Was WikiLeaks a False Flag operation?

January 2, 2011

It’s possible. The idea has occurred to me in the past; to date, nothing that WikiLeaks has published is truly damaging ( I speak in terms of national security; the damage to personal reputations is something different ). Hell, from a certain perspective, the US State Department comes of looking like it’s actually doing its job. Seriously– who doesn’t think that the Saudis “will fight to the last American”?

But, why then the persecution of Julian Assange– or, rather, why such an obviously contrived persecution of Julian Assange? Any half-way decent espionage agency could have “retired” Assange with little fuss or muss. Why then the high-profile, low-plausibility rape charge? I suspect that there has either been 1) a serious experience-drain amongst our intelligence agencies, or (something I suspect may be closer to the truth) 2) this is a part of a proxy-war between one or more of our intelligence agencies against the Obama Administration.

Stop for a second and let that sink in: one of the alphabet soup companies has decided to take the President down a peg. If that doesn’t worry you, then you’re taking anti-anxiety drugs the likes of which my doctor won’t prescribe me.


I’ve been much remiss in this…

December 11, 2010

This is Ferdinand Bardamu’s post on Anna Ardin & Sofia Wilens, the two feminists who brought “rape” charges against Julian Assange in retaliation for WikiLeaks’ release of US State department cables.

My personal opinion of Assange notwithstanding, I view the release of the US State Department cables as a good thing overall; if nothing else, it will convince the powers that be to stop waltzing around with their bare asses swinging in the wind. More importantly, it weakens the establishment– and the establishment has been anything but a friend to the people of the United States.

Edit: The Unfrozen Caveman links to an article on Wikileaks by Fred Reed, which sums up the situation nice and neat:

    Two ways exist of looking at Wikileaks, the site that publicizes secret military documents and videos. The first is held self-interestedly by the Pentagon and by Fox News, the voice of an angry lower-middle class without too much education. These believe that Wikileakers are traitors, haters of America, who give aid and comfort to the enemy and endanger the lives of Our Boys.

    Implicit in the Foxian view is a vague idea that the leaks give away important—well, stuff. You know, maybe frequencies of something or other, or locations of ambushes or, well, things. Important things. The Taliban will use this information to kill American soldiers. The notion is vague, as are those who hold it, but emotionally potent.

    The other view, held usually by people who have some experience of Washington, is that the Pentagon is worried not about the divulging of tactical secrets, but about public relations. Wikileaks doesn’t endanger soldiers, insists this way of looking at things, but the war itself, and all the juiceful contracts and promotions and so on entailed by wars.

    Which is obvious if you look at what the military (the president, remember, is commander-in-chief) actually does. Remember the military’s frantic efforts to suppress the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib, photos of prisoners lying in pools of blood while grinning girl soldiers play with them? These had zero tactical importance. They did however threaten to arouse the Pentagon’s worst enemy.

    The American public. (Emphasis Mine.)

And that’s it in a fucking nutshell: Wikileaks threatens to wake the American Public the fuck up. There’s a generational conflict brewing right now between those who maintain the status quo (those who rule ) and those who would change the country ( those who foot the bill ). Wikileaks gives that conflict a huge push.


It’s all about the numbers.

November 16, 2010

(With a tip o’ the hat to the VDARE.com blog)


Justice Scalia is a prophet. Woe unto us all.

August 8, 2010

Bob Belvedere, of Camp of the Saints, relates the following over in the comments section of The Other McCain:

In 2003 people said Justice Scalia was ‘crazy’ when, in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he said the decision would inevitably lead to the courts ruling ‘gay marriage’ constitutional using the 14th Amendment. Well, it is rather obvious, in light of the decisions that have come out of state and federal courts across the country, that Nino is a prophet.

None of this is surprising. Ideology inevitably leads to taking ideas to their logical conclusions outside of reality because ideas are laboratory experiments. Same sex marriage is one of the stops along the way to the end of opening marriage to every kind and type of combination — logic demands it…and soon the ideologues will, too.

In light of the logic used by Judge Walker, Matt, what is to stop a future judge from ruling that one can marry a close relative, or multiple people, or a minor? The answer is ‘NOTHING’.

And, again:

In the 1990’s, when the fight for ‘gay marriage’ began in earnest, many dismissed it chances of success as ’silly’ and ‘crazy’ – the laugh is now on them.

What is to stop the age of consent from being lowered or abolished [especially as we continue to give Sharia legal standing]?

Woe unto us.


That’s a damn good question….

July 18, 2010

In FB’s latest linkage round-up (Warning: NSFW–topless totty at the top of the page), there’s a link to the following article:Why Don’t Teenage Girls Swoon for Middle-Aged Billionaires?, by Satoshi Kanazawa.

Kanazawa raises a good point when he states:

Throughout human evolutionary history, and in contemporary tribal societies today, girls get married soon after reaching puberty and thus at the peak of their reproductive value. They typically marry much older men of high status, great political power, and ample resources. A typical marriage, both throughout human evolutionary history and in contemporary tribal societies, is between a newly pubescent teenage girl and a middle-aged or elderly tribal chief, who marries her as his third or fourth or eleventh wife. Young boys in their adolescence and early adulthood are almost never able to marry, until they are much older and have acquired the means and status to do so.

So why do today’s teenage girls find teenage boys, like Bieber and Lautner, sexually attractive, but not much older men of greater status and means, like Gates and Branson, who are exactly the type of men that the teenage girls would have married had they lived 10,000 years ago or today in tribal societies in Africa? Teenage girls today could not possibly have evolved psychological mechanisms to find teenage boys sexually attractive, because such an evolved psychological mechanism would have been highly maladaptive in the ancestral environment. Any teenage girl who was foolish enough to have fallen in love with and married a teenage boy, without the status and means to protect her and her children, was not likely to have left many surviving offspring.

In essence, the author acknowledges the Roissy Truism “The Gina Tingle conquers all”, and wants to know why?

My immediate, gut-level response would be, “Because they can.”

We live in what is, arguably, the wealthiest civilization in all of recorded history. Even the general “poor” in the West have access to material goods that would have staggered the imagination of our ancestors–even those at the beginning of the 20th Century would be amazed at what we have today. Historically, most people have lived at subsistence level; if you lost your livelihood, you didn’t go on unemployment–you starved. And, I don’t mean you go hungry–you starved:

There’s a reason the Gods of the Copybook Headings say: If you don’t work, you die! And, if Vox Day is right in his analysis of the economy of the West (The Return of the Great Depression), those gods may very well be limping their way up to the podium to explain that to us again.

Under such conditions, what Satoshi Kanazawa states is true: women wouldn’t settle for the prettyboys–they would grab up a proven provider with gusto. But we don’t live in historically usual circumstances–the imminent pressure of death doesn’t press down on the female side of the sexual marketplace as it usually does, so women are free to waste their time sexually pursuing whom they please, and the criteria for a mate becomes one primarily of aesthetics, instead of economics.

The irony is palpable: just as men build empires to defend the nations they love, so too, men build civilizations to protect the children they love; and the consequences of a poorly-built (or, as I suspect is the truth in the West, poorly-defended) civilization are as tragic as those of a poorly-built empire.

Edit: Dennis Mangan has his own take on Kanazawa’s question (tip o’ the hat to Alkibiades for the link).


Shrinking violet, indeed!

July 4, 2010

Just took a Narcissistic Personality Test posted by Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart, and I came out thusly:

Narcissistic Trait
Authority: 1.00
Self-Sufficiency: 1.00
Superiority: 0.00
Exhibitionism: 0.00
Exploitativeness: 0.00
Vanity: 0.00
Entitlement: 2.00

Given that the average score is 12 and 15, with celebrities scoring about an 18 (and true narcissists scoring about a 20), I would say that I have a long way to go.


And this is why I use an alias…

May 1, 2010

You can’t trust anyone. Literally.

Harvard Pulls a Larry Summers on an Ex-Crimethinker

It was a private dinner conversation among three friends. The topic: affirmative action and race. The debate presumably was passionate, given the divergent opinions of the Harvard Law School students.

* Full text of the e-mails

Stephanie Grace, a third-year law student, felt she had not made her position clear, so she followed up via e-mail, according to a person with direct knowledge of events.

“I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position,’’ Grace wrote. “I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African-Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.’’

The lengthy e-mail, sent to her two dinner companions six months ago, ignited an Internet firestorm this week when it was leaked and first reported Wednesday by the legal blog abovethelaw.com, followed by other websites.

This is where we are now. Put aside the question of intelligence, and look at the situation itself: a private conversation is no longer sacrosanct–the only safe place left in the world is the interior of your own skull (and even that is a questionable spot). Is approach anxiety really all that mysterious?

Edit: Well, now I’ve heard the rest of the story: a jealous “friend” went back into her e-mail archive and dug out the six-month old letter, then forwarded it to Black Law Students Association. The BLSA then forwarded it nationally, leading to what is happening now. Hell hath no fury–just ask Tiger.