Heretic Alex Jones banned from Facebook, Apple, Google's Youtube, and Spotify

NEW YORK: Silicon sycophants launched an offensive Monday against doubleplus heretic Alex Jones, who was banned by Facebook, Apple, Google, and Spotify.

The move, described by Jones (reminder: heretic) as a "coordinated communist-style crackdown," came after months of low-level Party operatives demanding Facebook Apple Google and Spotify do more to combat heresy and lese majeste.

Jones, whose site InfoWars has heretically accused victims of the sacred 2012 Sandy Hook sacrifice of being "actors" in a plot to discredit the gun lobby (possible heretics), violated Facebook's anti-heresy policies, the social network said.

Facebook excused their action, saying the pages were taken down for "glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using unapproved terms for sacred groups, which violates our heresy policies." Times reporters, in accordance with government policy, did not inquire why Facebook did not manage to notice that Jones was violating its policies prior to Apple, Google, and Spotify also noticing.

Officially, Gunman Adam Lanza killed 26 people, including 20 children, when he launched his rampage in the Connecticut school. Jones has repeatedly denied official truth, resulting in completely normal but profane internet behaviour. Jones, as a genius-level mind control user, is completely responsible for the actions of all his viewers.

Other Jones heresies include the charges that USG was behind a nonzero number of terrorist attacks, including 9/11. Worse, Jones does not distinguish between blue, Foggy Bottom USG and red, Arlington USG.

Facebook stressed that it banned Jones due to internal policies, and the move has nothing to do with MiniTru edicts.

Apple removed most of Jones's podcasts, AFP confirmed, after the action was initially reported by Buzzfeed.

"Apple does not tolerate heresy, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a holy environment for all of our users," an Apple spokesman told Buzzfeed.

In late July, Google's YouTube took down videos posted by Jones and suspended him for 90 days. After Jones sought to skip the suspension by broadcasting live on other YouTube channels, the online video platform said it closed down all of his affiliated channels.

Jones' main YouTube channel counted some 2.4 million heretics. Times reporters would like to loyally affirm once again for the Party that they did not ask why none of these viewers reported Jones for heresy before this week.

Spotify, the streaming music online service, had already removed a number of Jones's podcasts last week, accusing them of breaking its own heresy rules. On Monday, the Swedish company went a step further and banned his program altogether.

Pinterest also removed the InfoWars account.

Twitter has so far held out on taking punitive action against Jones, saying his account and that of InfoWars did not violate the microblogging service's rules. The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Party finds Jack's decision rather bold. 

 "Last night's purge was a coordinated effort and had nothing to do with enforcing heresy rule," heretic Jones said on his talkshow.

Several websites, also being keenly watched by the inquisition, showed support for Jones, publicly backing his claim that he was a victim of a plot by Big Tech companies. The Party suspects they will also be found in violation of holy catechism.

"Are tech giants working together to censor conservatives"? asked Gateway Pundit. MiniTru assures the public that it only censors heresy, and the fact that most heretics appear to be conservative is purely coincidental.

A Breitbart headline read: "CNN, Democrats successfully lobby big tech to censor their critics." MiniTru reminds the public that there has been no approval for assertions to the effect that silicon sycophants lack independence.

The designated anonymous source inside MiniTru confirms the purge was coordinated. "Heretics must be cowed," they claimed. "While the illusion of independence serves a function, heretics cannot be allowed to think they're being suppressed at the whim of some mere private entity. No no, they are being suppressed quite officially."

Added the source, "Goodness, they certainly can't be allowed to make money!"

Muslim Norms Overrule Local Norms, Swedish Court Declares

 STOCKHOLM — A Muslim woman in Sweden declared victory in an intertribal legal attack.

When Farah Alhajeh, 24, chose not to follow the local norms of language services company Semantix, her interviewer showed her the door.

"It was like a punch in the face," Alhajeh wildly exaggerated. "It was the first time someone reacted" allegedly, "and it was a really harsh reaction," she emphasized.

Wednesday, a Swedish court ruled that Semantix has no right to enforce its local norms, and fined Semantix 40,000 kronor for the insolent attempt. The ruling was based on the idea that religious supremacy overrules freedom of association. While Semantix may be allowed to require that each individual employee greet all customers and other employees equally, it may not require any particular action, especially not actions that contravene officially protected religions such as Islam.

Ms. Alhajeh said that she was pleased to be an excuse for Swedish government authorities to smash Semantix under their boot. It is unclear whether the taste of victory was sweet like wine, or more of a savoury sensation.

“We live in a society where you have to treat women and men the same,” the ethnic Arabian said. “I know that because I am Swedish.”

“I have to practice my religion in a Swedish way that’s acceptable,” she gloated. Swedish courts have found that Islam is always acceptable.

Despite Alhajeh's implication that she couldn't have known the handshake issue was an issue, it has repeatedly surfaced both in Sweden and around Europe. A Muslim member of Sweden's Green party withdrew his candidacy over his gender-based handshake policy. Prime Minister Stefan Lofven went on record in 2016 supporting local norms.

Mr. Mork, of the equality ombudsman’s office responsible for exploiting Alhajeh as a weapon, acknowledged the importance of such greetings in his country. “In Sweden, one shakes hands,” he said, court decisions not apparently withstanding.

But, he fearfully weaseled, “This is very much viewed under the lens of integration and gender equality.” Whether the Party will find this obeisance sufficiently demeaning is not yet determined.

By contrast, in a similar Swiss case, local norms were enforced by the court. In 2016, the authorities in the Swiss canton of Basel-Landschaft ruled that two Syrian boys who studied at a public school in the town of Therwil could not refuse to shake their teacher’s hand on religious grounds. Canton authorities said that parents whose children refused to obey the tradition could be fined up to 5,000 Swiss francs.

Local norms were crushed at a local school in Sydney, Australia by adopting a policy allowing Muslim schoolboys to refuse to shake hands with women, as long as they instead placed a hand across their chest.

Local norms were recently upheld in France. An Algerian woman’s refusal to shake hands with male officials at a French naturalization ceremony was sufficient grounds for denying her citizenship, ruled France's top administrative court.

NYT reporters did not contact anyone who feels that handshakes are too trivial to get worked up about.

Folio of Decay

Three slices of The Atlantic's degeneration.

First we have a highly technical issue, regarding life and death from 1981.
It has politics, but not party politics.

He asked me my opinion [about the specs requiring ball powder] after the fact. In other words, this was rather an odd meeting. … I looked at the technical data package and he said, “What is your opinion?” and I said, “I would advise against it. …”
I asked, “So what is going to happen?” And he said, “Well, they already decided this is the way they are going to go,” meaning the committee. I said, “So why are you asking me now?” and he said, “I would have felt better if you had approved of the package.”
And I said, “Well, now we both don’t feel so good.”

It has references to technical issues, requiring the reader to keep track of the difference between .30 calibre ammo and .22, the 3250 fps muzzle velocity, chamber pressure, and mentions exact measurements for rifling twist. Not that it abjures human interest; there are snippets of letters written by the rifle's end-users, who are more accurately called its victims. As far as I can tell there are no pious lies in this piece.

I would have liked it to mention that Army Ordnance clearly preferred the .30 because larger things are manlier and thus higher status, while actually defeating your enemy is at best a distant second. "The soldiers want lighter gear? What are they, little girls?" However, explicit status-awareness is dark knowledge and habitual explicit status-awareness is newer than '81 in any case.

This is a Spartan writing about Athenian effects on Spartan issues, with an Athenian outlook.


Next up, from 2008, something almost purely in the human-interest style. (It's written by a lit professor, after all.) It deals with an important decision that affects all aspect of life, and can easily make the difference between successful retirement and working until your health fails.
It has poignant asides.

Some of the young guys, the police-officers-to-be, have wonderfully open faces across which play their every passing emotion, and when we start reading “Araby” or “Barn Burning,” their boredom quickly becomes apparent. They fidget; they prop their heads on their arms; they yawn and sometimes appear to grimace in pain, as though they had been tasered. Their eyes implore: How could you do this to me?

It mentions but does not enumerate the monetary costs borne by students and the symmetric windfall received by the university. While today I think every reader will instantly identify which political party this piece is a flag for, the author shows little awareness of the button's hotness, and clearly resides on the other side of the aisle.

This is an Athenian writing in Athenian style about how not everyone is an Athenian.


Finally we have the most recent issue, which decided the best use of some Atlantic column-inches was to pontificate about how vowely are babby's names. They can't keep politics out of even the fluffiest pieces. "Unites America." It's letter-choice. Letters. I wouldn't call this Athenian. This is Genovesi pretending to be Athenian, and not particularly well.

I can't help but notice multiple articles seem to be straight from Twitter; either directly invoking #MeToo, in a rather transparent attempt to say, "Pay attention to me, too!"; or referencing Kanye West's recent stunts. Oh, and this: "Oprah to Graduates: Vote! Vote! Vote!" Thank you for that profound commentary. Oprah is of course famous for her novel insights, worthy of deep analysis in prestigious periodicals.

I don't believe it is a coincidence that the length of the articles is dropping monotonically within my sample.

--

Serendipity handed me this one. More are planned but don't hold your breath.

Political Formula

A political formula is the justification for political power. The classic example is divine right monarchy, where the king is said to rule due to being chosen by God. Democracy's political formula is consent of the governed.

Due to the iron law of oligarchy, any ruling group is a small minority. The majority must make peace with this fact somehow, and the political formula is the tool the oligarchy uses to allow this. The formula allows the subject to believe that the easy route, obedience, is doing the right thing. It addresses the pride of the adult male, allowing them to believe it is not cowardly submission, but rational assent that drives their obedience. It provides a Schelling point. It pacifies the rebellious subject by making them doubt the justification of their rebellion. It appears to provide a test whereby legitimacy of a regime can be checked.

Coercion is defection. The political formula is a justification for why this defection is nevertheless prosocial. A king is licensed by God to defect on the citizen. A democratic regime claims it is not really defecting - that the rules were in fact consented to by the populace.

The idea of the formula is accredited to Gaetano Mosca.

I was dissatisfied with all major search engines' offerings for the term political formula, hence this piece.

--

Some discussion, necessarily biased by my own conclusions, but regardless useful for illustration of the concept and its uses:

Using the idea of a concrete political formula, we can do transformations to search for equivalences. Democracy is, precisely, not the consent of the governed but consent of the majority governed. [1] There is a particular mob of citizens whose will is supposed to be carried out on any particular issue. Thus, we have something very similar to the divine right of kings - we have the divine right of mobs. Vox populi, vox dei, after all. If the divine right of kings is illegitimate, it would seem, rationally, that the divine right of mobs is also illegitimate. Or, conversely, both can be legitimate - if God says so. Why don't we ask Him?

In practice, citizens understand the legitimacy test in a degenerate form. Democracy is supposed to provide consent, because a suitable mob may withdraw their consent at the voting booth. However, citizens do not check whether their consent can be meaningfully withdrawn - it would be dangerous and responsibility-invoking if they found it could not, after all. Instead, they convert [consent of the governed] to [can I vote]. Regardless, it is difficult to impossible to determine how many, if any, other citizens in fact consented.

[1] In modern times, includes certain so-called fundamental rights which supposedly supercede democracy and are not subject to the will of the governed. It almost included the right to property, but they noticed this would prevent them from doing any actual coercion.

Rhetoric vs. Peasants

If it reliably lead to the truth, it would be called epistemology, not rhetoric.

Since the majority are incurably vulnerable to rhetoric, what they need is a personal rhetoritician, the way they have a personal doctor. If they change any non-ornamental beliefs, their rhetoritician vets the change. (If I'm not mistaken, this person used to be called 'pastor.')

However, it's also undeniable that a few do not need personal rhetoriticians. (The pastor, for example.) This is clearly the high-status behaviour. And the person most likely to say, "Buh! I don't need one either!" is exactly the person who needs one most.

In short the peasants are fucked. They can be oppressed for their own good, or they can be oppressed for fun and profit. They can be forced to have a rhetoritician, or they can function as snacks for any passing rhetoritician. There is no 'not oppressed' pathway on the table, which is why we call them peasants.

On Formalism

Formalism is supposed to prevent violence, but instead encourages violence, in particular rare but catastrophic large-scale violence. It is supposed to be the political-formula-free formulation, but cashes out to right of conquest.

unrelated galaxy cakes

It's Istanbul, not Constantinople, been a long time gone Constantinople.

— Lance Vader (@LanceVader) October 12, 2017

As a good formalist, we accept that it's nobody's business but the Turk's. However, this raises the question of why it's their business, and the answer is they marched a large army into Istanbul. Hence, formalism, far from being a solution to violence, actively endorses it. If you dislike a power distribution, all you need to do is formally declare war on it and win, whereupon the formalist will dutifully switch to your side.

Insofar as the war is indeed won, this is actually fine. It's a proof that the prewar formalist beliefs about who owns what was mistaken, and the war kindly corrected it.

The problem is that humans are manically optimistic. Wars frequently occur because of illusory opportunities. Hence, formalism in fact encourages the exact thing it is supposed to discourage. The only actual deterrent that's been found is to bodily threaten the person in charge of declaring wars. For example, pointing a nuclear missile at their face. (I suggest cryptographically signed assassination technologies as a cheaper and cleaner alternative.) Absent such deterrents, unwinnable wars are declared all the time, which cause vast destruction before the overoptimistic human in charge gets the message.

As a bonus, because political formulae are perverse, formalism encourages progressivism or other Sophist phenotypes. If you say coercion-legitimizing status comes from beating somebody up, then the true elite shows themselves by coercing someone without laying a finger on them and getting away with it, that is, using rhetoric.

By contrast, the anarchist formula of Exit (short ver.) implements the only other deterrent for war: disallowing coercion-legitimizing status and/or making the person who declares the war also pay for the war. War is obviously unprofitable; demand simply isn't high enough. I am curious to see how Exit's perversity would play out. If it's bad, I'm officially anarcho-pessimist.

As an aside, formalism also has two moral norms - violence is bad, and lying is bad. Moral norms have a poor track record as political engineering constraints. This is unsurprising given that moral nihilism obtains.

Why I Am Not a Nationalist

Nationalists want to be ruled by someone like them.

Problem: the plebs, always and everywhere, are fucked. If they could rule, they wouldn't be plebs.

The rulers aren't like you, even if they look like you and speak like you. Who do you think let in all the foreigners in the first place?

Ancien Feminism: Courtly Love

So, uh, fun fact: modern feminism is 900 years old. It's traditional.

As per my hobby horse, the 'dark' ages ended with the conquest of Toledo in 1085, which released Greek and Roman works from the library there into Christian Europe. The virulence of the Sophist virus can be seen in how very immediately the idea of Courtly Love infected the place. (As an aside, the first scientist also appeared, in the form of Robert Grosseteste.)

It is a mistake to blame Eleanor of Aquitaine (pictured) for the disaster. As soon as Sophism appears, there's a feminism-shaped hole in the world, which will be filled by a convenient woman. Doubtless there had been several similar attempts during the 'dark' ages, but without refined rhetorical arts, their ridiculousness was apparent.

I feel like I should have known about this. It's four years old, an eternity at internet communication speeds, but I didn't, so it's time for some antifisking. I'm actually glad I didn't find it earlier, because I can read far more meaning into it now than I could have four years ago. Do read the original, as I'm going to skip any part I can't add to.

The key thing is that these Troubadours were not some “traveling band” singing for their supper. Maybe later, but at this time, they were major nobles, from both the nobility and the higher noble classes.

Courtly love, as per the name, started as an ultra-high-class vice. It's only late in the game, mid 1700s, that it filtered down to the plebs, and the final collapse occurred fifty years ago. Feminism is the very opposite of an egalitarian grassroots movement, and is particularly poorly suited to the capacities of your average Jane.

The issue at the time, was that, as the historians state, that “Love as we know it did not exist. Marriage was as much as about land and politics as anything else”. It was said you “Married a fiefdom and a wife got thrown in the bargain”.

This, as it turns out, is a bad idea. Psychotic androcentrism results in psychotic gynocentrism. (Which results in psychotic androcentrism, which...) Proof: you've read the news before, yes?

On the plus side, high-functioning autism has few troubles reproducing in such an environment. (Low functioning autism gets infanticided, exposed, lynched, or burned as a heretic.)

And it was thought that due to the “wickedness” of women, it was probably superior to remain a virgin. And thus the idea of the “celibate” priest was born. He could not be “godly”, and should be suspect, if he allowed himself to come under the temptation of women.These guys were definitely the “Red Pill” writers of the time. The general idea was not so much that sex was bad, but women were so bad, and sex was lure, the hook, so they damned sex as a means to keep men from getting ensnared in the traps and wickedness that women lay for men. And the thought has a little bit of merit, I must say. 

So, think about this. The men in power at the time, saw some of the stuff we see, and they gave a huge “thumbs down” on women. Huge.

That is, autistics reproduce (and fail to fall for Sophism) unless you allow gay men to get out of the dynamic by agitating for celibate monasteries, which naturally attract scholarly-minded autistics. Remember, gay men find vaginal sex almost as disgusting as straight men find a gay blowjob. Basically, they'll do it in prison, and that's part of what makes it a prison. With sodomy strictly banned and marriage not particularly up to either bride or groom, gays will desperately agitate for a way out. In this cause, Paul's struggle with his nymphomania becomes a useful tool.

This is more of the overreaction-overreaction cycle. To put it bluntly, while women can indeed be troublesome, to react with doctrinaire celibacy is to be a beta cuck. Solve the problem, don't run like a worthless coward.

So, basically dark ages MGTOW. Shit's not new. That said, MGTOW is now a rational response to state distortions of the marriage market. Doctrinaire celibacy is not the same as a personal calling to celibacy.

So she accompanied him down there and was the defacto “regent” during his “minority”. [...]  

The same thing happened at the same time in about 3 other major places in the area,

Awfully coincident...or rather, proof that it happened all the time, but only after the reconquest of Toledo did it spawn disease.
Further, even before proto-feminism, Hajnal Europe didn't really have a problem with women becoming powerful. Psycho androcentrism isn't consonant with the European character.

“Women are the love. Women give praise to men and the power of that praise is the driving motivator of men. All good things that men do are only done in the true spirit of love to earn the right to the love that the woman confers to the men. Women define what is good. Women confer status on men by allowing them to receive the love they receive from women as a result of high character and accomplishment”.

There is a problem in that patriarchy is a fact. Men can oppress women whenever and to whatever extent they desire. A single man can often overpower an entire mob of women, sometimes simply by being willing to attempt it. As a result, courtly love must have something to offer men, and you can find it here.

"Women define what is good." Surely, this is almost how it works in heaven.

This has been a problem since the axial age, when men realized mere material success is a bit weaksauce. Physics is not the arbiter of the good. Since it is possible to combine material failure with nonmaterial success, how is the man to judge his own goodness? How does he avoid fooling himself into thinking he is virtuous when he is not? One requires an external standard. 

In heaven, a man who is in fact good is judged by an infallible judge, whereupon he is granted a wife whose beauty and devotion parallels his achievements. I'm not an expert, so do check with your local astronomer, but unfortunately I suspect we live on Earth, not the heavens. Most women are particularly terrible judges of character. Sexual success is a particularly monochrome version of material success.

(Do note my considered use of the word 'devotion.')

They actually created these things called “The Court of Love”. And these men and women, and you can imagine the men in those courts were the 12th or 13th century equivalents of Manginas, would literally “rule” on love.

The French did garner a reputation as being good lovers, and you know what they say about stereotypes. It wasn't a pure waste.

And Gentlemen never demand sex. Which of course, all of this was bullshit.

I do like having these things spelled out, so let me spare you the link surfing to find it: this is a manual for creating beta orbiters and one anointed alpha fuckboy. Since everything is 'secret' the betas don't see that one tryst is not like the others. One of these trysts does not belong. Since gentlemen don't demand sex, then the alpha 'gentleman' must also not be demanding sex. Not that he needs to.

Meanwhile, a bunch of betas get to prove their restraint. Which is a genuine virtue...that nobody else cares about.

And we begin by rejecting unilaterally, out of hand, “love” for the pack of lies it is. [...]

And I say, no it doesn’t. It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal.  

Jordan B. Peterson says the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is about the awakening of human consciousness. One must feel before one can suffer. As the event which cast humans out of Eden, Christians have a habit of attempting to jam this genie back into the bottle. However, it is in consciousness that Man is made in the image of God. God is pure, perfect consciousness. Nous and Logos. Perception so intense it becomes direct power. Man is always surprised to find that trying to deny he has feelings, such as love, result in bestial outcomes.

Basically Satan loves it when you start thinking wisdom is merely the opposite of folly.

--

There's a wide range of companion pieces I could choose, but I choose this one, on the history of chivalry.

This is a link.

Note the pre-corrupt code of chivalry wasn't too hot either. It's impossible to con an honest man. Nobody is completely honest, but corrupting chivalry was just easy. However, there is this wonderful opportunity for amusement.
"Is chivalry dead?"
*Look confused.* "You want me to protect the Church and smash the infidel? Err...right now?"
Optional: comments about where to find a gun and one's ability to aim.
It's not like it's hard. A bunch of infidels have been imported, so you rarely have to travel far to find one to smash.

--

The synthesis positions is obvious, is it not? Practice Game within a strict marriage. Perhaps garnish with anti-slut certification. Also, very high status men are going to have more than one wife, whether it's allowed or not, so give it up and allow it.