Other people have addressed this clip already, and they have covered the trans aspect which of course is important. But I want to address an aspect which has not been remarked upon: the woman's incessant use of the word "like" as a placeholder while her brain concocts the next few words for her to say. Now, I do this, probably you do it too. Most people do it. But we do it when we are talking about fairly deep matters that require a lot of brain activity. This woman does it while talking utter banality. What's more, she does it with a frequency I can only describe as tragic.

It is so prominent in her speech, so ever-present, that any half-articulate person from 1950 would be pained by listening to this woman talking. If they learned she was a TEACHER, they would be stunned.

To make matters worse, this woman is speaking like this while recording a clip that she knows will be watched by many, many people, so she should be putting her best foot forward. This is a crisis either of ability or humility or both.

We don't even need to mention the trans thing. In this woman's case, that could actually be left aside entirely. The plain fact is: somebody this inarticulate should not be in front of children.

https://t.me/redicetv/4272

There are several problems with this essay about the "woke" craze by Dr Frank Palmer, a past associate of Roger Scruton. I will mention just one of them but it touches on the others.

"The idea is not to find what ‘unconscious biases’ people have, since it has already been decided in advance that the participants must have the racial or other ‘incorrect’ biases... No matter how honourable or compassionate their actual behaviour, all whites are racist deep down, in addition to their other un-Woke deficiencies. It is a form of gaslighting."

No, it's the truth. White people are racist. Most of us secretly think that black people are unintelligent, loud, uncouth and aggressive. Most of us are disgusted by the idea of having sex with them and are viscerally offended by race-mixing, and feel a little pain every single time we see a half-black baby. That is the truth. Yes, white people are racist.

If we could admit that, then we could progress to the broader truth: while we are racist, we still have compassion for other races, including blacks. And while we are racist, we are much less racist than everyone else. Blacks, Chinese, Arabs and Indians are racist to a degree that would stun most white people. If we are "guilty" of in-group preference, they are much more so.

But of course, "guilty" isn't the right word. It is nothing more than the healthy and right thing to value your own group above others, just as you value your family above others. There is nothing wrong with this, and only whites are made to think there is.

The truth is not so much "only whites are racist" but "only whites are guilt-tripped for being racist" and "only whites are compelled to deny being racist". Nobody else gives a shit. But worst of all is that, while we desperately try to purge ourselves of racism, the other races are gleefully indulging their racist feelings towards us.

It is high time we admitted our true feelings. Articles like this one by Dr Frank Palmer are getting in the way of that. I am sure that he means well, but he and his ilk are holding us back. While the Left delight in calling us racist, and the Right meekly goes along with that, the Paleocon desperately tries to reject the accusation. All three of these groups are in error.

Yes, we prefer our own kind. Yes, we have unconscious bias. Yes, we have conscious bias. No, we're not sorry.

I will be starting my regular Monday night broadcast in 2 hours (10pm GMT, 11pm CET, 5pm ET, 2pm PT). Superchats can be posted with @MW_Superchat_Bot, Entropy or CoinTree (crypto). The live chat will be at @mwpublic.

I will be starting my regular Monday night broadcast in 1 hour (10pm GMT, 11pm CET, 5pm ET, 2pm PT). Superchats can be posted with @MW_Superchat_Bot, Entropy or CoinTree (crypto). The live chat will be at @mwpublic.

The point of this obsession with predictions is to turn everything into black or white, yes or no, so that the person is forced to commit to a definite prediction which will then be proven true or false - though this claim is itself misleading, since whether a prediction is borne out in reality is often a subjective judgement. Either way, the process boxes someone in, so that there is no room left for them to admit that they don't know exactly what will happen; they have to commit to precise, "verifiable" predictions, even when they don't want to and even when this doesn't actually help anyone.

It is a toxic environment for social commentators to impose upon each other. You'd think certain people would know better.

https://t.me/hvitgardr3/5639

https://t.me/keith_woods/3008

"I don't see how whether predictions are borne out or not is subjective."

The answer here is goal-post shifting as well as crafty interpretation of events to make them fit prior predictions, or vice versa.

"While it might have sounded like I was predicting X, any sensible person would know that I was actually predicting Y, and Y has happened, therefore I was right. Meantime, the other guy, who claims he predicted Y, was clearly in fact predicting Z, so he has been proven wrong."

This is all wankery and doesn't actually help anyone.


"if multiple outcomes which are highly likely under someone's understanding of power fail to transpire it is clearly a good reason to question your assumptions"

I agree. This is why I think it is wise not to get hung up on making specific predictions. Both you and I have made specific predictions over the last two years, some of which have been borne out, some of which haven't.

For example, you predicted that the vaccine would work. Retrospectively, that could be appraised in a range of ways. (Alfred Bourla has had 4 jabs yet now has covid. But maybe, without those 4 jabs, covid would have killed him by now?)

Meanwhile, I predicted that they'd have the public on six-monthly jabs. The reality is a bit looser than that - they're kind of doing that, they're kind of not.

In the end, the matter of which of us is the better "predictor" is just silly point-scoring. It doesn't actually help anyone, including us, because a prediction once made encourages the predictor to interpret subsequent events in a particular way. So I would reiterate: it is wise not to get hung up on making specific predictions.

Ultimately, I still believe that the general point is true, that covid was a watershed in Western affairs. I believe it altered the public psychologically and prepared them for climate change bullshit that is apparently on the way. I also believe that the "crisis" was engineered, by massively overstating the threat of covid - 0.4% fatality rate, but it's estimated the deaths would have been hugely reduced had ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine been used to treat the sick. The general point is that covid was significant in a multitude of ways and that 2022 is not much like 2019, and I stand by that and believe it to be deeply significant, whether those behind it are WEF/UN/BigPharma, or WallStreet/ZOG.


"This seems a far better means of dealing with disagreements than attacking the other sides character and ghettoising the right into epistemically closed echo chambers."

I agree with you on this, but I would point you to your dismissal of many people, two years ago, as "irrational" and uninterested in truth, and your continued frequent dismissal of them since then as "schizos". You have been attacking the other side's character quite consistently, Keith, and the result isn't pretty. Now, I fully understand that nasty things have been said about you, and that it doesn't feel good when that happens, but, to be blunt, you started it. If you are saying it would be better for everyone if tempers were now to cool, I agree.

It combines two vaccines in one. They're calling it the bumper edition, because if your mother-in-law gets it, it'll bump her off.

https://t.me/joeldavisx/789

"The problem with the Great Reset conspiracy theory"

It's not a conspiracy theory. They're very open about it. They want you eating bugs, not flying, not driving, not reproducing, and they want you surveiled online and in real life to a degree never seen before. They also want control of your money. They have said all of this, proudly.


"For conspiratards, the elite are crypto-Stalinists"

I wouldn't call them crypto-Stalinists, or even Communists. Those terms are obsolete and thus, in this context, misleading. However, I would say it has the same spirit as Communism. That is to say, it is averse to human freedom, dignity and identity.


"a pre-rational paranoia which they feel rather than think"

You're like a guy who has thought his way out of common sense, Joel. They have explicitly said what they want to do.


"Their implied explanation is simply that the globalist elite are just straight up demonic psychopaths who want to make the world suffer for the hell of it"

Well, there's definitely some nastiness there. But primarily it is not about sadism but power. They want maximum power. And they want it not just for its own sake but because they have plans for the world, and you need power in order to execute plans.


"black/white thinking is deployed where the bad guys who control everything are plotting to control everything even more because they're bad guys"

Yes, but not because they are bad guys: because they are world-makers.


"In reality the globalist elite are not crypto-Stalinists, they are bankers and businessmen not statesmen"

Not being statesmen does not preclude them being crypto-Stalinists. However, as I said, I don't think they are Stalinists, or Communists. Those terms are irrelevant now. I do agree that they are bankers and businessmen, or rather, started out as such. Are those terms still applicable when they have ascended to the level of dictating policy throughout the West?

I would also take issue with the implied separation between Communism and Capitalism. As we know, the Bolshevik Revolution was largely funded from Wall Street. For world-makers, money and economics are less important than agendas, and they frequently use them as mere tools to pursue their agendas. Of course, we see this in our age with the likes of Blackrock.


"Bourgeois power is fundamentally economic and imposed upon the political, State power is fundamentally political and imposed upon the economic"

Yes. But bourgeois power has now usurped state power. Nations are now apparently subject to the dictats of global corporations and organisations. This means that the state as we used to know it is no longer a player on the stage. The state we should be talking about today is not something located in a nation, still less derived from it, but rather a global entity which treats nations as client nodes that have pretty much no defining features beyond the geological.


"you shouldn't be analyzing the agenda in terms of creeping totalitarianism, you should be analyzing it in terms of investment bankers defending their returns, the capability of billionaires to convert their wealth into political power"

But it is creeping totalitarianism. That's how it arrives in the lives of ordinary people, and how it "lands" on nation states. You might be correct that the totalitarianism is a symptom, not a cause, but I would say it is a feature, not a bug.

Your implication is that this is all about profit for capitalists. They certainly did make a huge profit from covid, and will again with the climate change nonsense, but I don't believe that profit is the motivator behind all of this. Does profit really matter when you can't go bust and you have no rivals?

I would say that the world is being remade, and as yet we don't even have vocabulary to capture the new state of affairs that will emerge. My hunch is that the closest term we have for it just now is "neo-feudalism". But the terms of old - Communism, Stalinism and even Capitalism - are fast losing their relevance.

Does Stephen King just believe everything CNN tells him...?

"I felt that [Trump] was a sociopath who tried to overturn the American democracy."
And Biden?!

"There is a strong right wing, a political right wing in America, and they have a megaphone in some of the media."
Have you ever seen such a complete lack of awareness?!

And now, evidence of why he remains a liberal:
"I think that most people are good. Most people will give you the shirt off their back."
Not across ethnic barriers, they won't.

"[Social media is] a poison pill... It’s social media that has magnified the idea that the election was stolen from Donald Trump."
Yes, if it's not on the TV, then it's not true! Just fuck off.

Jerry Sadowitz is cancelled from the Edinburgh Festival, for "extreme racism, sexism, homophobia and misogyny". Yes, of course he doesn't actually mean any of the outrageous things he says. Yes, of course he's just being shocking. That was okay in the 1990s, even "cool", "irreverent", "edgy" and "subversive" - but not now. There's a new doctrine in town, and it has to be adhered to, not subverted.

This particular cancellation seems to suggest a broader thing: the 1990s isn't welcome any more. It has finally become too out of time. Its sarcastic nihilism and cheeky attitude was still tolerated throughout the increasingly PC 2000s, but was phased out over the course of the 2010s, and in 2022 has been formally declared obsolete.

It's like that moment when an old file finally becomes so old that modern software can't open it.

1) We are moving into a new paradigm that is neo-feudal, technocratic and selectively austere (based on one’s submission or not). It is managerial capitalism and a managed decline.

2) The continual capitalistic GDP economic growth model, as well as our current monetary system will be made things of the past. They’re 20th century models they have been recently abandoned & people have not mentally caught up. The internationalists who foment this new global order are not allegiant to their host countries, and they have made it so that they’re and their in-group are personally prepared for quite a bit to ride out this storm and be on top when the dust settles (ie. they’re no longer in need of economic growth in most sectors. They’ve figured out what they need to survive, and it doesn’t include many of you). We’ll see how that works out, but anyway that’s the truth.

3) Make yourself as anti-fragile as possible. Hedge your bets, prepare, collect, have numerous income streams + types of fungible currency as backups, become well-armed. Homestead. Network. Train. There isn’t a whole lot else we can do, really.

4) Stop listening to uber-tards who are making egregiously stupid mistakes and are anti-schizo not really for logical reasons (many of them are intelligent), but because deep down it’s motivated by an irredeemable psychological tendency to count on an authority at all costs, even to the point where it’s beyond obvious that one can’t. They’re in their own way. Don’t let them get in yours.

Ah, Morgoth, but you didn't make a specific prediction as to when exactly it would happen, therefore you're a schizo. And it hasn't even happened yet, so you're just being a doom prophet. Oh and you linked covid (which didn't change the world) with the WEF (which doesn't have any power) with digital ID (which hasn't happened yet) - what a conspiritard!

https://t.me/MorgothsReview/3114

This 1989 interview with the English author Alan Garner is fascinating from start to finish.

"It's a British phenomenon which is still a problem: the problem of the first-generation educated child. What happened to me, and what is still happening to other children, is that I was selected by our educational system as being worthy of education. The effect of this was to remove me from my cultural background, but to enable me to understand the price that was being paid, for this removal produces enormous tensions within the individual. So, as I learned formal, analytical, rational, and academic disciplines, I became aware, rationally and academically, of all that I was losing. My family could not cope with me, and I could not cope with my family...
I had been educated into a world that I embraced, because it was exciting and fulfilling. But it was the world of the high table, and it was ultimately arid. I could see myself heading in that direction, and denying a part of myself. And yet I could not go back genuinely and say, I've changed my mind. You can never go back."

We have spoken about this before, in terms of the love/hate relationship between the urbanite and the ruralite, the cosmopolitan and the local, the rootless and the rooted, the educated and the uneducated, or the middle-class and the working-class, etc. It is an endless problem and I doubt we will ever resolve it. Whichever one chooses, there is a loss - whether of knowledge and "rationality", or of heritage and simplicity.

Another excerpt from the 1989 interview with Alan Garner, where he talks about withdrawing from the academic career that had been laid out for him by his education:

"I was set firmly on an academic career when the [creative] writer in me, who I think was there from birth, started to emerge, to wake up and kick and say no, there are other things which you have to do, which are uniquely yours.
This I got from my grandfather. He was a craftsman, and he gave me two precepts which as a writer I've not been able to get away from. One was always take as long as the job tells you to take, because the job will be there when you are not, and you don't want people to say, what fool did that? So I'm a very slow worker. The other precept was if the other chap can do the job, let him. In other words, do only what is uniquely yours. That began to emerge subconsciously in me, and to pull me away from an academic career."

These two precepts are both very valuable and insightful. No modern person would say either of these things, for reasons that are themselves quite fascinating to explore but are ultimately just dark tales of decline.

Another excerpt from the 1989 interview with Alan Garner, where he discusses his decision to become a writer, and the inexorability of a decision that was meant to be made - in other words, a man finding his purpose in life, and taking the slings and arrows that come with pursuing that purpose:

"That [period between 1956 and 1960, when he was writing his first novel] was very rough, and it lasted four years, during which I worked as a general labourer. I tried teaching at first, but I found that I couldn't write and teach; the energies were too similar. I would come home and find a blank page at the end of the evening. So I gave that up and became a general unskilled labourer. I was unemployed for long periods and just survived as best I could. It didn't feel like hardship at the time, but it was extremely precarious.
From the point of formally closing my academic career and saying to myself, frivolously, I'm going to write, I have never done anything else. And we still live from hand to mouth. It so happens that the books sell and the royalties come in, but there's no guarantee that they will. I've been successful critically from the start, but I'd been published nine years and had written at least four books, before I was earning from my writing anything other than a bare existence--to begin with, not even that. I can remember my first half-yearly royalty statement was nineteen pounds (£528 today, for 6 months). I remember that very clearly because there had been such glowing reviews. Fortunately, I felt there was no choice after the initial commitment, and once that was made, my grandfather's precepts followed."

I highly recommend reading the whole interview with Alan Garner. It should be of value to people who are interested in "the creative process", but it is also a testament to what real, genuine identity and heritage actually are, and how a thoughtful individual interacts with these aspects of himself. It is much more illuminating than ideology, doctrine, dogma or pathetic incidentals like "tea and biscuits". It is actually serious, and truthful.