environment has her own priorities. The convention is an opportunity! She gotta find someone who's big in this field so she can climb up that ladder - but eek! - she's being accosted by some dweeb. This low-status loser thinks he's in HER league? That's not just annoying. That's an INSULT.

(I've gone to a few conferences in my time: secularist 1999; IQSA 2015-16. I went as a single man. I wasn't looking for romance, for my part; I've had that impulse beaten out of me. I still see how other males might keep up some hope. Guess that's why I too deserve to be forced into all that Inclusion shite on the programmes...)

On that topic, let's discuss Brie Larson and the HORROR she faced with the TSA. [h/t, Schichtler. NON ironically, if you read the full post...] This has me thinking on what distinguishes Caste, in the Hindi sense, from the natural alpha-game status-jockeying seen in your average nightclub on Friday nights (like this night).

The Friday Night meat market is Darwin, it is Hobbes. It is the red-in-tooth-and-claw world wherein the better women chase the best men. Most of those other men - that was me, by the way - buy a few drinks and maybe jump around the dance-floor for the good songs, and then go home having pretty much wasted the evening except for the exercise. We are however allowed to make the effort, to approach those women. And hey if we faked being good enough (or, if you like, presented our case well enough - I for one always had regular employment), we got phone numbers. Thus female hypergamy in barbarism.

Civilisation doesn't remove female hypergamy. It formalises it.

The Hindus, stuck in a subcontinent and isolated there, and being smarter than most humans in history, came up with certain rules. Among these rules was that if you weren't in the high caste, you stayed in your place. The men enforced these rules of course; men have the physical strength.

But who was it who insisted on these rules? Who was it who told the lawmakers, I might settle for some inbred ass of a Brahmin, but no way am I marrying a toilet-scrubber?

UPDATE 11:15 PM - Zach at Diversity and Comics suspects that TSA agent was black.

posted by Zimri on 22:08 | link | 0 comments

Suicide and selfishness

Selfishness is an antidepressant.

We had a guy at Rice in winter late 1993 who threw himself from the top floor of Sid Rich, a 14 story dorm. The Rice Thresher at the time reported that his big thing, in life, was to scrub the blackboards before lectures started. He'd lived his life for others, his friends said.

Also we can discuss Ian Curtis. His bandmates knew that he had a LOT going wrong. There's a scene even in Control where Bernard Sumner tries some New Age hypnosis bullshit to fix it. But Curtis assured them that oh no, all was well. Because he didn't want to distract the band.

They say that suicide is a selfish act. And yeah; I agree, it is. But it might not be carried out by selfish people. These are people with serious problems in their brain. Curtis was an epileptic for G-d's sake.

posted by Zimri on 20:08 | link | 0 comments


We've seen a sharp uptick in those Americans who have decided that America is racist (I'm running the table on HBDChick twitter h/t tonight). Democrats have given up hope that most people can get ahead if they're willing to work hard. From another link: Democrats dismiss black people, as victims; and at the same time, Democrats figure they may as well admit immigrants from wherever.

It was noted elsewhere in that thread that pro-immigrant means anti-black as much as, if not more than, anti-white. I'll leave that much for the "dems r real raysciss" crowd.

Some propose that what we've seen in the 2010s is Media RICO. That's certainly a part of the story, maybe even a large one. But it's not all of it.

Another part has to be the upcoming generation born of rootless immigrants (like me); of two preceding generations of broken homes; of Left-indoctrinated youth in households who'd thought they were just secular and liberal, and had no real response to the Leftism.

It's a whole generation of people who were brought up to see inequalities in society as evils in society. They deny HBD, which they are wrong to do, but they also observe some real structural inequalities, which they are not wrong to do, even where these were brought on by the Left ideals of prior generations. The new Democrats have identified themselves with the oppressed, and/or with their champions. It's a generation of righteous Robespierres.

posted by Zimri on 19:58 | link | 0 comments

Why the opioid problem is a crisis

HBDChick on her twitter quotes: Beth McMurtrie on the Journal of Higher Education: It's not one generation, it's two. And we have to stop it before it's three.

I've been invited to several communities where it's two. This was all back in Houston - more specifically, in Houston's suburbs. These communities were black and white both (and not infrequently, mixed). Here I met young men and women raised in and/or keeping up families without a father for an anchor; sometimes, with no mother either. Since the familial chain was broken only recently, these kids and their single-moms or guardians did still have male anchors, and well-grounded females as well: uncles, aunts, cousins, churches. On the black side Tyler Perry hit on a goldmine with his Medea: the great black 50something matriarch grandmother, who was six feet tall and could still whoop yo' ass (yes, Perry was crossdressing, but they do exist - I've met 'em). Few white reviewers can grok Perry; but I did, and - yes - Steve Sailer did.

The second-generation in those Houston suburbs still had their extended families; they still had social-capital. So: what happens in such a community when you get to the third generation, with no good men in it, and bad women? Well... there you get the people I couldn't relate to.

Let's leave aside "HBD" for now; let's pretend SBPDL was wrong about everything genetic. The third generation, assuming IQ-parity, lacks even the second-generation's social-capital. They just got Social Services. Oh, and gangs. They got that too.

So you get downtown Chicago and downtown Atlanta. The gangsters, the strippers, the meth freaks. Precious. Da Geto. Just like Pat Moynihan warned in 1968.

Moynihan warned it would happen to low-caste whites too. We are watching this play out now.

posted by Zimri on 19:24 | link | 0 comments

Yungbluth and the maiden fair

I am taking J Yungbluth seriously: filth are his politics, filth is his life.

'Tis of note that he's posing in Pedobear chic. Probably his most highly-regarded work is "Clarissa" - in that very genre. "Clarissa" only works, though, if you think its/her creator takes Clarissa's side; if you think Yungbluth leaves his Clown Nose Off. By wearing that shirt Yungbluth is telling us something different: that he thinks child-molestors are a joke. That speaking out against child-molestation was never his aim.

Yungbluth's real aim in "Clarissa" was, as Matthew points out, to be debunking the myth of the "idyllic 50s atomic family". This is likewise how Yungbluth has read "Peanuts" (not unjustifiably); this is what he has extrapolated into "Weapon Brown". Moving on to that - here is a marysue if I've ever read one. Yungbluth deep down feels like he is Charlie Brown the eternal loser, grown up broken BUT ONLY BECAUSE AMERICA IS BROKEN.

Why are we begrudging this poor man a little pedobear shirt, anyway? He's suffered. And he works so hard.

If Harvey Weinstein and Joss Whedon have taught us anything, it is to beware of male "Allies" to a feminist cause. If I were female, especially a very young female, at a convention with Yungbluth, I should beware of him.

posted by Zimri on 18:09 | link | 0 comments

Thursday, October 05, 2017

"We're not gonna take it"

Kurt Schlichter has garnered quite the fanbase amongst the Ace Of Spades wing of the Right. His shtick is, mainly, about cheerleading: rah, rah Trump; rah, rah America; boooo social-justice. Lately he posted: See, we’re done walking on eggshells and playing your verbal minefield game. Eggs and landmines and games, oh my!

You want to talk about a minefield here. Try talking race.

Seven years back I used to visit this other site - "Stuff Black People Don't Like". That site aimed at exposing the foibles of the black races: mainly Bantu, because that's the majority of American blacks, but sometimes Somali. SBPDL earned enough fame, or notoriety, that its proprietor ("Paul Kersey"; a Pinoy-Anglo mix if I recall correctly - his commenters were heavily Asian) was invited to post elsewhere, like on VDare. On Taki's site, Mr Kersey branched out to Raising Some Questions about the Jewish tribe as well. (Jewry isn't really a race so much as an alliance of races, only one of which is mine.) Back home Mr Kersey kept the SBPDL site up for a long time, much longer than some of us might have predicted.

I make it my general rule that I'll credit and/or link my sources, no matter who first floated the idea, and if I fail to do so (as sometimes happens on a blog) then I'll admit it as a failure. I don't always agree with any given site I link - for instance, I'd linked to an Alternet poster not quite a fortnight ago. If I'm linking or referring to a blog-post it's because the specific article had made some interesting points. I linked to SBPDL quite a few times. In that light - I've just linked to Schlichter, that bloviating metaphor-mixing hack.

So: try to get into, when you next get out of work, and away from any other prying eyes. Go on. I'll wait.

That's right: Mr Kersey took that site offline. Right after the tiki-torch mess at Charlottesville, would be my guess.

There's Schlichter's new brave Right. For nearly the entirety of Obama's rule over these United States, Mr Kersey was posting whatever Mr Kersey wanted to post. Trump isn't in charge even a full year before that blogger gets spooked and shuts down. We are, apparently, just beginning to walk on those eggshell IEDs.

I am not even here to blame Mr Kersey. I've locked out mine own blog a few times. Did it six years ago in fact. At the time I had my reasons: they were financial. I wasn't doing well at my then-employment and I was angling to buy a new house.

I am also not here to say to what extent Mr Kersey was right or wrong about the various blacks or, for that matter, about certain of us Jews. Except to reiterate that it's worth discussing. More worth discussing, as a point of testable reality, than YAY TRUMP.

I'm here to say that the big-and-brave pose is, sometimes, a pose. When you have a means of financial support, "Fuck You Money", you can strike that pose. SBPDL was, it seems, making some bank in its heyday, so that Mr Kersey didn't worry about getting "ou(s)ted" from wherever it was he'd been working. Matters differed for The House Of David in late 2011. Matters seem to differ for SBPDL today.

So whatever Schlichter says about Rightists being "done" with the Social Justice Warriors - pfft, pull the other one. They're girded for war when they're financially solvent enough to be so girded. One more recession and the Right bloggers'll be scurrying for the shadows again.

posted by Zimri on 20:09 | link | 0 comments

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Mainstream journalism is a racket

Three years ago, during #GamerGate, I tossed a comment in here that the mainstream media is a "guild". In that spirit Glenn Reynolds calls for nationalising Twitter and Facebook, and for pulling YouTube away from Google. We might not be Constitutionally allowed to do that... except for Twitter perhaps, given Twitter's financial straits; or maybe for some of our ailing newspapers. Since Theodore Roosevelt this country does hold some Powerful Tools that it may swing against monopoly businesses - and against cartels, also known as "trusts".

I was wrong, in retrospect, in implying we use those anti-trust tools against some of our journalists. I propose instead that we should use the anti-racketeering acts. Starting with RICO.

My first hint that something had gone very, very wrong with our media came in 2008. That summer BarryOchus Epiphanes paraded himself and his entourage into a neighbourhood that he'd thought was full of happy white yuppies; there, he prepared to greet, to smile, and to answer anodyne questions. Instead the Lightworker happened across one Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, a plumber by trade - although now running a plumbing business, so without a licence to plumb himself. Joe, being a business-owner so with an interest in the candidates' economic plans, explained his situation to the would-be Phar-O. Absent a teleprompter, Senator Obama burbled something about how the government "spreading the wealth" would be "better for everybody" and not just for proles like Wurzelbacher and his staff. (What's the Korean for "Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace Trickle-Down Economics!"?)

Here was your textbook Kinsley Gaffe, wherein a politician accidentally tells the truth. Mr Obama was, still, a communist. He was, still, instinctively dismissive of wealth held by white men. Joe The Plumber became an instant meme; he also inspired like-minded businessmen to speak out, like Tito The Builder who was - by the way - Colombian. An independent news media might have looked into Obama's past for clues. Certainly many conservative media outlets had looked into this.

But no. Instead the media looked into Joe The Plumber. We heard of something off with his taxes; something off with his plumbing licence. Well okay; government regulations are difficult, and your average businessman here has to make calls on what to put in which column on this-or-that form, and will typically prefer the columns that cost him less cash. If your taxes in that county went up because Wurzelbacher was Holdin' Out On Us!, that's annoying. Of course Wurzelbacher could also have chosen to cash out and to leave for another county. That would have cost you a lot more, including higher plumbing-rates. So Wurzelbacher's difficulties with the local revenue system didn't really affect you.

What mattered more was that, in "discrediting" Wurzelbacher, or at least in Raising Questions, the media distracted us all from Obama. The real story should have been Obama, and by contrast his opponent who was John McCain.

It went down exactly the same way over #GamerGate. There was a story there about corruption in some media outlets. Other media outlets should have reported on that. But no: those outlets instead chose to report on the Harassment Campaign. There was, of course, no such campaign, implying organisation. The people tweeting the #gamergate tag were consumers of games and of games-media who wanted games-media to, like, not get in bed with the developers. And again: Benghazi, which was a HORRIFIC scandal of governmental neglect, incompetence, and coverup, became all about the wrong people asking the wrong questions. Del Arroz reporting on publishers' blackballing of white males, let alone Right? Blackballed himself, and doxxed. Even Brett Kimberlin the Speedway Bomber got in on this racket with his "Breitbart Unmasked" - he didn't follow up on what Breitbart found, he went after Breitbart.

And now we got evidence of journalists, faced with Zack of Diversity & Comics scooping them on Disney's politicisation of Marvel comics, instead of following up on his findings, colluding to get Zack thrown off his platforms.

These aren't the actions of independent reporters. These are the actions of a guild, acting to shut down people outside the guild. I repeat: this isn't even an anti-trust issue. It is an anti mafia issue.

We do have a First Amendment. But... yeah, I'm going to throw a "but" in there.

We also have laws against conspiracy and against defamation and against misuse of services to harm others. Here we have several conspiracies to conduct defamation and restraint-of-trade. Against Zack we even have in writing a conspiracy to commit physical assault (here, provocation to battery). It's supposed to be okay just because the assailant has a press pass?

Many journalists and their editors deserve to be arrested and tried before a jury, with their statements broadcast over the airwaves and the internet, so that the American people understand what they've done and to what ends they did it. Call it a "Show Trial" if you like. Some might prefer to call it Nuremburg.

posted by Zimri on 18:45 | link | 0 comments

Monday, October 02, 2017

David Harsanyi seems like a nice guy

Back when I was in my late teens / twenties / even mid-thirties I would have applauded an article like Harsanyi's When You Politicize Shootings You Make It Harder To Find Solutions. Assuredly I'd have pasted it on my blog. I'd have said "hey read this!" to my audience of... neocon Rightists.

Which piece the other half of our divide would never, ever have read; or even seen its title, in a link within the articles they DID read.

For another example on this theme overall, let's look to Puerto Rico. What I see there is a class of leaders who aren't interested in solutions; at least, not in solutions that help their own people. They're more interested in solutions to their personal political problems, in their position in the Game Of Thrones. And Puerto Rico is literally a disaster area. It is much worse (politically) over here in King's Landing and The Reach.

Harsanyi has stated his statement. Some of us can, in future days, use this article as a reference point, when we all say - hey, at least we tried.

posted by Zimri on 20:53 | link | 0 comments

Did ISIS do Vegas?

ISIS jumped out in front of this Vegas atrocity. The FBI says, no, there's no evidence. Robert Spencer retorts that ISIS hasn't lied (much) about terror in the past.

I can report, personally and painfully, that other Islamist groups have claimed terror attacks with which, it later turned out, they had nothing to do. For instance, Utøya. Some "Ansar" group claimed this one and I'd stupidly taken them at their word; posting as much in various comment boards including one in okCupid at the time.

(Incidentally I have, as I've mentioned here and there, reasons to feel like I was unfit company for the fairer sex over the past seven years. So - there's one. But anyways.)

Now, Ansar told this lie when Ansar didn't own a state. ISIS for some years until recently held a state. And ISIS was terrifying enough over those years that, why take credit for crap they didn't do, when they had other operations afoot which were working much better.

ISIS today though - it's losing. Which means ISIS today is back to where Ansar was in 2011. It is clutching for relevance. The Caliph anymore lacks the resources to plot out something like this directly, and he has lost even his own personal cachet. But ISIS can still lie about an "operation" after the fact. Like Ansar used to do.

So I don't trust ISIS anymore. This Vegas enormity points de plus vers l'antifascisme, soi-disant. It points more to the likes of 2Lt Rapone.

UPDATE 10/5: Rukmini Callimachi agrees and disagrees. She agrees with me that ISIS rarely lies about their jihads, to the tune of 3/50; and has in the past refused to claim jihads done in their name which it didn't sanction. She disagrees with my insistence that ISIS is now in need to "call in a marker", to allow a 4/51.

posted by Zimri on 19:01 | link | 0 comments

Chadic might be (part) Indo-European!

I am British by paternal lineage; and like all true Brits these days, this means, from a R1b offshoot (L21, or M529; whichever). Another R1b (V88) ended up by... Lake Chad.

R1b scholarship isn't like R1a; nobody is claiming that R1b came out of Africa, like the Hindutvidiots claim of R1a and India. So anthropologists and linguists have been wondering how R1b got into the middle of the freakin' Sahara. My parents and I have actually visited the Sahara, in Algeria. It's immense and scary-dangerous if you're new to the place, like we were.

Anyway on Chadic R1b the Turtle-Island blog sketches out a hypothesis.

A R1b-V88 clan of para-Tocharians, some time before the Tocharians struck out east but maybe after the Indo / Anatolian split, went south instead, in bulk. The Turtle narrows this event to the 5000s BCE. The V88 found the Nile already stuffed solid with Copts. So they ducked around, via Cyrenaica and/or the Erythraean Sea. There my R1b cousins hooked up with pre-Cushitic peoples; or with pre-Tamazight "Berber" - the Turtle goes with Cushitic. Thence V88 jumped over to Chad. They didn't have camels in those days but that was okay, because the Sahara wasn't as bad then as it is now (remember, the Garamant Imazighen were doing great, well into Late Antiquity).

As a result of these migrations, we get the Chadic peoples and languages today: "Afro-Asiatic", but only secondarily Egyptian and Semitic, and with some ancient words which they share with Indo-European languages.

My main complaint, which I have now lodged into Mr Turtle's comments, was that the case has not been made for a proto-Cushitic base of old Chadic. I've been operating from Carsten Peust, that Chadic is brother to Tamazight. Simple geography should point Peust's way: Cushitic is waaaayyy over east along the Somali Pirate Coast, and the Berbers are right there to the north. We've been there; we've met Tuaregs.

Once again I have to complain (and I can probably count on Turtle's support on this much) about the state of the linguistic field where it comes to Chadic and Cushitic languages.

I also have to complain again that so little modern scholarship on old Tamazight has escaped from the Franco/Arabic circle. Although maybe the Catalans can help...

All in all Mr Turtle presents a good case, which scholars should take seriously; but I must rule it "incomplete" thus far. Just like Peter James' Atlantis. Or like Dan Gibson's alt-Mecca.

posted by Zimri on 17:50 | link | 0 comments

Roy Moore's krayzy kontrovershul kommentz

MSNBC lays it down, 27 Sept 4:02 AM MT -

  • Homosexual conduct should be illegal
  • 9/11 was God punishing perverseness
    • 9/11 was the Gods Of The Copybook Headings punishing folly
  • Personal belief Obama not born here
    • Yes, this is a crank statement; Obama should have been ruled ineligible for other reasons
  • Referred to reds and yellows
    • So did Rev. Lowery at Obama's Inauguration; so, get bent
  • Muslims should not sit in Congress
    • See below
  • Islam contrary to U.S. Constitution
    • Muslims serious about their faith will tell you this exact thing (and will also tell you that homosexual conduct should be illegal, and that 9/11 was God's punishment... so why are you arguing)

Quelle horreur. C'est 1950 encore une fois, dit Barbara @anteupannie Holton. Just before throwing more darts at a photo of her own father and then going out to hook up with a Trump voter.

posted by Zimri on 17:30 | link | 0 comments

On this site



Random crap

Powered By Blogger TM

Property of author; All Rights Reserved