Who Supports Walls?

Every now and then some fuck-witted liberal, or occasionally a libertarian, will say that the human species really is not that violent, and that we’d all just get along if only (etc.).

This is dangerously naive. Anthropologists, before modern political correctness became a big problem, documented how very murderous our species is. There are cases in which a village in Africa will do a night raid on another village and kill every man, woman, and child in it. Also, western intellectuals sometimes say (either with self-flagellating guilt or chest-puffing pride) that Western culture’s militaries are the world’s deadliest. Well, in terms of raw numbers I’m inclined to believe that (if we ignore Mao, anyway), but it seems to be just a fact about military technology. In proportional terms were are not especially lethal.
(The content of this paragraph is drawn from Steven Pinker’s wonderfully heterodox The Blank Slate.)

This also explains why people who aren’t completely insane have a gut-level instinct against admitting people from other cultures into their societies, at least in large numbers. That’s an instinct, plainly; it’s not learned, no matter many idiots insist it is leaned. Consider those African night raids again.

In this regard, the difference between male and female instincts is, once again, clear and relevant. Men vote against invaders and political groups that want to admit invaders. Women are more complicated. I have noted before that many women will work to admit invaders into their home societies so they can play a game of Let’s You and Him Fight. For real-world examples see the USA and Western Europe lately. For a fictional example see my review of Justina Robson’s Keeping It Real.

Note, though, that while men clearly want to exclude invaders, women are split. In the 2016 election, “only” 43% of white women voted for the pro-invasion candidate. 53% of white women voted for the anti-invader candidate. The rest threw their vote away on third party candidates rather than vote for the pro-invader candidate the media was telling them to vote for. This has to do with the African slaughter I mentioned above: Women are sometimes prizes in war, but sometimes victims of war. Being invaded is a gamble from a woman’s point of view. From a man’s point of view it’s always bad.

Thus we have some women in some contexts supporting invasion of their own societies; other women in other contexts oppose it.

It is also a fact that women try to gain sexual access to alpha men and prevent contact with beta men. This affects sexual harassment procedure, mostly designed by women, as it applies to the workplace, e.g. They try to exclude sub-alpha males from social-sexual contact with them. The point is, women don’t always want an influx of any men into their sanctuaries. Reproductive optimization from a female’s point of view is more complicated than that.

Additionally:

In Nash Equilibrium, we would not expect all women to be genetically programmed to issue society-threatening shit tests. The reason is that, if say half the women start such, the other half will also gain the knowledge or benefit from the results (whatever those benefits are). Furthermore, a woman who doesn’t shit test is more attractive to men than one who does. She free rides on the shit-testers, at their expense. Free riding generally plays the villain in discussions of human interactions, and often rightly so, but this is a case in which free riding has good consequences.

(A reminder to any chicks reading this: The fact that you find shit tests and the associated drama and strife to be fun and exciting, doesn’t mean that men do. Any more than the fact that dung beetles like eating poop means that you also like eating poop. Men and women are really different, biologically different.)

It might be objected that maybe there is just one kind of psychology of shit testing, so any woman who has the “shit testing genes,” i.e. all women, will potentially throw out a society-threatening shit test. But still: some women are more shit-testy, some less so.

Advertisements

Invasive species are bad?

I’m terribly confused by the conventional wisdom in Biology and Ecology, that invasive species are a bad thing.

Surely that’s a mistake, right? How could an influx of non-native organisms from one part of the world to another part of the world ever be harmful to those that were already living there?

San Francisco to Let Non-Citizens, Including Illegals, Vote

WHAT THE FUCK?

San Franciso to let non-citizens, including illegals, vote.

Monday the Department of Elections Issued Voter Registration Forms for non-citizens who are eligible to vote for members of the San Francisco Board of Education in the November 6th 2018 election. The measure passed in 2016 with a close vote of 54 percent to 46 percent following two failed previous attempts.

…“Third time was a charm,” said San Francisco School Board member Matt Haney.

Smug little bitch. In other words, “We didn’t like the decision the first two times, so we just kept re-doing it until we got the outcome we liked.” Even more plainly, “We don’t accept democracy unless the people vote they way we want.” Which is not democracy. This is another thing the Left does that must be squashed. The British Left keeps trying to do the same thing; they’re now saying the Brexit vote should be subjected to another referendum. Well, I don’t like the San Francisco outcome and I want yet another vote on it.

The San Francisco measure includes illegals, in that (1) the voter registration form has no provision to preclude illegals by making voters prove they’re here legally, and (2) the form includes a warning to illegals that voter rolls are public info so that ICE has access to them. But the way this is presented is not “So if you’re illegal you’d better not vote,” it’s more like, “So to protect you, we’re urging you to think about whether you can afford to take this risk.”

E.g., one treasonous asshole says,

“The victory is that San Franciscans voted for this. … But there is also a risk. So we as San Franciscans have set aside a fund to make sure that these immigrant communities are fully educated on their rights, but also their risks in this time and place in our country,” Fewer told the Chronicle.

Boston gets in on the act: Boston to hold vote on letting non-citizens vote.

This must be defeated.

It is a line we cannot allow to be crossed. To let this be normalized is to assent to the destruction of the American Republic: A couple of centuries ago we had a revolution to establish that we would not be ruled by foreigners. Now San Francisco and Boston want to undo all that, and let foreigners choose our government for us. And it will come down to that – there will be close elections in which the non-citizen vote makes the difference.

If we’re going to be conquered, for God’s sake let’s at least put up a fight and make them work for it.

Make no mistake, Mr. President, these are trial balloons. The Enemy is intently watching to see what happens. It must be squelched utterly. There can be not even one iota of compromise or handing them something they can point to as a face-saving victory. Letting the enemy “save face” is for some situations were you want them to sneak away instead of fighting. This already is a fight; it’s a test declaration that the United States people will be ruled by foreigners from now on. Jesus, that’s brazen. It cannot be allowed to stand. And the people who attempted it must be punished. If some or all of them are accidentally shot and killed resisting arrest… oh well.

And while this is partly a propaganda war – since it’s about whether having and enforcing borders is within the Overton Window – it’s not mainly a propaganda war. It is actual war. It doesn’t matter that the Enemy Media will be portraying you as a fascist for stopping this. They’re already calling you a traitor, and no one is paying attention to them anyway, but even if they were, it wouldn’t matter, because this is existential.

It’s not a fight we can choose not to pick.

The God-Emperor must do something, as in, send in the National Guard and arrest the Mayor of San Francisco, or whoever it was that drafted this measure and put it up to a vote.

And whether or not it is possible to kill this before the November elections, then we must at least make the Democrats pay the price for it politically. Specifically,

(1) For normal people this is a horrifying thing and we can tie it to the party responsible for it, the Dems, as they deserve. (Even better if we can prosecute them for it at them same time.)

(2) It does have a certain devastating effect on their Fake Outrage about how if Russia exposed Hillary’s corruption, that’s “foreign meddling” in our elections. Every time one of them says that, the GOP should speak with one voice: “So are you for San Francisco letting illegals vote?”

But the main thing is to do whatever is necessary to stop this at this early stage.

Press weeps over deportation of immigrant who shot someone

Oh, boo hoo, we’re so sad because a man who committed first-degree assault is going to be sent home!

And note that the “journalists” don’t tell you the details of the assault:

He shot someone.

Twice.

That little detail was regarded as unimportant for readers to know, for some reason.

Illustrating that there’s no lie so brazen that a lefty won’t tell it, a local School Board President described the trigger-happy green carder as a “law-abiding citizen.” This about a man who is definitely, unambiguously, not a citizen, and not law-abiding. He in fact (1) pled guilty to a shooting, and (2) is an immigrant who was awarded a green card but never even applied for citizenship. So I guess the message is, “He has been totally law-abiding… since he tried to kill someone!”

The good news is that he was eventually deported back to Haiti:

From http://www.whec.com/news/haitian-man-deportation-decade-list-rochester-reginald-castel/4593960/

Speaking Saturday, school officials said Castel has a clean record besides the assault [Un Fucking Believeable] and even the victim of the attack wants him to stay.

“The one person he was engaged in has signed an affidavit that said, ‘I have moved on with my life, and he is my friend, and I want him to move on with his life,’” said Rochester City School Board President Van White.

That’s nice, but I don’t want immingrants who run around shooting people in my country.

And the victim obviously wasn’t feeling too sanguine about being shot back when it happened, or he would have refused to press charges and/or would have pleaded with the court for clemency when it went to trial.

By the way, that use of the word “citizen” by the local politician is not accidental. The left is deliberately trying to destroy the distinction between “citizen” and “someone who is currently standing on US soil.” Obama did this, e.g., when he told anchor baby Gina Rodriguez that anyone who votes is automatically a citizen.

In the linked video, the outrage starts around the 3:22 mark, where she starts by whining that illegals are fearful of voting. Good, you fucking asshole, they should be afraid to vote. It’s not legal for them to vote! It’s not even legal for them to be in the country!

Then the vile subhuman that goes by the name Barack Obama says, “When you vote, you are a citizen.”

No they aren’t, Obama, you piece of filth!

BONUS: Snopes says this statement by Obama never happened and rates it ‘FALSE.” They do this even though they provide a link to the video, presumably because they know that their leftist readers, faced with a choice between their own eyes and ears or leftist propaganda, will believe leftist propaganda.

We Must Protect Children, By Which We Mean 35-Year-Olds!

One of the recent Republican immigration proposals: We need to protect children!

Defined as everyone up to 36 years old!

Think I’m kidding?

Try USA Today:

On one of the most contentious issues, the draft proposal would allow an estimated 1.8 million “Dreamers” to apply for “nonimmigrant status”– essentially a conditional legal visa – if they meet certain conditions. They must, for example, have a high school diploma or GED and must be under 36 years of age as of June 15.

Just in case you were wondering why this blog has a “GOP traitors” tag.

Mr. President, Ignore the “Chiiiiiillllldren!” Rhetoric

The media will of course trot out utterly dishonest polls saying that 128% of Americans hate the current policy of separating invaders from their children. These polls will be bullshit, of course. Just ignore them, as always.

And if someone doesn’t want to be separated from your kids, well, then don’t invade other nations, assholes. While bringing your kids with you, no less.

The wording that I’ve seen from the media is encouraging, because it’s so extreme that it shows they really are desperate. Typical wording in the lying Fake News media is something like, “Trump is facing a rapidly rising disastrous firestorm of outrage, even from within his own party, on chiiiilllllldren being separated from their parents!!!” The hysterical tone by itself is enough to reveal that they’re terrified this latest propaganda offensive won’t work. They want you to cave in quickly, before everyone gets bored and moves on to the next manufactured outrage du jour.

No, you’re not facing a “firestorm of outrage” from anyone. The Left’s outrage is fake, as always. And you’re certainly not facing outrage from within your own party. With tens of millions of Republicans, they can always find a few Republicans to quote as saying, “I’m against this!” Just ignore it. Remember what issue got you elected to the White House.

Actually, I’m not sure what the Left is hoping to accomplish anyway. What good does it do them if the invaders are incarcerated, but with their kids? I don’t know, maybe they’re just looking for something to point to as a victory to improve their base’s morale for November. Deny them that.

Anyway, the Left’s turn to this new propaganda line is a good sign. It means that even the Left is starting to realize that the “You’re raaaaacist!” stuff has failed. Thus the search for a new propaganda line and the turn to “What about the chiiiiiilllllldren!?” That they’ve resorted to that is a sign that we’ve got them on the run. Keep it up!

You know the Left is desperate when they’re resorting to rhetoric that was openly mocked by The Simpsons back in the 1990s, LOL:

It’s almost impossible to overstate what a victory this change in rhetoric is. I never thought that I would see in my lifetime the Left abandoning “That’s racist!” And now they’ve not only abandoned that, but they’ve abandoned it on the immigration issue!

We really have them on the run!

Hold fast!

Leftist B.S. on the Tommy Robinson story

Tommy Robinson is the English man who recently was prosecuted and imprisoned by the English government because he was standing outside a courtroom covering a trial of Muslim rape gang members. The leftist party line on this is that it is a routine practice which always applies in rape trials. This propaganda line is simply horseshit.

Commenter at Vox Pop:

The gagging orders that are now being routinely placed on cases involving Muslim Rape gangs, have nothing to do with protecting the child victims, and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with preventing their trials from being compromised.

Here in Britain we have all seen dozens of high profile rape cases over the past few years and every single one of them was relentlessly covered in minute detail by the press, before, during and after the trials.

So why are these cases being treated so differently from cases sush as the Max Clifford trial, the Rolf Harris trial or the many many trials involving football players that were beamed into our living rooms night after night?

Indeed, at YouTube, if you type
Max Clifford trial
into the search box, you get several results that support this claim. One of the videos is titled,
“Max Clifford is surrounded by media as he arrives at court”
and it shows exactly that. As if to emphasize the brazenness of the lie, the end of the video shows a couple of police pushing videographers out of Clifford’s way (“Everybody out of the way! Step back!”), so it can’t be argued that the police were unaware of the crowd of reporters around Clifford.

Similar results at YouTube are obtained for the search
Rolf Harris trial
which gives you, e.g., a video titled,
“Rolf Harris Arrives At Court For Assault Trial”
and the video shows several people with cameras and video cameras, as well as of course the person who was taking the video that we’re watching.

The leftist party line on Robinson, that he was merely prosecuted in the normal way, for things that are prosecuted as a matter of standard procedure, is a lie. No, he was prosecuted – persecuted – because he was discussing something the English government wants kept silent.