The Algorithm got me again.

I was forced to sit through the trailer for She-Hulk to watch a YouTube video I actually wanted to watch.

I had to suffer, so will you.

So let me get this straight…

Bruce Banner, super genius scientist becomes The Hulk.  He’s been The Hulk for years, saving the earth on multiple occasions.

A significant arc of the MCU was Banner learning to be able to control his mind when he transforms so he can be Smart Hulk.

She-Hulk becomes She-Hulk and is instantly, stronger, more capable, in control of her Hulk powers, and all-around better than Banner Hulk.

She’s also a successful attorney.

It’s a Hulk Mary Sue story with lots of “girl boss” moments.

It’s going to be fucking insufferable.

Woke Disney can’t lost money fast enough.

IRS Force!

🤡🌎 pic.twitter.com/Oye4V3w3N6

— Young Americans for Liberty (@YALiberty) August 17, 2022

Normally I stand against Woke hiring standards, but not this time.

For a group of people who will he carrying guns for use against citizens like me, I’m fine with them being the most out if shape and incompetent people the government can hire.

If this is a selection of the 87,000 new armed IRS officers they are hiring, we’ll be fine.

This came across my internet feed from Wired.

I remember when Wired was a magazine about tech and tech culture.

Now it publishes reviews of genocidal fiction.

A Glimpse of a Future Without White People
Mohsin Hamid’s The Last White Man is a book about race metamorphosis—and the seduction of power.

WHITENESS IS A seduction. Whiteness is also an illusion. These are the twin motifs on which Pakistani writer Mohsin Hamid props up The Last White Man, his new novel about race metamorphosis and human morality. Anchored in the bare and elegiac prose Hamid has made his trademark style, the book springboards from a single unexplained incident. Anders, a white man, awakens one morning to a new reality: his skin has “turned a deep and undeniable brown.”

The transformation, of which Anders’ is the first—but not the only, and certainly not the last—elicits worthy exploration. What if whiteness were suddenly gone? Would the social order of life come undone? Would anything change? Where Hamid lands doesn’t exactly persuade.

WHITENESS IS A seduction. Whiteness is also an illusion. These are the twin motifs on which Pakistani writer Mohsin Hamid props up The Last White Man, his new novel about race metamorphosis and human morality. Anchored in the bare and elegiac prose Hamid has made his trademark style, the book springboards from a single unexplained incident. Anders, a white man, awakens one morning to a new reality: his skin has “turned a deep and undeniable brown.”

The transformation, of which Anders’ is the first—but not the only, and certainly not the last—elicits worthy exploration. What if whiteness were suddenly gone? Would the social order of life come undone? Would anything change? Where Hamid lands doesn’t exactly persuade.

It’s understandable why those who benefit from a particular standing would do anything to preserve it. The conscious seduction of power, of understanding the privileges from which one benefits and the life it affords, is, in part, about the necessity of control. I’d probably be upset and a little sad if I lost all of that, too.

Whiteness physically recedes but it never vanishes completely. It has a psychological grip; lest we forget, identity is more than a badge of flesh. The newly “dark people” of Hamid’s epic appear to embrace different outlooks but, really, what has happened is more of a costume swap than an adjustment of the soul. The characters operate in a kind of cultural drag, entombed in an unrecognizable self, a sort of living elegy of their former whiteness. What was once marked as difference is not understood anew; instead, they continue to see through white eyes, in spite of their brown skin.

First, let’s take stock that this is a book of which the premises is: let’s eliminate white people.  And understand exactly how ugly that is.

But more than that, this is the essence of race essentialism.  It is the belief that everything about a person or people is derived from their race.

If you took a personal raised in a certain culture and changed their skin color, race essentialists would believe that their culture changed.

That seems unlikely to me.

Making middle-class white people brown wouldn’t make them abandon their middle-class values, but this book postulates that it will.

Ironically, the perfect example of this us from the author’s own culture.

Chechen Muslims are, by definition, Caucasian.  They are very white.  Muslims from Indonesia are Asian.  There are more common cultural norms between those groups of different races than there are between Chechen Muslims and Eastern Orthodox Christians of Southern Russia, who are their neighbors.  Skin color has little to do with it, but culture and religion do.

But to the Left, eliminate white skin and all the cultural norms of “whiteness” vanish.  If it’s not absolute genocide, it’s cultural genocide.

This should be horrific by any standards, but for the Left, as long as it’s white people’s identity bring exterminated, it’s good.

If someone from Stormfront wrote a book about how every black person in America woke up white and all of a sudden the violence and crime in America’s cities dried up overnight and utopia was achieved, I don’t think that would get published and lauded on book review sites.

The Left are bigots and they hate you for who you are and what they believe your race dictates about you.

But they think they are your moral betters for it.

I heard Michael Bane’s podcast this morning and this is one of the things it struck me the most.

 All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Josh Blackman » Kozinski on Hitler, Stalin, and the Second Amendment

And the other bit ever so important in the podcast was that whomever you don’t know (or may know in passing) who suddenly becomes overly friendly and wishes to know “gun stuff” or wants you to join them in shady shit, is by definition a Federal agent. If you read Unintended Consequences, refer to the Gun Show part of the story where the curious young man was asking questions about full auto.

The Guardian published Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has to be regulated, now more than ever raising the question of just how important free speech actual is.

Free speech is a bedrock of a free society. Without it bad things are driven into the darkness and good things never see the light of day. Free speech means defending people saying things you disagree with.

A common saying years ago was “I disagree with you but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Today we have more and more people defining “hate speech”. Speech that must be regulated. “Hate speech isn’t Free Speech”.

Hate speech is exactly what Free Speech must protect. It isn’t the things that are easy to listen to that need to be protected. It is those things that you don’t want to hear.

So many of today’s leftist institutions strive to limit speech in some way. “Misinformation”, “disinformation”, “fake news”, “hate speech”, and whatever term they choose to use tomorrow. All of these are just ways of saying “Shut Up!”

Everyone of these rules or regulations or policies is premised on “safety”. Generally “For YOUR safety you shouldn’t hear these things.” or “For YOUR safety you shouldn’t say these things.”

There is a Ren Faire in New England that might not survive because of “hate speech”. Not that anything was actually spoken, but because people were afraid something might be said. There was an incident where some people were found near the site of the fair that might have been actual racist. So in order to punish those people many vendors and performers decided not to attend.

This will likely kill the fair. All because people were afraid of hearing something “racist.”

In many places speech is called violence. If you were to call a black person N…. they feel that violence has been done to them which allows them to respond with physical violence. Giving offence via speech is considered violence by more and more people.

In Kenosha the prosecutors implied that showing a symbol, an AR-15, was enough to justify people attacking a young man. He didn’t even have to say anything. Just being in that location with an AR-15 was causing people to feel unsafe justifying their attack on the young man.

This is the debate now thundering into view. The correct response to the Rushdie outrage is not just to plead for freedom of speech, but to ask what it really means and how it is to be sustained – and regulated. That is not done through silence.

We need people to stand up for free speech in all of its nasty and mean and evil forms. Otherwise we will be lost.

https://twitter.com/HunterAA6/status/1558990960931082241?t=5YVsG-Tv1I80ba9ogo0BWA&s=19

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1557439495187881984?t=_DJ0b8WMYL1NR3aDiey9HA&s=19

There is a cure and all it takes is one dose…

As an Air Force Officer, I received an email with a confidential word in it. In less than 10 minutes, my office was raided, computer taken & I was escorted to a windowless room with one light bulb. I hadn’t even read the email.

Trump shouldn’t be allowed to wiggle out of this.

— Sarah Klee Hood (@SarahKleeHoodNY) August 15, 2022

Veteran status.

In the Soviet Union, every radical who wanted to be in the party needed to serve in the Soviet Military, usually as a political officer or some other non-combat role.

It was a credential that proved loyalty.

The Democrats used to hate the military.

Now, you can’t shake a stick without hitting a Democrat who was a military officer.

What happened, especially considering how the Democrats hated nation building and the war in Iraq, where most of them served?

They realized that a term as an officer in the military, especially in a non-combat role, was a credential that they could use to buy them credibility with moderates and independents.

It allows them to say “I’m a patriot, I served my country.”

Then they bash everyone over the head with it.

“I was in the military so I know you can’t own an AR-15.”

“I was in the military so I know Trump shouldn’t have confidential paperwork.”

“I was in the military so I’m fucking special and you’re not, you groveling peon.”

Look at the track record.

Buttigieg was an accountant with the Navy.

Ted Lieu and Pam Keith were JAG officers.

But every time they have the opportunity to use their veteran status as a cudgel in an argument  they do.

Compare them to DeSantis, who never brings up his Navy service in an argument.

If I politician pulls out the “I’m a veteran” card, my immediate response is now “fuck you in parade rest.”

It’s become a negative for me because the next thing out of their mouth is how their veteran status means they are better than me and justifies taking some of my rights away.