LA Earthquake Risk

Posted on April 19, 2018 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

This bill, at least in its original form, would have legalized a lot of 8-story buildings along Ventura Blvd. in the SF Valley, which might be a good idea, except much of the north side of Ventura is built on the old LA River floodplain of sand and gravel, which liquefies during an earthquake.

After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, my dad took a map of all the condemned building in the San Fernando Valley and showed that about 80% of them were built on the old dry riverbeds, which only make up about 10 or 20% of the land of the Valley.

The government has, very slowly, mapped the type of soil and thus the earthquake risk in LA block by block, but the real estate business doesn’t want to think about it. And the real estate professionals do a lot of thinking for people these days, so not many people think about it.

…In this map, the entire southern portion of the San Fernando Valley is likely to liquefy in an earthquake. SB 827 would have turned most of that area into eligible for 8 story apartments.

But some parts are even worse than others. Many apartment buildings on the south side of Moorpark fell down in 1994 but fewer on the north side of the street because the street was originally built on the north bank of the LA River flood channel. So the south side of the street buildings built on sand and gravel performed worse than the north side buildings built on clay or whatever is the soil.

I presume that over the millennia, the flood channels moved around all over the south side of the SFV, much like how the LA River used to exit into the Pacific at Marina Del Rey up until 1825 when it moved 20 miles south to the current LA Harbor. But, probably, the more recent flood channels are worse building sites…

The San Fernando Valley has a lot of pretty standardized construction, so where building were hit hardest in 1994 is a pretty good test of the underlying soil.

In retrospect, the government should have bought up the hardest hit parts and turned them into parks and the like. The LA River restoration idea could have used land for flood control for the raging river to spread out into, which would be the same sand/gravel land that liquefied in 1994.

The real estate downturn of the mid-1990s would have been an ideal time for that.

My suspicion is that real estate interests persuaded government scientists to rank huge areas on a simple yes-no scale rather than on a bad-worse-worst scale. So now real estate salespeople can say, yeah, sure, the whole southside of the Valley is kinda bad, but whaddaya gonna do? Buy in the _north_ Valley?

* “California’s once-unrivalled status as the country’s most educated state has long since disintegrated under the waves of low-skilled, low-social-capital Mexican and Central American immigrants. Now, California’s K-12 system rivals Mississippi and Alabama as an education backwater. The state’s school-age population, now majority Hispanic, lacks competitive linguistic and math skills. California is becoming another Brazil, divided between fabulously wealthy elites hunkered down in their own coastal sanctuaries, and a poor, Third World population.” – Heather Mac Donald

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off on LA Earthquake Risk

Is vegetarianism healthy for children?

Posted on April 19, 2018 by Luke Ford

Nathan Cofnas writes:

According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ influential position statement on vegetarianism, meat and seafood can be replaced with milk, soy/legumes, and eggs without any negative effects in children. The United States Department of Agriculture endorses a similar view. The present paper argues that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics ignores or gives short shrift to direct and indirect evidence that vegetarianism may be associated with serious risks for brain and body development in fetuses and children. Regular supplementation with iron, zinc, and B12 will not mitigate all of these risks. Consequently, we cannot say decisively that vegetarianism or veganism is safe for children…

This paper has reviewed direct and indirect evidence that vegetarian and vegan diets may be associated with serious risks for fetuses and growing children. This evidence for the dangers of vegetarianism is not necessarily decisive. However, the question is whether the AND is justified in making a blanket claim that “appropriately planned” vegetarian and vegan diets that substitute milk, soy/legumes, or eggs for meat are as healthy as appropriately planned omnivorous diets for children. The evidence reviewed here suggests that there are still many unknowns about the health effects of meatless diets in children. Parents ought to be informed that the debate about the health effects of vegetarianism in children is not settled one way or the other.

Posted in Vegetarian | Comments Off on Is vegetarianism healthy for children?

Robert Stark talks to Luke Ford about The Dangers of The E-Personality

Posted on April 18, 2018 by Luke Ford

MP3.

Robert Stark writes:

Luke Ford brings us his message of Love and Inclusion. Check out Luke’s simulcast on his live stream.

Topics:

The book Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality
The esoteric power of the silent “la la la’s”
Creating an identity online to deal with a sense of emptiness and lack of self worth in one’s life
How online life creates a sense of escapism, euphoria, and feeling of grandiosity
The pros and cons of becoming more uninhibited online
Online life as a substitute for healthy social interactions
How using an online pseudonym leads to reckless behavior
How online life effects one’s real life social interactions
Knowing when to bite your tongue
Compare and despair
Stay in your lane!
Luke’s personal struggles and controversies
Attracting broken people who are on your wave length
Online political movements and how they often attract people who lack social bonds in real life
The importance of being part of a community

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on Robert Stark talks to Luke Ford about The Dangers of The E-Personality

The Jewish Culture Of Critique

Posted on April 18, 2018 by Luke Ford

Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23)

JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18)

STANDING ON A WOOD CRATE, CRITIQUING NATHAN COFNAS ON KMAC (3-25-18)

Nathan Cofnas: Still No Evidence for a Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy (1-8-23)

Nathan Cofnas Interview March 20, 2018

JF Gariepy’s Review Of The Nathan Cofnas Critique

JF Gariepy’s Review Of The Nathan Cofnas Critique II

The Cofnas Critique Gets A Challenge From Historian J. Otto Pohl (2-16-19)

The Cofnas Critique Gets A Challenge From Historian J. Otto Pohl II

Oxford University’s Nathan Cofnas Critiques KMAC’s Culture Of Critique Book (3-10-18)

Doooovid responds:

Holding multiple conflicting ideas in one’s head at the same time is needed for intelligent discourse. So obviously I disagree about Hitler, but I can talk on the topic and attempt to see things from his perspective, as the bulk of the modern Alt-Right and their take on the JQ.
Just as I can talk about Kevin MacDonald and his ideas within the paradigm of evolution even though personally I reject the theory.

Brundle this should be obvious, and is actually the laws of Karma and FreeMasonry, that one can advance in a society whose tenants you disagree with. Just like you can excel in a multicultural society with degenerate values, even though you personally reject them, and you can see things from the perspective of a multiculturalist and discourse with a multiculturalist, and even a degenerate.
So too I can talk in terms of the theory of evolution, and can appreciate the work of Keven MacDonald and say the majority of the Culture of Critique is accurate (and I say that having went to a High IQ school based on Boas and Frued).
This is what I said on the night we discussed FRAMING and NARRATIVE, that it matters how the debate is framed, and we each create a narrative we understand best, but inline with Newton, we can appreciate that different people frame things in different ways and give different narratives, and for the sake of discourse discuss things not only according to our frame and narrative, but according to other’s frames and narrative.

Blessings, because I believe intelligence to be a soul function equally accessible to everyone, you current low IQ and inability to grasp these concepts can be overcome!

Chaim Amalek writes: “Back before there was a World Wide Web, when the internet was just FTP, Usenet, and maybe some BBS services ( pre-internet), the “right” was simply Yggdrasil, William Pierce, and a few groups on Usenet discussing their ideas. And I was on top of things. But in this modern fast-paced youtube/facebook/twitter age, I’ve simply lost track of it. Someone kindly provide an executive summary of key concepts and players in the movement. Thank you.”

Email:

What troubles me most about the alt-right movement is the obsession with racialism and iq. It wreaks Nazism and has the seeds of Nazism therein. Evil never proclaims itself as evil to the masses. No, it conceals itself in terms such as ‘love’ and ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ etc.

I understand most of the proponents of this movement are useful idiots, in that they’ve been duped by the false moral veneer that masks it along with some genuine facts they are reacting rather than responding too.

You’ve probably heard of the Georgia Guidestones which states a GLOBAL population goal of 500 million:

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Description

I suspect that ultra-nationalism and rationalism is being stirred to cause a smokescreen to camouflage the current push toward a one world economic and governmental system. For the world to embrace this master plan of our global elitists they will need to create the necessary chaos and disorder for the masses to accept this as a solution, that’s where ultra-nationalism and racialism comes in. Both are extremely dangerous in and of themselves. Together they will lead to wars, civil wars, and genocide.

Not to mention war is an extremely effective to radically cull the global population in very little time with today’s military technologies.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Jewish Culture Of Critique

Analyzing Kevin MacDonald’s ‘Culture of Critique’ and the alt-right’s embrace of anti-Jewish ideology

Posted on April 17, 2018 by Luke Ford

Nathan Cofnas writes:

The biblical commentator Rashi observes that in order for a falsehood to be successful, it has to contain at least some element of truth. According to one falsehood—the mother of all conspiracy theories—Jews have gained control over gentile civilization, and use their power to promote chaos and degeneracy in order to advance their own ethnic interests. This theory is a central component of the worldview of the alt-right. Andrew Anglin, who runs the most popular alt-right/neo-Nazi website, explains:

“The core concept of the movement, upon which all else is based, is that Whites are undergoing an extermination, via mass immigration into White countries which was enabled by a corrosive liberal ideology of White self-hatred, and that the Jews are at the center of this agenda.”

This is what white nationalists at the rally in Charlottesville last summer were alluding to when they chanted, “Jews will not replace us.” The idea that history should be interpreted in light of Jewish subversion has been around for a while, but it has gained supporters in recent years as part of a backlash against the establishment liberal ideology.

What ‘evidence’ is provided to support this theory?
The kernel of truth behind the Jewish conspiracy theory is that Jews are vastly overrepresented in positions of influence. If Jews had never existed, the world really would be radically different in many ways. It’s safe to say that, in the twentieth century, Jews exerted more influence person-for-person on politics and culture than any other group. Although the Jewish conspiracy theory is false, it is worthwhile to understand the cause of its enduring—and now resurging—popularity.

In some circles it is considered politically incorrect to even acknowledge Jewish influence. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) declares the idea that Jews “control” Hollywood or the film industry to be a “classic anti-Semitic canard.” Regarding the fact that the heads of all eight major film studios are Jews, former ADL director Abraham Foxman says that many executives “happen to be Jewish.” An astonishingly disproportionate number of leading political donors, business leaders, and radical activists of every stripe also happen to be Jewish. Since merely observing these facts can trigger accusations of anti-Semitism, social scientists have been reluctant to take the issue of Jewish influence head on. The result is that mainstream thinkers have not provided an adequate explanation for the phenomenon, and this created a vacuum for conspiracy theorists to fill.

The claim that Jews use their influence to collectively wage war on gentiles is certainly not new. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, first published in 1903, purports to be the minutes of a meeting of Jewish leaders planning to destroy and take over gentile societies for the benefit of Jews. Despite being a preposterous forgery—much of it plagiarized from an anti-Napoleon III novel from 1864—the Protocols was widely taken as authentic for decades, and even now it remains influential in some parts of the world. While only the most unsophisticated anti-Semites take the Protocols seriously today, a new version of the same theory has emerged, this time with the trappings of legitimate scholarship, in the work of Kevin MacDonald.

Jewish ‘group evolutionary strategy’
Kevin MacDonald is a now-retired professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach. His research focused on developmental and evolutionary psychology, and he published in respectable academic journals. In 1995 he was elected to serve a six-year term as Secretary-Archivist and as a member of the Executive Council of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES), the primary organization representing evolutionary psychology.

Between 1994 and 1998, he published three books arguing that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy.” According to MacDonald, Jews evolved both genetic and cultural adaptations to preserve their own ethnic interests at the expense of gentiles. The most important genetic adaptations are high intelligence and ethnocentrism. The cultural adaptations include those aspects of Judaism that allow for a high degree of communal control and promote in-group altruism. In the most influential book in his trilogy, The Culture of Critique, MacDonald argues that in order to pursue their group evolutionary strategy, intelligent and ethnocentric Jews designed some of the most influential twentieth-century political and scientific movements in order to undermine gentile society and strengthen the position of Jews. MacDonald specifically blames Jews for the rise of leftism:

Individuals who strongly identified as Jews have been the main motivating force behind several highly influential intellectual movements that have simultaneously subjected gentile culture to radical criticism and allowed for the continuity of Jewish identification. Together these movements comprise the intellectual and political left in this century, and they are the direct intellectual ancestors of current leftist intellectual and political movements, particularly postmodernism and multiculturalism.

MacDonald’s books went virtually unnoticed by the evolutionary psychology community until the year 2000. In 2000, he testified on behalf of holocaust-denier David Irving to support Irving’s libel lawsuit against some of his critics, and this attracted some media attention. Most evolutionary psychologists (with a few notable exceptions) rejected MacDonald’s work as not meeting the minimum standards to warrant a scholarly response. Shunned by mainstream academia, MacDonald took his work directly to the public, giving interviews and writing popular articles in outlets such as The Occidental Quarterly and The Occidental Observer. (He is currently the editor of both those magazines.) His followers saw him as a brave truth teller who was persecuted by academia for being politically incorrect. They interpreted the absence of a scholarly rebuttal as evidence that his work was unassailable.

It seemed to me that, after all these years, it was time to give MacDonald a fair hearing. Whether or not he met the threshold to merit scholarly attention was a moot issue. Unofficial leader of the alt-right Richard Spencer says that MacDonald “may be the most essential man in our movement in terms of thought leader[ship].” As the alt-right has grown, so has MacDonald’s influence. If his work was directly or indirectly influencing possibly millions of people, that was a good enough reason to take it seriously. And it’s theoretically possible that he could have some legitimate but politically incorrect ideas that had been overlooked by mainstream academics.

I proposed the “default hypothesis” to explain Jewish overrepresentation. The fact that Ashkenazi Jews have a mean IQ of around 110 is well established. (Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending make a strong case that this is due to selection on Jews during the Middle Ages for the ability to make a living in white-collar occupations.) According to the default hypothesis, Jews tend to be overrepresented in all intellectual, political, and scientific movements that are not overtly anti-Semitic primarily because of their high IQ, secondarily because they are located in major urban centers where all the action happens. Being the leader of an intellectual movement is cognitively demanding, so Jews, as a relatively intelligent, urban-based population, will produce more leaders. Because many right-wing movements in the twentieth century have been overtly anti-Semitic, Jewish political involvement has skewed left, but Jews are still overrepresented among the leaders of all sorts of non-overtly anti-Semitic right-wing movements.

The default hypothesis and MacDonald’s Judaism-as-a-group-evolutionary-strategy theory make very different predictions. If the former is correct, Jews should also be overrepresented in the leadership of opposing movements. If the latter is correct, Jews should tend to cluster around those movements that actually support Jewish ethnic interests. I carefully examined The Culture of Critique to see whether MacDonald’s evidence is more consistent with his or with the default hypothesis.

As I studied The Culture of Critique, it became clear that there were serious problems with MacDonald’s scholarship. When I checked his references, I often found that there was nothing in the original source to support his claims. When he identified movements as being controlled by Jews, there were often plenty of gentiles in leadership positions as well, and sometimes they seemed even more influential than the Jews. MacDonald explained this by saying that the gentiles had been recruited in order to conceal the fact that the movement itself was dominated by Jews. But with the exception of Carl Jung and psychoanalysis, there was virtually never any evidence for this. When I looked at MacDonald’s examples of leaders of Jewish intellectual movements, I found that the majority of them did not come close to conforming to his paradigm of a Jewish activist who promotes chaos and multiculturalism for gentiles while promoting the opposite for Jews. Almost all the Jews MacDonald says advocated multiculturalism in order to subvert gentiles advocated multiculturalism for Jews and Israel, too—there was no evidence that they were anything more than consistent leftists.

I found that MacDonald’s portrayal of intellectual history was grossly tendentious. He made almost no mention of radical, gentile-led movements that had all the properties he associated with Jewish movements, and which were the real “intellectual ancestors of current leftist intellectual and political movements.” Rousseau, the intellectual leaders of the French Revolution, the French existentialists, the Italian anarchists—these gentiles are all ignored in The Culture of Critique, and the reader gets the absurd impression that Europeans lived in happy “hierarchic harmony” for thousands of years until the Jews came along.

Most significantly, I found that Jews were clearly overrepresented in the leadership of violently opposing political movements—a fact that favors the default hypothesis. Although Jews have been overrepresented among prominent blank-slatists and anti-hereditarians (e.g., Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Ashley Montagu), they have also been some of the most prominent defenders of the concept of human nature and hereditarianism (e.g., Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Hans Eysenck, Richard Herrnstein). Many of the most important supporters of Israel are obviously Jewish, but some of the biggest critics of Israel are also Jewish (e.g., Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Judith Butler). Many Jews have promoted the “words are violence” argument to restrict free speech. But the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)—the most influential organization that defends free speech—was founded by two Jews (Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate).

Psychoanalysis was led by Jews, but its most important opponents were Jews (e.g., Karl Popper, Hans Eysenck, Aaron Beck). Many leading opponents of white nationalism are Jewish. But at the first conference of the one major non-anti-Semitic white nationalist organization—American Renaissance—in 1994, four-out-of-ten of the invited speakers were Jews (including an orthodox rabbi). Jews are leading socialists, but also leading libertarians (Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, etc.). And so it is with just about every movement discussed in The Culture of Critique.

MacDonald responds
I published these observations in the journal Human Nature. MacDonald released a response to me, in which—although he won’t admit it—he changed his theory. He now says that it doesn’t matter if Jews are on the opposite side of every issue, it only matters which side has more influence. He writes: “the important question…is not counting heads…but in determining where the influence lies.” Therefore, even though some of the most important leaders of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement are Jews, it doesn’t matter because the BDS movement hasn’t been successful. But whether a political movement is ultimately successful is to a large extent a matter of luck. If, as far as we can tell, Jews are just about equally likely to be leaders in all non-overtly anti-Semitic movements, this obviously favors the default hypothesis.

MacDonald also now says that if Jews support opposing movements, it is because the Jewish community has “important diversity of viewpoint” concerning what is in the best interests of Jews. But he never explains why Jews do not tend to disproportionately back those movements that really do support Jewish interests. In The Culture of Critique he repeatedly indicates that Israel is of central importance to Jewish ethnic interests. He now says that the fact that many Jews viciously oppose Israel presents no challenge for his theory because anti-Israel Jews are acting on what they perceive to be their ethnic interests. He has very little evidence to support this claim besides his unsupported assumption that everything Jews do must be motivated by their drive to promote Jewish interests.

There are many other facts that seem to clearly contradict the predictions of MacDonald’s theory, though he attempts to spin them as actually supporting evidence. For example, I pointed out that the Jews who participated in liberal movements—namely, the secular ones—have an intermarriage rate upwards of seventy percent. This would seem to cast doubt on the claim that they are engaged in a “group evolutionary strategy.” MacDonald responded that the high intermarriage rate is part of the strategy because intermarriage and conversion have benefits for the Jewish community…, including the advantages of marrying into prominent non-Jewish familiars, such as the families of presidents Trump and Clinton….Some authors have suggested that relatively high rates of intermarriage, low fertility, and the various levels of Jewish identification in the modern Western societies are highly functional for Judaism because they serve as a bridge to the surrounding culture because of family ties with non-Jews.

This is, as philosophers of science say, not exactly an “inference to the best explanation.” Rather, as Imre Lakatos said, weakening one’s theory in the face of difficulties but without making new risky predictions is a sign of “methodological degeneration.”

Understanding the attractiveness of anti-Jewish intellectualism
Now the question is why MacDonald’s ideas are attractive to so many people, including some academics and scientifically literate laypeople. One reason why his work has been successful is the same reason the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was successful. It’s appealing to pin the blame for one’s problems on an outgroup, and particularly easy when the outgroup is a conspicuously successful minority. Ethnic Chinese and Indians have elicited similar negative reactions in Southeast Asia and Africa, respectively. Since Jews in the West have been influential not only in business but also in politics, art, and science, it is not surprising that this would sometimes elicit an especially intense reaction.

The other reason why MacDonald has been successful in appealing to laypeople is that the intellectual establishment has lost all credibility when it comes to judging controversial issues. As noted, it is often considered politically incorrect even to acknowledge the reality of Jewish influence. It is even more politically incorrect to acknowledge that groups can differ from each other. In a book published last month, Harvard geneticist David Reich writes:

“When asked about the possibility of biological differences among human populations, we [mainstream scientists] have tended to obfuscate, making mathematical statements in the spirit of Richard Lewontin about the average difference between individuals from within any one population being around six times greater than the average difference between populations….But this carefully worded formulation is deliberately masking the possibility of substantial average differences in biological traits across populations.”

This is old news to MacDonald’s followers. Many people—including everyone on the alt-right—know that establishment scientists have “deliberately mask[ed]” the possibility of group differences between both races and the sexes for moral/political reasons. When the same establishment figures say that MacDonald is discredited, a large number of people may assume that this is just another noble lie. As long as mainstream scientists and intellectuals continue to flagrantly misrepresent the facts about group differences, and the possibility of group differences, there will be a place for pseudoscience to flourish under the guise of dangerous truth.

Posted in Kevin MacDonald, Nathan Cofnas | Comments Off on Analyzing Kevin MacDonald’s ‘Culture of Critique’ and the alt-right’s embrace of anti-Jewish ideology

I’m Not Afraid To Wave My Dildos Of Truth At The Deep State

Posted on April 17, 2018 by Luke Ford

According to Wikipedia: Kurdaitcha (or kurdaitcha man) is a ritual “executioner” in Australian Aboriginal culture (specifically the term comes from the Arrernte people) who points the dildo of truth at the bad man.

Among traditional Indigenous Australians there is no such thing as a belief in natural death. All deaths are considered to be the result of evil spirits or spells, usually influenced by an enemy. Often, a dying person will whisper the name of the person they think caused their death. If the identity of the guilty person is not known, a “magic man” will watch for a sign, such as an animal burrow leading from the grave showing the direction of the home of the guilty party. This may take years but the identity is always eventually discovered. The elders of the mob that the deceased belonged to then hold a meeting to decide a suitable punishment. A Kurdaitcha may or may not be arranged to avenge them. The practice of Kurdaitcha had died out completely in Southern Australia by the 20th century although it was still carried out infrequently in the North.[1] The practice, in regard to bone pointing by itself, does continue into modern times albeit very rarely.

Post Luke Jew Stream With Jakey Jake, Doooovid, Brundlefly.

EMAIL:

* Hello,

I am an ashkenazi jew from New York. I became interested in making sense of anti semitism around the age of my bar mitzvah in 2001. I discovered Stormfront and watched David Cole’s documentary. I grew up in a family that would definitely be classified as ZOG lol. Members of my family make massive donations to AIPAC and the ADL I found a lot of truth in the widespread criticisms of jewish culture and did not buy the narrative of it all just being a baseless, paranoid conspiracy. Those views have stuck with me and its just now I am reconciling my ancestry with who I view myself to be. I first heard you on Jim Goad’s podcast and have been watching many of your streams. I really applaud you for what you are doing. I was elated when Cofnas took down Macdonald and your coverage of it was a true joy. I had certainly bought into the idea that the reason no one in academia touched the subject was due to a highly inconvenient truth.

I just wanted to thank you for your frank and honest discussions in the pursuit of truth. It is a wonderfully refreshing perspective. I have always had far right inclinations and discovering other jews who are open to those ideas has been a real game changer for me.

Its been really amusing to watch it collapse by trying to make it an IRL movement. I kind of knew that would happen. It’ll be interesting to see how those ideas seep into the mainstream collective consciousness. Seeing Coulter retweet Enoch was a mindfuck. I think most of those guys’ take on anti semitism is reductive. History is extraordinarily complex with groups always vying for power and influence. It is very telling that there are far right movements in south east asia and mongolia dealing with the CQ(Chinese Question).

* Cofnas writes: “I proposed the “default hypothesis” to explain Jewish overrepresentation.”

Now, I reiterate: I don’t actually disagree with Cofnes conclusions. Unlike him, there was never a point where I thought MacD’s argument held up (I didn’t come upon it when I was a mere lad, though, so I don’t hold his earlier embrace of it against Cofnes).

But, given that doovid and his embrace of multiculturalism is a rising voice of your channel, I suggest a counterpoise of Cofnes proposing a *certain* “default hypothesis” with this bit of wisdom from someone who also has a bit of the proper background in him (so he cannot properly be accused of special pleading):

“When the sovereign is the story, I claim, the sovereign is he who selects the null hypothesis. What is a null hypothesis? Have you ever seen the phrase “no evidence that”? For instance, there is no evidence that voter fraud has a significant impact on American elections.”

That is, for people on the left (doovid is on the left, is he not?) the default hypothesis (null hypothesis) for lack of Black achievement is discrimination. The success of people of European descent in America is a sign of their privilege, which has to be taken from them (by, say, multicultural programs of “inclusion” and diversity and “checking [their] privilege” as the sayings go). Who selects the null hypothesis is who rules us. And one has to defeat it before you can even have an argument, as Manik found out. Thus another quote from the same source:

“Since the sovereign also sets the bar for how much evidence it takes to convince you otherwise, he can order you to believe in pretty much anything short of outright arithmetic violations. All he has to do is set the null hypothesis to his desired outcome, then set the burden of proof impossibly high.”

All we have to do is surrender our own civilizations up to multiculturalism if we want to disprove multiculturalism; if we want to disprove “diversity is our strength” we just have to give up our own civilization. Until then it is the default hypothesis (but the achievement of a certain ethno-religious sub-set is pure merit, no privilege or knapsacks involved). These quotes are from here and well worth reading in light of Doovid continually banging on the subject of multiculturalism as a fait accompli – whether someone can argue that it is good for his particular people and good for minorities introduced into america as a consequence of it and thus as a consequence good for the future coalition of the ascendant and thus by definition good for *that* America, the America that Hillary Clinton said years back is the one she is a patriot towards, the future America, is a quite different thing from whether it is good for the Americans who populated this country, the legacy Americans who are to be disempowered and displaced prior to being disposessed and then – well the various Studies departments, i.e. Whitness Studies, openly say exactly what they have in store for *my* people, and it is not kind. Thus the pertinence of questions about what is known about the holodomor, say.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on I’m Not Afraid To Wave My Dildos Of Truth At The Deep State

Baked Alaska Goes Hollywood (4-16-18)

Posted on April 16, 2018 by Luke Ford

B: Content brainstorming: Commenting on Baked Alaska’s implosion. What role moving to LA might have played in it. This is something that you can speak best to and is probably good monologue material. Of course the rest of the big news today. Enoch thrown off Twitter. Warski getting doxxed.

MP3.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Baked Alaska Goes Hollywood (4-16-18)

Halsey English On The JQ

Posted on April 15, 2018 by Luke Ford

COMMENTS:

* When Peter came back at the end and opposed Doovid about white identity and the definition of what/who is white, I got a thrill how strong he was to assert that whites have a right to a homeland and had no more tolerance for the deconstructionist BS aimed to confuse and undermine white people. If every white conservative who claims to be on the right took Peter’s hard-ass position, we could take our country back. Peter’s attitude was, is, and forever shall be true Americana that most every white had in the past. We beat back the American Indians, Mexicans and British and took our place on this continent. It’s not a question of rights, but of will. I view today’s political leaders on both sides as traitors to me and my heritage. No politician speaks to me or advocated for me for decades – except Pat Buchanan.

* Greetings, LF:

Your post on the New AltRight, that won’t bear that name and will eschew the legacy of failed movements and the symbolism of failed (alien) movements is moving.

I will note, when you harken to Egypt and the people leaving Egypt, that some (I.e. Benjamin Franklin) thought this would be the right imagery for our Great Seal.

I will also note that God, through Moses, did not inflict ten blessings upon the Egyptians. The Egyptians were smote with ten plagues, and experienced them as such: plagues. I am sure we can come up with an argument for why this was an expression of love. I tend to doubt Moses hated the Egyptians (he was, after all, raised among them, in their highest court). It is certain that God does not hate.

However, the Hebrew people did not win their freedom by showering the Egyptians with benefits. They won liberation by the infliction of plagues. Penalties. I point this out not to refute you, but, rather, as a question. Is there a way to square this circle? I too do not want to be part of a movement that is primarily motivated by its resentments.

Likewise, the Greeks did not win their freedom by embracing the Persians invaders and welcoming them.

The Doovid Solution of just being happy under multiculturalism misses the fact that multiculturalism was not invented as a doctrine (and invented it was) to primarily benefit marginal groups (which is why those at the head of the movement don’t care when they actually do not prosper under it; “DR3ing” is thus beside the point. Benefiting those groups was never the real goal). It was primarily invented as a movement and ideology to disempower, disposes, despoil, and ultimately “eliminate whiteness,” as is increasingly openly talked about even in the mainstream. So this option of mutual love and inclusion will not be some kind of salvation. Laying back and enjoying it is not an option.

* So has Baked disowned the alt right? I’m seeing in chat that he banned people that were JQing and he hangs out w/ non whites so doesn’t seem to be fanatical about white identity.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Halsey English On The JQ

Daily Mail: Fear of Japanese knotweed which strangles other plants is ‘xenophobic’, says environmental expert

Posted on April 15, 2018 by Luke Ford

From the English newspaper:

An expert says it is ‘xenophobic’ to talk about non-native plants as menaces
Fred Pearce says the effects of Japanese knotweed – which strangles other plants – and invasive small animals like grey squirrels are exaggerated grossly
There are fears that the plant, which can grow 8in a day, is difficult to eradicate and can knock thousands off house prices

To gardeners, Japanese knotweed and other foreign invaders are a menace.

But an environmental expert says that when we talk about non-native species in such terms, we’re just being ‘xenophobic’.

Writer Fred Pearce says the effects of the knotweed – which strangles other plants – and invasive creatures such as grey squirrels and foreign beavers are being exaggerated.

By comparison, our own native problem species, from over-grazing red deer to nettles and brambles, are not seen as such a threat because they are British, he says.

Mr Pearce is set to give a talk at the Edinburgh Science Festival arguing that foreign animals are being ‘demonised’. Grey squirrels, introduced to Britain in the 19th century, have wiped out large numbers of native red squirrels because they carry a pox which is harmless to them but deadly to reds.

But Mr Pearce said whether British squirrels were grey or red made no difference to the natural world. Speaking ahead of his talk on Thursday, he said: ‘If you look at the language used to describe these “invasive species”, it is very xenophobic and suggests that anything foreign is bad. It is terrifyingly similar to the language which can be used about immigrants invading the country.’
By comparison, our own native problem species, from over-grazing red deer to nettles and brambles, are not seen as such a threat because they are British, he says.

Mr Pearce is set to give a talk at the Edinburgh Science Festival arguing that foreign animals are being ‘demonised’. Grey squirrels, introduced to Britain in the 19th century, have wiped out large numbers of native red squirrels because they carry a pox which is harmless to them but deadly to reds.

But Mr Pearce said whether British squirrels were grey or red made no difference to the natural world. Speaking ahead of his talk on Thursday, he said: ‘If you look at the language used to describe these “invasive species”, it is very xenophobic and suggests that anything foreign is bad. It is terrifyingly similar to the language which can be used about immigrants invading the country.’

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off on Daily Mail: Fear of Japanese knotweed which strangles other plants is ‘xenophobic’, says environmental expert

I May Not Get There With You (4-14-18)

Posted on April 14, 2018 by Luke Ford

Please join me in the prayer for an open mind. God, please set aside everything I think I know about you, the Bible, the Alt Right, race, religion, myself, my brokenness for an open mind and a new experience of the Bible, the Alt Right, race, religion, myself, and most of all of You.

The new Alt Right is forming in this chat room. The new Alt Right will be God centered, Bible centered. It won’t be called the Alt Right. Its adherents will be known as Americans, Australian, Englishmen… It won’t be a political movement. It will be a spiritual movement. It won’t hate its enemies. It won’t have enemies… It will seek no controversy. It will only seek to be of service…

Lord make me an instrument of your peace
Where there is hatred let me sow love
Where there is injury, pardon
Where there is doubt, faith
Where there is despair, hope
Where there is darkness, light
And where there is sadness, joy
O divine master grant that I may
not so much seek to be consoled as to console
to be understood as to understand
To be loved as to love
For it is in giving that we receive
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned
And it’s in dying that we are born to eternal life

The people who oppose us are sick people who are constitutionally incapable of being honest… We will try to help them where we can. We won’t flame them. We won’t hate them. The new Alt Right will be prosperous. The new Alt Right will marry and have many children. The new Alt Right will set aside ego and self-destruction and hate and symbols of failed mid-century movements for a new approach of love and service.

Swallowing the red pill must enable people to have better relationships with their family and friends and community and college and profession… It won’t discombobulate. It will enlighten and bring serenity and peace. There won’t be hate for outsiders… There will be love and service. If swallowing the red pill doesn’t make you more prosperous, you’ve done something wrong and you need to start again…

Something is happening in this chat room; something is happening in our world. And you know, if I were standing at the beginning of time, with the possibility of taking a kind of general and panoramic view of the whole of human history up to now, and the Almighty said to me, “Luke, which age would you like to live in?” I would take my mental flight by Egypt and I would watch God’s children in their magnificent trek from the dark dungeons of Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea, through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in spite of its magnificence, I wouldn’t stop there.

I would move on by Greece and take my mind to Mount Olympus. And I would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon. And I would watch them around the Parthenon as they discussed the great and eternal issues of reality. But I wouldn’t stop there.

I would go on, even to the great heyday of the Roman Empire. And I would see developments around there, through various emperors and leaders. But I wouldn’t stop there.

I would even come up to the day of the Renaissance, and get a quick picture of all that the Renaissance did for the cultural and aesthetic life of man. But I wouldn’t stop there.

I would even go by the way that the man for whom I am named had his habitat. And I would watch Martin Luther as he tacked his ninety-five theses on the door at the church of Wittenberg. But I wouldn’t stop there.

I would come on up even to 1863, and watch a vacillating President by the name of Abraham Lincoln finally come to the conclusion that he had to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. But I wouldn’t stop there.

I would even come up to the early thirties, and see a man grappling with the problems of the bankruptcy of his nation. And come with an eloquent cry that we have nothing to fear but “fear itself.” But I wouldn’t stop there.

Strangely enough, I would turn to the Almighty, and say, “If you allow me to live just a few years in the second half of the 20th century, I will be happy.”

Now that’s a strange statement to make, because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land; confusion all around. That’s a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. And I see God working in this period of the 21st century in a way that men, in some strange way, are responding.

Something is happening in our world. The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled today, whether they are in Johannesburg, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya; Accra, Ghana; New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; or Memphis, Tennessee — the cry is always the same: “We want to be free.”

And another reason that I’m happy to live in this period is that we have been forced to a point where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn’t force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it’s nonviolence or nonexistence. That is where we are today.

And also in the human rights revolution, if something isn’t done, and done in a hurry, to bring the people who created first world civilization the possibility to continue it, if it is not okay to be white, the whole world is doomed. Now, I’m just happy that God has allowed me to live in this period to see what is unfolding. And I’m happy that He’s allowed me to be in this stream.

We mean business now, and we are determined to gain our rightful place in God’s world.

And that’s all this whole thing is about. We aren’t engaged in any negative protest and in any negative arguments with anybody. We are saying that we are determined to be men. We are determined to be people. We are saying — We are saying that we are God’s children. And that we are God’s children, we don’t have to live like we are forced to live.

Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh’s court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity.

Secondly, let us keep the issues where they are. The issue is injustice. The issue is refusal of free assembly and free speech and freedom of association…

Now we’re going to stream again, and we’ve got to stream again, in order to put the issue where it is supposed to be — and force everybody to see that there are hundred of God’s children here suffering from the poz, going through dark and dreary nights wondering how this thing is going to come out. That’s the issue. And we’ve got to say to the nation: We know how it’s coming out. For when people get caught up with that which is right and they are willing to sacrifice for it, there is no stopping point short of victory.

We aren’t going to let any mace stop us. We are masters in our nonviolent movement in disarming police forces; they don’t know what to do. I’ve seen them so often.

somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren’t going to let doxxing or dogs turn us around, we aren’t going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on.

We need all of you. Somehow the preacher must be an Amos, and saith, “When God speaks who can but prophesy?” Again with Amos, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Somehow we must say, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me,” and he’s anointed me to deal with the problems of my people.”

We don’t have to argue with anybody. We don’t have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don’t need any bricks and bottles. We don’t need any Molotov cocktails. We just need to go around to these to these massive industries and media and NGOs in our country, and say,

“God sent us by here, to say to you that you’re not treating his children right. And we’ve come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda fair treatment, where God’s children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you.”

But not only that, we’ve got to strengthen our own institutions.

Now these are some practical things that we can do. We begin the process of building a greater economic base. And at the same time, we are putting pressure where it really hurts. I ask you to follow through here.

Now, let me say as I move to my conclusion that we’ve got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point . We’ve got to see it through. And when we have our march, you need to be there. If it means leaving work, if it means leaving school — be there. Be concerned about your brother. You may not be on strike. But either we go up together, or we go down together.

Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness.

Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you.

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop.

And I don’t mind.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

And so I’m happy, tonight.

I’m not worried about anything.

I’m not fearing any man!

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!

***

Hot April night
And the leaves hanging down
And the grass on the ground smelling sweet
Move up the road
To the outside of town
And the sound of that good gospel beat
Sits a ragged tent
Where there ain’t no trees
And that gospel group
Telling you and me
It’s love, Brother Love say
Brother Love’s Travelling Salvation Show
Pack up the babies
And grab the old ladies
And everyone goes
‘Cause everyone knows
Brother Love’s show
Room gets suddenly still
And when you’d almost bet
You could hear yourself sweat, he walks in
Eyes black as coal
And when he lifts his face
Every ear in the place is on him
Starting soft and slow
Like a small earthquake
And when he lets go
Half the valley shakes
It’s love, Brother Love say
Brother Love’s Travelling Salvation Show
Pack up the babies and grab the old ladies
and everyone goes

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on I May Not Get There With You (4-14-18)