Sacha Feniks

Trying to integrate my Shadow. We can't all be frens, but hopefully we can avoid being enemies.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@DonArturito Ja, maar die mogen niet schrijven voor Trouw voordat zij hun geest hebben gedekoloniseerd en vrij zijn van geïnternaliseerde onderdrukking.

[Melissa Chen @MsMelChen]

To understand just how irredeemably messed up academia is, compare the differences in how Cambridge treated Jason Arday and how Harvard treated Roland Fryer.

One is a black sociologist; the other is a black economist.

At this point, we are all very well acquainted with Jason Arday’s insane fabrications, plagiarism, and less-than-stellar research record. Yet he became the youngest black professor in Cambridge’s history at 37.

Now look at the case of Roland Fryer.

He produced rigorous, data-driven research, published extensively, and ran a major institute (EdLabs) at Harvard.

He doggedly pursued the truth on one of the most charged questions in American public life. His landmark 2016 study titled “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force” examined millions of encounters and officer-involved shootings.

It found that there were no racial differences in the raw data or after controlling for circumstances. In some datasets (notably Houston), blacks were actually less likely to be shot once the encounter was underway.

As you know, this finding directly contradicted Black Lives Matter’s core orthodoxy that police systematically and disproportionately kill Black men out of racial animus. It was not only in vogue at the time; it was literally religion.

Roland Fryer and his data were guilty of blasphemy.

Harvard launched investigations into allegations of verbal sexual harassment and a hostile work environment in his lab. The process produced a two-year unpaid suspension, the permanent shutdown of EdLabs, and severe restrictions on his ability to advise or supervise.

All this was investigated by a kangaroo court under Title IX. The recommendation for his alleged failings was sensitivity training, yet a faculty panel escalated it into career-crippling punishment. Fryer has said he was unfairly targeted because of the political inconvenience of his results.

The contrast between how the academy treated these two men shows you how deep the moral rot is.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@jamiecam43 @johnondrasik Yes, war is terrible.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@musicseamus123 @BoyGeorge @DUALIPA Saying there was no genocide isn’t defending a genocide (because there wasn’t one).

You repeating the magic word doesn’t change reality.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@HollyMoos30759 @MaxNordau I’m sympathetic to your goals but technically this is a strawman and therefore it might backfire.

The Nazi antisemitism doesn’t assert so much that Jews are inferior in capability, but in morality. They are presented as parasitic and nefarious, not as dumb.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@DefiyantlyFree @ConceptualJames Abstractions are dangerous and fickle things: I could define “market fundamentalism” in a way that would describe something that I think is a real phenomenon and something I oppose. So the term appeals to me, even though I can see Tucker uses it with a very different meaning.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

Abstractions are dangerous and fickle things: I could define “market fundamentalism” in a way that would describe something that I think is a real phenomenon and something I oppose. So the term appeals to me, even though I can see Tucker uses it with a very different meaning.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

Tucker is the Goebbels of the Post-Liberal right movement.

All roads lead to 2019.

January 3, 2019: Tucker delivered his famous Fox monologue attacking market fundamentalism. He argued that markets are merely tools, that economic systems should serve human beings, and that any system that weakens families is an enemy of a healthy society.

July 2019: He appeared as a keynote speaker at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference alongside Patrick Deneen, Yoram Hazony, Oren Cass, Peter Thiel, and other architects of the New Right. His speech, “Big Business Hates Your Family,” argued that government should judge economic arrangements according to whether they protect families and communities.

2019 the year that launched a thousand authoritarians under the banner of “the common good.”

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

If you want to understand why the useful idiots in the West support Islam, watch this scene from an HBO series.

A young woman, vacationing in Hawaii as the guest of a wealthy white family, watches native Hawaiians perform a traditional dance for tourists at the resort.

She is visibly uncomfortable, not because the tourists have mistreated anyone, but because she believes she is witnessing an imbalance of historical power.

In an effort to “make things right,” she encourages one of the Hawaiian men to steal a $75,000 bracelet from a white guest.

He refuses, explaining that he is not a thief. But she persists: “They stole Hawaii from you.”

In this moral framework, right and wrong are no longer determined by what a person does. They are determined by which group the person belongs to and which group has been assigned the role of historical victim.

This is precisely the lens through which Islam is now viewed by the left.

It is not that the useful idiots have never heard of jihad, apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, religious supremacy, or the subordination of women.

It is that these facts are morally irrelevant.

Islam has been assigned the role of the wounded, colonized, non-Western religion.

Christianity, Judaism, and the West have been assigned the role of the powerful.

Islam is no longer judged by the same moral standards applied to everyone else.

Practices that would be condemned instantly if defended by a Christian church, a Western government, or a conservative political movement are rationalized when they appear under the banner of Islam.

Criticism becomes “Islamophobia.” Examination becomes “bigotry.” The ideology is protected because its adherents have been placed within a favored political category.

The Hawaiian man in the HBO scene, the man who refuses to steal, is the person holding the moral high ground. He refuses to let historical grievance excuse personal wrongdoing.

But under the new moral code, his integrity becomes a problem.

He refuses to perform the role assigned to him. He rejects the idea that victimhood gives him permission to violate another person.

That is why the useful idiots hate Israel, Jews who refused to remain victims, and hate the UAE, Muslims who rejected the false narratives of victimhood.

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

Fact check: Another world is not, in fact, possible.

In reality, when these people get in power, they misuse and abuse it to try to engineer another world that can't exist, and it's close to the worst thing that happens or ever has happened.

Because the world they want to engineer cannot exist, and they cannot even countenance that it is their core belief in it and theory for producing it that are wrong, and because the whole thing is a giant conspiracy theory that the only reason we don't have a better world already is because class enemies won't let us...

Because of all of that, their conclusion is always that class enemies are somewhere, obviously at first and hidden later, who are preventing the new world from emerging from their crackpot engineering.

Those class enemies have to be destroyed so their precious theory can "work" and the impossible new world might then emerge, so it goes from being broken to wholesale destructive, and cruelly so.

People will be labeled class enemies who are not, or, as history records, will simply be punished or killed for being class enemies because quotas of alleged class enemies have to be filled even though not enough actual class enemies can be found.

Lives are destroyed. Property is stolen. Inalienable rights are violated. Crimes against humanity proceed.

It's all in pursuit of their literally, and I mean clinically literally, insane belief that "another world is possible" when, in fact, it is not.

Their theory is wrong but it is treated as sacred and perfect, or at least directionally perfect and perfectable.

Therefore its failures are not its failures but failures of implementation and sabotage. They are human failures, and the stakes are eschatological, so its failures become justifications for its abuses and its murders.

The unbelievably tragic part is that this Gospel of Paranoia, Resentment, Personality Disorder, Destruction, Power, and Death is "inspiring" to people once they've caught the bug, once they've fallen for the lie that "another world is possible" and the world we have is some kind of prison keeping us from it.

The Gnostic temptation stretches across the ages and all of human history, and it is a truly evil thing.

[Cody Libolt @CodyLibolt]

Here’s a question for the New Right:

Why do they not see “the common good” and “preserving individual rights” as being exactly the same thing?

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

You think Communists are inconsistent on ID.

I know Communists are against ID that works against their interests and are for ID that works for their interests and are therefore perfectly consistent on ID as a means of getting their way all the time.

We are not the same.

[Sebastian Milbank @SebMilbank]

This tweet is an example of what's wrong with academia. In a word: sophistry. You are describing the Arday case as a single data point, when you must know this is deeply disingenuous.

He openly lied and committed plagiarism, and even when this was publicly demonstrated, much of Cambridge's academic leadership not only defended him but denounced his critics in the most vicious and slanderous terms.

Like a nuclear meltdown, so much more than one thing had to go wrong to get ust to this point. It bears repeating: a pathological liar and plagiarist, one whose plagiarised work was in any case of a very low standard, was allowed to pass his PhD, get jobs at Roehampton, Durham and Cambridge. At every stage there were committees, examiners, supervisors and administrators who should have notice something or said something. Not a single one did, until a blacklisted rightwing academic, with no official role in all this, blew the whistle on him.

We are not, by and large, producing rigorous, critical scholars in academia. There is too much politics, too much bureaucracy, too much careerism, and too much subject specialisation. It's not just a problem of wooly minds, but of wooly characters - fearful, timid and overly agreeable people make for bad thinkers.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@VBraeckenssieck Wat gek, als ik ergens binnenloop in mijn zwembroek zonder geld dan geeft iedereen mij altijd spontaan eten en een bed.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@BretWeinstein You think Nickelback is the best rockband ever? Pineapple is the best pizza topping? Dune is David Lynch’s best film? What?

I, for one, believe that vague posting is annoying.

[Ozmodiar @cmonjussthetip]

>> - vast swaths of academia are very worthwhile

One major thing that academia has long used to deflect scrutiny is embedding the good things (e.g. cancer or nanomaterials research, also fun parties and sports teams) right in the same physical location and corporate structure as the bad things (blaq genderqueer studies of color), and using the former as shield cover and subsidy for the latter.

It's like the Hamas strategy of putting their headquarters in the hospital

[NOBUNAGA🇯🇵🏯_夏樹蒼依 @japan_nobunaga]

I mentioned that my garage door was making a sound.

An American immediately said, "I got a guy."

He did not ask what the sound was. He did not ask what kind of door. He produced a guy on the basis of the word garage.

I asked who the guy was.

He said, "Just a guy."

He did not have a company name. He had a first name and a phone number in his phone saved as "Mike Garage."

That is the contact name. Mike Garage. As though Garage is his surname. As though there is a family.

I asked how he found this guy.

"My brother-in-law used him."

I asked if the brother-in-law was satisfied.

He thought about it. Then he said, "He's still standing."

The house is still standing. That is the entire review.

Inside I said: THEY DO NOT KEEP RECORDS. THEY KEEP LOYALTIES.

I called Mike Garage. He answered from inside a vehicle. There was wind. He said he could come Tuesday between eleven and four.

Between eleven and four. A window of five hours. In my country this would be a scandal. Here it is generous. He gave me a window at all. Some guys do not give you a window. Some guys say "Tuesday" and that is the whole appointment.

He came at 1:40.

He fixed it in twenty minutes. He charged me less than I expected and he did not take a card, only cash or an app I had never heard of.

Before leaving he looked at my water heater, which I had not mentioned, and said, "That's gonna go."

I asked when.

"Couple years."

I asked what I should do.

He said, "I'll give you a guy."

He gave me a guy. Mike Garage has a guy. The guy has a guy. There is a network beneath this country made entirely of men named after their function, and none of them advertise, and all of them are busy.

Inside I said: THERE IS A SECOND NATION HERE. IT HAS NO SIGNS. IT IS ENTERED ONLY BY INTRODUCTION.

I have been given four guys since.

I have a guy for trees.

I did not know I needed a guy for trees.

I have trees now, apparently. They are my responsibility. A man named Rick told me so and then left.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@theramblingfool @spencerpratt This isn’t an argument against state owned groceries though - it’s an argument against communist double standards.

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@ilikelizards123 @spencerpratt @aaaagrym92288 Yes, and voting is for citizens of the polity.

You completely missed the point of the post. (i.e., it’s not racist to ask for ID for voting or access to city benefits, but commies will call one of the above racist)

[Sacha Feniks @FeniksSacha]

@ijbailey Mantra’s might make you feel better buy they won’t change reality.

[Jon Pike @runthinkwrite]

So, today's @ObserverUK didn't publish any letters in response to that painful article last week attacking the WTA sex testing policy.

Even this one, apparently.

Shame, because I think it's spot on. 🤔