Pseudonyms

Posted on July 6, 2017 by Luke Ford

David Frum tweets: “My view: if you have something to say online, you should sign your name. If you won’t sign your name, you shouldn’t say it.”

Steve Sailer writes:

When I started writing professionally a little over a quarter of a century ago, I seriously considered using a pseudonym like Eric Blair / George Orwell. But I couldn’t figure out how to cash checks made out to a pseudonym, so I eventually junked the idea. But I generally wish I had gone with a pen name, for reasons that are obvious at this point to me, but I won’t mention them because they are so obvious.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Goy: And then they tell us to watch what we say on Facebook and elsewhere because of possible adverse consequences.

In short: Get your mind right or shut up.

* The goys at MPC throw shade at you (from the Right), but they can be pure at “our thing” because they write under pseudonyms.

* A name, by itself, doesn’t amount to much. The problem is once you have the legal name of a person it is possible to locate their physical address. David Frum might not be so enthusiastic if, e.g., he were in Florida and got a minor traffic violation. Here the county clerk would post that fact at the county clerk website and it would reveal Frum’s home address, drivers license number and even his phone number. As a political polemicist Frum might not be too happy about that as stalkers, fanatics and people who just want to have a word with him might come by. Frum would not know their identities so his idea would leave him at a great disadvantage should some undesirable event happen.

* In 1980s communist Hungary, if you criticized the regime, you could be hounded out of your job, harassed or beaten up by the police, and occasionally even arrested. Some people committed suicide. Very rarely some people were sentenced to relatively short prison terms, but their lives could be destroyed without having to resort to that. By the 1980s, nobody was executed any longer.

The soft totalitarianism is getting harder. I mean, there’s still more liberty than in 1980s Hungary (it’s probably much easier to fly under the radar, and even some prominent badthinkers can easily survive the regime), but whereas 1980s Hungary was usually moving in the direction of more freedom and less oppression, we now seem to be constantly moving towards less freedom and more oppression. The communist regime in Hungary was also getting more and more coy about oppression, our elites now are getting more and more open with their threats and demands to curtail freedom of expression.

* Typically to be professionally pseudononymous I think you get a trusted lawyer to act as your agent and the checks go to him. But I’m not sure how well that would work in today’s environment where the lawyer would be subject to the same consequences even for associating with your badthink.

I can’t fully express how annoyed it makes me to read comments like Frum’s from people who never think let alone say anything controversial. I wish they had enough self awareness or humanity to feel embarrassed by the ridiculousness of what they are saying but they don’t.

* Here is an interesting possibility: one day soon even anonymous commenters (like me) will risk being doxed by big data software that will suck up huge volumes of commentary and use idiosyncrasies in your writing style, along with other hints (e.g., characteristic arguments, or anecdotes you’ve used more than once), to link anything you’ve ever written under one name to anything you’ve ever written under any other. Anyone who has ever used their real name on the Internet will be at risk!

* Justine Sacco wishes she’d used a pseudonym.

* Well, in 2017 America, here’s what can (and likely will) happen if you publicly challenge the Cult of Equality theocracy (see if notice any similarities.):

1. Hounded out of your job. Check
2. Harassed. Check.
3. Beaten up by the police. Hey, look at that, we have a winner. No, the police will not beat you up, though you could get punched in the face by an overzealous SJW.

Here are a few more things that could happen to you:

4. Lose your friends and be ostracized by your community
5. Lose your wife and kids due to losing your job and friends
6. Lose your home and savings due to points 1 and 5

So, let’s see, if you speak out, there’s a reasonable chance that you can end up a jobless, bankrupt, divorced, broken man who rarely gets to see his children. Who needs police thugs and gulags? That is plenty to prevent all but the rare person from speaking out.

Steve and the Derb are marvels, but they found a writing niche that can’t be exploited by large numbers of people. The rest of us wouldn’t make it.

No, this silliness will hold its grip for a long time to come and will only fall when the disorder creeps into the homes and neighborhoods of upper middle class whites, which is still a long way off.

* Which survey of employee attitudes is likelier to get accurate responses: one in which the responding employees must use their real names, or one in which the responding employees can remain anonymous?

* I’ve encountered the attitude enough that it’s clearly some odd point of pride to use their real name. But is a luxury point of view.

David Frum makes his living from his thoughts, which are conveniently very “safe” and fashionable, even if it doesn’t feel that way at times. We who have bad thoughts, no trust funds, and non writing occupations know that the obvious risks of real names are not worth it.

* Yes, David. In a country where posting a photo of yourself in a MAGA hat on Facebook could very easily ruin your career, what you say makes a great deal of sense.

Maybe if I had his Jewish privilege I would feel safe too. But as a white male, I am the hunted, not the hunter.

* But the SPLC and ADL have heard of his writings, and they pay people to keep tabs on and cause trouble for those who write things the SPLC and ADL do not like.

The WASP Elites active in politics also know Sailer’s name, and they too dislike what he says. Most of them – see the Bush family history, for example) have histories of using wealth and connections to buy out those who voice what they oppose, and failing that to ruin them financially and socially.

* There was a website started a couple of years ago to publicize people who had made racist Facebook or Twitter comments and put pressure on their employers to fire them. These were mostly low level service workers and most them had been fired. The internet makes it much easier to go after people no matter how insignificant they are and destroy their livelihood.

* Does that apply to 1940s resistance press, David (((Frum)))? Or anti-slavery pamphlets? Or pre-1960s invective against Christianity and tradition?

Is there going to be a re-evaluation of the (until very recently) countless jewish free speech proponents?

* On the bright side, no pseudonym = no threat of CNN style blackmail doxxing, or the “Seek & Destroy this Mad Brute!” campaign the Scottish Daily Record launched against Youtube blogger Millennial Woes.

* I think it’s pretty awesome that you use your real name, I hope there haven’t been overly bad consequences for you, other than being unpersoned and frozen out of the MSM.

The commentariat says probably more than you’d want to say anyway.

Even being rich is no great protection. Look at Donald Sterling. He’s even Jewish, for god’s sake. If an uber-rich geriatric Jew can’t say what he thinks, what hope have the rest of us got? This is why we crawl under the rocks in the first place, Frum, you a**hole.

* The obvious reasons are the nontrivial chance that some member of the Coalition of the Fringes will act on the SPLC’s designation of Sailer as a one-man hate-group and carry out some vigilante anti-racist action on his person, property or family.

I don’t know how much ostracism Sailer has faced in his meatspace life because of what he’s written.

* What do you suppose Frum thinks of the secret ballot?

It was devised to protect the privacy and anonymity of the voter’s choice, so that it might not be influenced by social pressures or the fear of retaliation. In other words, a desire for secrecy in voting is motivated by the same concerns as are anonymous or pseudonymous expressions of opinion.

The labor unions’ promotion of “card check” over secret balloting in workplace organization elections under the last administration is a recent example of the left’s hostility to anonymous expression of opinion. The unions want card check because they know it is much more difficult for an employee to refuse to sign the card, aware that union organizers and his fellow workers will know he did so, than for him to vote against unionization by secret ballot.

Following Frum’s logic, one’s opinion as expressed by his vote during an election should be as much a matter of public record as his writings.

* Years ago the blogger Half Sigma (formerly known as Calico Cat, now known as Lion of the Blogosphere) created a fake blogging persona as “Libertarian Girl” and immediately racked up a pretty big audience.

* Also, if you DO sign your name and your thoughts fall outside of a narrow window of acceptable opinions, you will be personally ruined and will never be able to support your family again. And to reiterate, you have absolute freedom to speak your mind in this country.

* This is from the man who presumed to write paleo-cons out of the list of conservatives, becuase of their rejection of a bogus war which he helped to cook up.

* Gavin McInnes doesn’t get that he’s chosen to make a living being a controversialist who pulls edgy pranks and says naughty things. He’s carved out a well-worn niche for himself that even the dullest normie can understand. They get that some people say some “crazy stuff” and they’re allowed to do so because they’re journalists or comedians or celebrities of some kind. The same dull-witted normie would not, on the other hand, understand it if Gavin McInnes were a local bank manager, swimming pool salesman or assistant prof and said online 1/20th of what McInnes does. They’d have their ass handed to them by HR.

Matriarchal managerialsim and late stage consumer capitalism does not get free speech, except in approved spaces and cases. McInnes is one of those cases.

* An alternative explanation is that Frum isn’t concerned about threats of physical violence or career ruin from the Left because he’s part of the controlled opposition, which helps the Left consolidate their gains after a half-hearted and engineered-to-fail resistance. He’s determined to be seen as one of the few “respectable” Republicans, where the Republicans’ political enemies control the grant of respectability. He augments his respectability by enforcing the Left’s rules and declaring the Republican base and Right wing dissidents un-persons.

One of the other bright lights of the controlled opposition is Nicole Wallace. During the general election Presidential Campaign she criticized Trump’s appeal, stating (paraphrased) “would you even want to win with only white votes?” Recall that this woman (along with Frum) was in the Whitehouse of Bush the Lesser, and a linchpin of the McCain/Palin Campaign, the latter of which was a sort of engineered failure in search of virtue points for midwifing the first black President into existence. The campaign, advised by the likes of Wallace, advised against using Mr. Obama’s past racial hucksterism and radical associations while helping the opposing campaign to malign any real opposition to Mr. Obama as a pack of inveterate racists. In sum, we all got to go through a kabuki exercise in order that Wallace and others like her could receive pats on the back from their peers for running an “honorable (and doomed to fail) campaign.”

* A person’s name is the sweetest sound to them. Don’t know about pseudonyms. When Mark Stein makes reference to “Steve Sailer” while guest-hosting for Limbaugh, the most listened to radio program in the U.S., it would be such a rush to hear your name on the radio as you are driving your 15-year old Honda shitcan along the 101, no?

* One of the other aspects of the anonymity of platforms, especially twitter, is that it is a rare opportunity to interact with the ruling class where people like Frum can’t employ their credentials to dismiss challenges to their ideas and attitudes. Someone like Chris Cuomo really thinks he’s achieved his current station in life by virtue of his merit, rather than the networking power of a long-standing political dynasty. So when Cuomo tweets something that demonstrates the depth and scope of his stupidity and ignorance, he immediately gets backtalk setting him straight and embarrassing him – all from an egg avatar with 120 followers, most of which are porn bots.

This is the sort of thing that leads to a crisis of status – viz, how can it be that there are people out there seemingly without my credentials and achievements who know more than me? How can they disregard the authority of my station? If they exist, is my place secure?

* In (slight) defence of David Frum he actually is willing to stand by his opinions even when they aren’t popular. Now he is mostly an effective social climber to be sure but consider his opinions on immigration. As Steve has long pointed out he is one of the few neoconservatives who has been on the right side of that debate. He doesn’t mention the cultural/racial stuff but he does get into the economics and the crime aspect of it as well. Not sure why he isn’t criticised for it given how verboten it is but it is certainly not a popular position.

Likewise he did get kicked out of the Conservative Movement to some extent by giving into healthcare reform in 2009. Granted, it was a position that endeared him to liberals and his unorthodoxies tend to find him squarely in the centrist spectrum. By the same token he still defends the Iraq war, a lost position today, on the other hand that endears him to neocons who are still reeling.

Posted in Alt Right, Censorship, Steve Sailer | Comments Off on Pseudonyms

Jews, Opium and the Kimono: Story of the Jews in the Far East (2003)

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Luke Ford

From page 72:

[In 1932, Jewish] refugees were amazed to encounter the prosperous local community and to realise that Shanghai remained the only city open in the world, where visas were not required.

Page 79:

[White] Russian officers taught the Japanese to distinguish between Russians and Jews. They supplied them with copies of the notorious ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, explaining the book’s contents… The stories about the strange, homeless people wandering across continents for thousands of years aroused Japanese curiosity and wonder… As a homogeneous state, Japan had no history of minority populations… Anti-Semitism aroused in the Japanese a mixture of admiration and curiosity, together with cautious concern.

From Wikipedia:

Memorandums written in 1930s Imperial Japan proposed settling Jewish refugees escaping Nazi-occupied Europe in Japanese-controlled territory. As interpreted by Marvin Tokayer and Swartz (who used the term “Fugu Plan”, “河豚計画”, that was used by the Japanese to describe this plan), they proposed that large numbers of Jewish refugees should be encouraged to settle in Manchukuo or Japan-occupied Shanghai,[1] thus gaining the benefit of the supposed economic prowess of the Jews and also convincing the United States, and specifically American Jewry, to grant political favor and economic investment into Japan. The idea was partly based on the acceptance of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as being a genuine document by at least part of the Japanese leadership.[2]

The detailed scheme included how the settlement would be organized and how Jewish support, both in terms of investment and actual settlers, would be garnered. In June and July 1939, the memorandums “Concrete Measures to be Employed to Turn Friendly to Japan the Public Opinion Far East Diplomatic Policy Close Circle of President of USA by Manipulating Influential Jews in China,” and “The Study and Analysis of Introducing Jewish Capital” came to be reviewed and approved by the top Japanese officials in China.

Methods of attracting both Jewish and American favor were to include the sending of a delegation to the United States, to introduce American rabbis to the similarities between Judaism and Shinto, and the bringing of rabbis back to Japan in order to introduce them and their religion to the Japanese. Methods were also suggested for gaining the favor of American journalism and Hollywood.

The majority of the documents were devoted to the settlements, allowing for the settlement populations to range in size from 18,000, up to 600,000. Details included the land size of the settlement, infrastructural arrangements, schools, hospitals etc. for each level of population. Jews in these settlements were to be given complete freedom of religion, along with cultural and educational autonomy. While the authors were wary of affording too much political autonomy, it was felt that some freedom would be necessary to attract settlers, as well as economic investment.

The Japanese officials asked to approve the plan insisted that while the settlements could appear autonomous, controls needed to be placed to keep the Jews under surveillance. It was feared that the Jews might somehow penetrate into the mainstream Japanese government and economy, influencing or taking command of it in the same way that they, according to the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion, had done in many other countries. The world Jewish community was to fund the settlements and supply the settlers…

Originally the idea of a small group of Japanese government and military officials who saw a need for a population to be established in Manchukuo (otherwise known as Manchuria) and help build Japan’s industry and infrastructure there, the primary members of this group included Captain Koreshige Inuzuka and Captain Norihiro Yasue, who became known as “Jewish experts”, the industrialist Yoshisuke Aikawa and a number of officials in the Kwantung Army, known as the “Manchurian Faction”.

Their decision to attract Jews to Manchukuo came from a belief that the Jewish people were wealthy and had considerable political influence. Jacob Schiff, a Jewish-American banker who, thirty years earlier, offered sizable loans to the Japanese government which helped it win the Russo-Japanese War, was well known. In addition, a Japanese translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion led some Japanese authorities to grossly overestimate the economic and political powers of the Jewish people, and their interconnectedness across the world due to the Jewish diaspora. It was assumed that by rescuing European Jews from the Nazis, Japan would gain unwavering and eternal favor from American Jewry.

In 1922, Yasue and Inuzuka had returned from the Japanese Siberian Intervention, aiding the White Russians against the Red Army where they first learned of the Protocols and came to be fascinated by the alleged powers of the Jewish people. Over the course of the 1920s, they wrote many reports on the Jews, and traveled to the British Mandate of Palestine (now Israel) to research the subject and speak with Jewish leaders such as Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion. Yasue translated the Protocols into Japanese. The pair managed to get the Foreign Ministry of Japan interested in the project. Every Japanese embassy and consulate was requested to keep the ministry informed of the actions and movements of Jewish communities in their countries. Many reports were received but none proved the existence of a global conspiracy.

From page 90:

A certain Captain Inotsuke wrote an interesting article on the subject, explaining it in the context of Japanese folklore. The fugu fish, much relished by the Japanese, has a lethally poisonous gland; when the gland is removed, the fish becomes tasty and nourishing. Inotsuke explained that the Japanese had the ability to remove the Jews’ capacity for destruction and leave only their usefulness.

Posted in China, Immigration, Japan, Jews | Comments Off on Jews, Opium and the Kimono: Story of the Jews in the Far East (2003)

Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson holds secret meeting with Manchester Jews

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Luke Ford

From the Jewish Chronicle in London:

Members of Manchester’s Jewish community held a secret meeting with Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the far-right English Defence League.

The controversial meeting, which took place in Prestwich last week, was billed as a charity fundraiser, but also saw Mr Robinson deliver a speech outlining his extreme views on Islam…

Jeremy Newmark, Jewish Labour Movement chairman, confirmed local activists from his organisation had been left “outraged” after learning of the event.

Mr Newmark told the JC: “No ifs, no buts, Tommy Robinson is an enemy of our community. He is part of the same political tradition as the National Front and the BNP.”

Mr Robinson has long attempted to court British Jews and has travelled to Israel, proclaiming himself to be a “Zionist”.

In a statement, the Board of Deputies condemned last week’s meeting saying: “Tommy Robinson’s record of anti-Muslim provocation means that he could never be a partner of a respectable or mainstream Jewish organisation.”

…A spokesman for the left-wing Jewish Voice group said: “Tommy Robinson has been attempting to co-opt the Jewish community, trying to play on antisemitism among the Muslim community to cause tension between the two communities.”

Mr Robinson confirmed on Twitter that the meeting took place.

“This was from the talk I gave to Manchester Jewish community. Thank you guys for the donations,” he wrote.

In a further post today, Mr Robinson added: “People actually think I’m a Jew. I’ve gone full 360 over last 8 yrs. From people thinking I hate Jews to people thinking I am a Jew.”

Posted in Alt Right, England, Jews | Comments Off on Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson holds secret meeting with Manchester Jews

Chabad’s Messianic Doctrine Has Become Acceptable

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Luke Ford

In his first lecture on R. Yaakov Moshe Harlap Feb. 28, 2017, Marc B. Shapiro says: “A few years ago, I wrote on the Sephorim blog that the messianic doctrine of Chabad is now acceptable doctrine in Orthodoxy. I’m speaking sociologically, not religiously. Everyone attacked me.

“Just go to India and you will see that it is an accepted doctrine. Just go to the Chabad house in Delhi. Everyone eats there. Go to Florence. The Chabad house in Florence, the frum (Orthodox) eat there. They don’t want to eat at the regular kosher restaurant because Chabad is stricter. In the big window of the Chabad house in Florence, there’s a big picture of the rebbe [proclaiming him the Messiah]. In the big restaurant in Venice, everyone eats there, is messianic shul and the restaurant is run by a messianic rabbi. The Litvishe daven in these places, the Hasidim daven there.”

“I don’t understand how adults can believe this stuff, how actual live adult Jews can believe this nonsense but they do, but we’re all sitting there and enjoying the hospitality and we’re all singing and the two Chabad rabbis and the children sing this nonsense [that the Rebbe is moshiach].”

“Dovid Lichtenstein used to live in Lakewood. He now lives in Monsey. He’s a billionaire. He did well in finance. Last Saturday night, David Berger was on the show and they got testy. I disagree with David Berger. I even debated him once publicly. Dovid Lichtenstein did not have a clue what David Berger was saying… Berger repeated himself five times and Lichtenstein couldn’t grasp what David Berger was saying and Lichtenstein started giving Berger mussar that he was like the Nazis…and it became a shouting match.”

Posted in Chabad | Comments Off on Chabad’s Messianic Doctrine Has Become Acceptable

The World’s Ten Happiest Countries Are White

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Luke Ford

Chile and Costa Rica make the top twenty and they are two of the most European countries in Latin America.

As the United States becomes less white, it becomes less happy though it has become more happy since the election of Donald Trump.

REPORT: “The U.S. has seen its happiness slide happiness over the last decade. In 2007, it ranked No. 3 among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Last year, it was 19th, down from 13th the year before. “The predominant political discourse in the United States is aimed at raising economic growth, with the goal of restoring the American Dream and the happiness that is supposed to accompany it. But the data show conclusively that this is the wrong approach,” the report concluded.”

Posted in Happiness, Whites | Comments Off on The World’s Ten Happiest Countries Are White