- My Posting Career
- → 100 Most Popular Posts
100 Most Popular Posts
Posted Bumbling American on 15 July 2013 - 08:04 PM
it literally trains people in the cutting edge of math, science, finance and management to erect offshore platforms to suck up the carbonized remains of extinct species in order to provide the necessary fuel for the spic-nig cycle
i guess i never really grasped the goal of civilization before. why did newton discover calculus? what are maxwell's equations for? why did mendeleev deduce the periodic properties of elements? the answer to these and to all questions: to stuff nigs with fried meat until they become crippled from overeating, then to provide them with heroic medical care until they gracelessly expire
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 20 January 2017 - 05:42 PM
As a result he has no legacy, and serves as a reflection of an amoral and empty pseudo-liberalism that supports global capitalism and reactionary pandering. His base are people who say they feel hurt and sad yet can show no injury--adult children waving their hankies at a human muppet who read sentiment off a TelePrompTer for eight years. "Love Wins" and "Refugees Welcome"--affirmations of solipsistic morons trapped in a self-hug--are now the corporate branding of selfishness. They are slogans to help you forget Chinese factories with suicide nets and the ugliness of addiction and hedonistic lifestyles that this pseudo-liberalism reduces to.
Scrub away the airbrushing and you have a glib warmonger, a clumsy and careless policymaker, a passive-aggressive egotist, and a first class presidential golfer, a man who entered politics in hock up to his eyebrows and who retires a multi-millionaire. But doesn't he just look the part?
Posted Terrence Rhine on 16 June 2016 - 09:25 PM
By MICHAEL BARBARO and JONATHAN MARTIN
JUNE 15, 2015
"You're going to be our first woman president," the ratfaced man said to Hillary. "We won't go backward to the days of white cismale presidents and the transformation of America will be complete. Then you and Paul Ryan can work to together to find a compromise on healthy business conditions and tax reform."
By AMY CHOZICK and PATRICK HEALY
JUNE 15, 2015
"Assad is gone either way," the ratfaced man said to the other ratfaced man. "Whether it's Hillary or whoever the Republican is, we'll be back in charge of an unmitigatedly aggressive foreign policy and we can finally make the Middle East safe for (((freedom))). We'll finish Assad early in 2017 and have years to make sure Iran is next. All the refugees we make can head to Europe and enrich it."
June 15, 2015
"Europe is finished," all the ratfaced men laughed together. "We've gotten them to call it a refugee crisis now and no one can oppose it. The camp of the saints is irreversible. Nothing and no one can stop us now! L'chaim! Mazel tov! And such small portions!"
Kareem Shaheen in Beirut
Monday 15 June 2015
"No one can stop us now!"
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 28 July 2015 - 12:06 AM
Pieces in The New Republic and now BuzzFeed ogle and stroke their chins about this surprising, titillating new term in avant-garde political discourse. The cuckservative right joins in via The Daily Caller, advancing the typically cuckservative idea that the word is actually all about sordid Mandingo fantasies (well they would think that, wouldn't they).
No one seems sure who coined the term--a search of MPC's database shows the earliest reference to it came from someone quoting the Twitter account @Cuckservative on April 4th. But it immediately captured everyone's imagination as a fitting label for establishment conservatives who, when confronted with barely coherent liberal jabber, are spineless at best and eagerly servile at worst. The word was perhaps inspired into being by Donald Trump's candidacy, which itself provoked a cuck chorus of shocked and offended Republicans who had been responsible for crushing genuine conservatism and replacing it with a deformed cuckoo of endless war, corporate oligarchy, and whatever moral boundary liberals stopped just short of ten
Establishment conservatives are in fact sinecured opportunists who are either too venal or too idiotic (or, most likely, both) to recognize that political conservatism no longer has any meaning. This conservatism cannot say that it conserves anything because it is in favor of a chaotically destructive free market and its social habits are nothing if not depraved. The emblematic establishment con is someone who talks his ex-girlfriend's daughter into aborting their love child, or who cucks his own son and then denies it after his daughter-in-law kills herself. On no issue do these people have the slightest credibility, and as to character they are like understudies to lead-poisoned Roman emperors. Or else are simpering, childish, figuratively and literally crippled nullities.
But although all this attention to the word "cuckservative" is entertaining, the only one we really care about is BuzzFeed's because it mentions us.
Right away Joseph Bernstein rolls into the racial angle--well, it's right there in the clickbait, SEO friendly headline:
Behind The Racist Hashtag Some Donald Trump Fans Love
A little sidebar here, but the reason we love Trump is precisely because he's the ultimate joke on a thoroughly corrupt and inane political system. I think I speak for most in saying that our dearest hope is that Trump utterly destroys the Republican party, which has become so clownish that it's beyond salvation. And do we need any more evidence for that than this:
We don't actually believe that Fuhrer Trumpenkrieg is about to institute an American Reich, kick out all the Mexicans, and make sodomy a criminal offense. We just know with a certainty beyond liberal imagining that a system that produces Hillary Clinton and ¡Jabe! Bush as leading candidates for president is on the verge of collapse. It is not just corrupt and stupid, it is totally devoid of sanity. We're ahead of liberals in that we realize this--we're not looking to test Jeb into mouthing a few platitudes that make us feel better, we just want to watch the Bush dynasty burn.
Getting back to Bernstein:
It seems like the only place where anyone cares what libertarians have to say is on the Internet.
"Anonymous harassment", also known as raping your Twitter mentions, to which I would add:
Still, we at MPC do pride ourselves on our bleeding-edge visual grammar--thanks, Joe! We figured out long before Jews like Bernstein that the soft underbelly of the liberalism of social justice and microaggressions and wanting people thrown in prison for saying "nigger" was its extreme vulnerability to mockery. The one cure for the misery of modern life is laughter at its absurdity, and once you begin laughing you'll never want to go back to the dour, joyless MiniTruisms of modern liberalism, which actually asks you to believe that Bruce Jenner is now a woman because Bruce Jenner got fake tits.
The absurdity is that this liberalism thinks it's on the right side of history--thinks there is a right side of history, as opposed to an endlessly refracting moral prism which shows a version of the gazer. Liberalism's arrogant assumptions are comical and this is regularly demonstrated, as when in social surveys they consistently fail to accurately describe what other groups think about themselves. They have been graded (by themselves) on a Ta Coates-like curve all their lives and are now certain that their self-indulgent intellectualism will sort everything out--as if we've never seen mistakes on a grand scale in human history.
Bernstein himself amply demonstrates the fatuity of this liberalism in his writing:
Strangely, liberals love to toss around the word "hate" as they strain against their leashes. Frankly, no one hates as unreservedly and viciously as a liberal, who is all bitchiness and politics-of-personal-destruction over impossibly trivial matters. And no one hates like a Jew, a race that has its own Orwellian hate organizations like the ADL and SPLC. I'm almost at a loss when I see liberals unhinge themselves about everything from calling Asian people "Orientals" to tweeting "#AllLivesMatter", and then call anyone else "haters".
But here's the money shot that I've been leading up to:
We like The Right Stuff guys, and we even like the juvenile nihilism of 8chan (it's not like we haven't stolen memes from them before). If it somehow fucks up the liberal establishment, we're for it. Because this is an establishment that is knowingly destroying the world it lords over while arrogantly refusing to be argued with. These are people who believe in fining you six figures for not baking a cake to celebrate the mock wedding of two fags who will soon be getting drilled by random Grindr users. Cakes are that fucking critical.
Anti-Semitic? Whoa, sounds most uncool, Joseph Bernstein. How could anyone dislike (self-serving, hypocritical, sexually neurotic, nepotistic, histrionic) Jews?
Tweeting antagonistically. Very troubling.
"White supremacist" is the penis-stroking slur of preference for the new liberalism. It's meaningless, liberally handed out (none other than Ta Coates, a fucking Tracy Morgan-style retard, called Mitt Romney a "white supremacist"), and completely used up. We don't fucking care anymore, airhead. Call us racist, white-supremacist, neo-Nazis, or anything you think will stick. We're still the ones laughing, and you're still the humorless nags holding show trials about words. We'll win, you'll lose.
Posted Stiles on 25 July 2014 - 09:48 AM
I taught 6th graders at a school district that was, until a few years ago, very small and very white. It was the kind of town where the school staff probably went to church with most of the parents of their students. It was known in the immediate area as the place to go for good schools. Like every district I've worked for, the superintendent is a corrupt shitbag surrounded by a small army of ass kissing sycophants. A few years ago they had a bit of a budget problem, so to make some money fast they opened the school district. Before this, they kept the schools white by having staff that drove around and verified addresses; this kept DeShaun's mom from lying about his address to get him in. They removed that requirement in order to get more students and thus more funding. Since the district is fairly close to Dallas, all of those good boys and girls who don't do nuffin but get kicked out of school anyway were able to flood into the district. This was, of course catastrophic.
Immediately the district's test scores dropped. Previously, this district was full of schools that were always Exemplary or Recognized, which means a high percentage of students passing the STAAR test, which is the Texas standardized test. Even the schools that were on the poor side of town did pretty well. With the influx of vibrant diversity, the scores dropped and everybody started panicking. Don't let anybody fool you, either. Those test scores are the ONLY metric anybody cares about.
So when I started teaching, the district was still struggling to handle their newly vibrant student population. We had a discipline system that was created to address the typical problems of a white, small town. I have no doubt it was a terrific system when it was created, but it just cannot handle typical black behavior. I think Pleasureman was the first person I ever heard talk about how whites are inherently high order, while blacks are inherently low order. I knew what he meant, but given control over classes of whites, blacks, and Mexican kids, it's painfully clear.
Most black students, simply put, are not fit for classrooms designed for white children. The white classroom, the white teacher, and the white students all want some order. They want quiet when they try to work. Chaos isn't enjoyable for them. That isn't to say white kids don't like cutting up and cutting loose, but if they are expected to learn, they want to do it in an organized fashion. Black students, on the other hand, cannot understand why they can't talk over each other. They don't get why they can't talk over their teacher. They don't understand why they're getting in trouble for yelling in class. They're upset that they can't sing, or dance, or listen to music loudly. Sitting there, being quiet, is nearly impossible for a lot of my black students. Part of this was their age, but the majority of my white and Mexican students were able to control themselves, even when they were bursting with energy. Blacks just think you're a weirdo for not wanting them to rap a little in the middle of a lesson.
To kind of give you an idea, here is what a typical class might look like. I had to monitor the hallways in between classes (more on this in a bit), so I had to start each class outside of my room. I give students a small assignment to work on before the lesson starts. When I walk in, out of 30 students, maybe 20 have completed the assignment and are talking quietly with their friends, or are working on it. The remaining students are usually the black students. They're doing a variety of things. Most common is yelling at each other in conversation. They yell over each other, they yell at each other, they yell across the room. They sit in small groups, yelling at each other, usually with one repeating something over and over at the top of her lungs, something like "OH MY GAH! OH MY GAH!". Some of them are up and chasing each other around. A lot of times they'd be dancing or singing. I'd get them under control and start handing out discipline, to a chorus of "What? I didn't even do anything! I was just talking!"
So I'd start the lesson. During the lesson, the black students are shouting out. I found that there is no real way to stop them from shouting out answers or opinions. If you get a lesson they really enjoy, they'll only shout enthusiastic answers, but they will shout out.(Tip : If you can relate your lesson to a recent horror movie in any way, black kids will like your lesson) You can write them up all day every day for it, but they just can't help themselves. If you do get them to raise their hands, they can't do it without going "Ooooooo oooo ooo ooooooo!" while they wave their hands and stand up. Usually, though, they'll just start having a loud conversation that interrupts everybody else. When you call them on it, they argue that they weren't doing anything but talking. To a black kid, talking loudly during a lesson isn't anything bad. The chaos and noise of these conversations is normal for them. If you've ever been around groups of black people, you know what I'm talking about. That conversational order, that process of listening and talking, is mostly foreign to them. They want to talk, at the same time, getting louder and louder.
This wasn't just my low scoring kids, either. I had black girls and boys who were meticulous with their work, high scorers, good readers and writers. Intelligent kids. They still did this, though, all of the time. It's a cultural thing, and it is completely incompatible with classrooms that you or I would learn in. The lack of future time orientation is another big problem. More than once, I would address a black student directly. "If you do that one more time today, I'm going to call your parents." A lot of black parents are fond of belt discipline, and their kids would tell me that. So I'd give them a few chances, then tell them I'd call their parents. They'd still do whatever I'd told them not to. I'd tell them I'd call their parents, and they'd start crying, hysterically, knowing they were going to get "a whuppin." I'd ask them why they continued acting up after I'd told them I'd call their parents, and they'd always answer "I don't know.". And they didn't know. This would happen to the same kids, over and over, and they'd never learn to stop before it got to that point. It was mind boggling. I had white and Mexican kids that I'd had to threaten to call parents once all year. After that, when they got close to that point, they'd shut up and sit down quietly for the rest of class.
Another fundamental difference between black students and white and Mexican students is the way you have to talk to them. I learned that with white kids, you can be gently firm. Mostly they'll correct their behavior. If you get too sharp with them too fast, it gets them really upset. If you get harsh with them, they assume they made a huge mistake. Black kids, on the other hand, are used to being talked to in a loud, commanding voice. You try gentle firmness with a black kid, and he or she will assume you're weak and unfit to lead them. I had one girl tell me she wasn't afraid of any man that wasn't black. I found that if you get a little loud, a little harsh, they tend to listen. We had a great black female teacher who was aces at getting black kids to listen to her. You could hear her yelling from down the hall. So sometimes I would be a little louder and tolerate less nonsense from the black kids, because that's what they responded to. My principal pulled me aside and told me I was being too harsh, despite the fact that I wasn't even close to as loud and demanding as the black teacher. It was my job to let the black kids run roughshod over me, I guess, in the interest of acting like a good, neutered white.
I want to point out that most of the behavior of the black kids wasn't malicious or mean-spirited. I had a lot of smart and sweet black kids who acted like this, but again it's a cultural thing. I liked a bunch of these kids, and recognized them as decent, but they were wholly incapable of existing within the framework of what I consider a normal classroom. Not to be a corny, backpedaling faggot, but I also had several quiet, smart, well-behaved black kids. They got a lot of shit from their peers, though. The black kids would sneer "Oh, she never get in trouble" or "she always good" to the really good black students. They'd try like hell to get the good kids to act foolish, and ridicule them for not joining in. Again, not to be a corny faggot, but it takes some kind of guts for an 11 year old to reject that kind of peer pressure.
Our hallways were also a mess. All of the black kids would group up and essentially block the hallways, yelling at each other, dancing, chasing each other, or just standing there rapping or singing. They made it mandatory for teachers to go into the hallways and break up these groups, which would break up and immediately reform down the hallway. Again, calling out the students and applying discipline resulted in screeching "I didn't do nothing! You gonna write me up for TALKING!?" (Answer : yes). The students were supposed to have a two minute passing period, but another holdover from the white days was no late bell. So you'd have black kids saunter in ten or fifteen minutes after they were supposed to be in class. Of course, when they walk in late, all of their friends yell out "Ohhhh you late!" and they argue back and forth, and once again I'm wasting class time calming everybody down because there was some minor distraction that turned into a full scale yelling conversation about who was late, who was in the bathroom, and was she taking a boo-boo? Oh my gah, she was takin a boo-boo! When these kids started up, you could see the rest of the class just hang their heads and slump in their chairs. They hated the bullshit as much as I did.
Our administration was caught in limbo. Almost all of the repeat offenders who were getting detentions, in-school suspension, and going to alternative school were black, many were Mexican, and few were white. In an equality-focused and diverse school system, this presents a problem on paper. We normally had a ten step process to wind up in alternative school. With problem minorities, this was often ignored until they had racked up 15 or more. I was told, off the record, that this was to make sure that when the parents came in screaming racism, they could show them that their students had been given far more chances than they should have been. This lead to situations where a student would get three or four office referrals in a day, and the administration would group them together and talk to the student, deciding to make the referrals not count as discipline infractions. Meanwhile, one of my students, a white girl, got into a shoving match with a boy. First big infraction, immediately sent to alternative school. Admin was eager to get some whites in there to bolster the numbers so we didn't look racist. One black kid, who was a notorious troublemaker, only had to serve three days of his 30 day stint in alternative because his mom complained and everybody backed down. The kid was immediately in trouble again, but never got sent back to alternative school. School administration wants nothing more than to avoid rocking the boat.
So, to boil down this gigantic post, a handful of vibrantly diverse students can essentially hold a school hostage. If you have gutless administration and education geared towards a white standard, a lot of black students will be unable to handle it. This is bad for the white kids and the black kids. When I worked in majority black schools, the staff was able to work better in the chaotic environment. They were allowed to do things that we couldn't, like play music. Playing music seems to help a lot for whatever reason. I thought it was insane to see teachers playing R&B while they tried to teach. I get it now. Black kids don't do very well in quiet, orderly classrooms.
Posted Chicano Studies Major on 17 July 2016 - 07:09 AM
But in their quest for authentic diversity, Western universities have imported an entire generation of such ethnic students, many of whom have returned to their countries of origin to apply the lessons they learned at Poz U to their tribal societies. The entire Arab Spring fiasco was essentially that: Western-educated or Western-influenced agitators toppling illiberal, but somewhat stable autocracies to bring about the end of history, cheered on by their Western peers, only to mire their countries in civil war and promote the consolidation of radical Islam.
This prompted me to deduce a new subcategory of MPC's famous spic-nig cycle: the mud-flood cycle.
This is what the West does. It uses unprecedented and unsustainable prosperity to import mystery meats to study postmodern intellectuals and internalize their theories so we can stuff them down primitive societies' throats until they're too demolished to function.
It literally trains people in the cutting edge of political theory, philosophy and diplomacy to build political coalitions to weaponize bastardized versions of utopian theorems in order to provide the necessary fuel for the mud-flood cycle.
I guess I never really grasped the goal of higher education before. Why did Franz Boas push cultural relativism? What are postcolonial studies for? Why did the Rhodes Scholarship have to be expanded to non-Europeans? The answer to these and to all questions: to stuff tribal societies with postmodern liberalism until they descend into sectarian warfare, then to provide the ensuing refugee streams with heroic welfare until civilization gracelessly expires.
Posted Saya on 27 January 2011 - 08:00 PM
Posted The Gay Syndrome on 20 November 2015 - 11:30 AM
So many people wanted to hear about my time in Africa, and I want to talk about it, but I’m not really sure which angle to attack it from. You see, not only was I living there, I was a…
Peace Corps Volunteer.
Yep. The pozzed of the pozzed. Actually, it was a good experience, and it started me on the path of the shitlord by exposing me not only to Africans, but also to people so far to the left you need to pop a Truveda just to have a conversation with them. The whole thing was extremely eye opening, and I could write another entire post about international aid generally and Peace Corps specifically, but I want this one just about Africa, Africans, and the way they live.
First, a caveat. Africa is huge, and I can only speak for the little corner I was in. I was assigned to a remote village in the Sahel, basically the transition between the rainforests of central Africa and the Sahara desert, in francophone West Africa. I was in a very stable country (though we had some terrorist scares), and I would not only go back in a heartbeat, I regularly recommend that people go on vacation there. It’s a beautiful place: cheap, on the Atlantic, and open to (French speaking) foreigners. I have tons of shit to talk about it, though, but I’ll lead with the positive.
As I mentioned in the post that spawned this one, tribal African society works for them. They’re not smart, but they have strict, specific rules that they follow and that make things sorta work. By sorta work, I mean the power is on 6-8 hours a day, there is running water sometimes, and the roads have potholes so big it’s safer to drive in the bush next to them. But in the small town/village I was in, there was basically no crime, it was very safe to walk around at night, and people got along really well with each other.
How did they achieve this? If Asians are ant-people, well adapted to SCALEd societies, Africans are the opposite. They can’t handle scale, at all. When they live in villages of 100 to 1000, though, things are “functional”. They need familial hierarchies to function, though. Blacks have no morality, they don’t feel bad for doing anything the way you or I do. Their sense of shame and moral compunction is hierarchically imposed. There were a million little niggershines going on every day, and if they got away with it, it was all good. But if an elder catches you, you’re in for a world of hurt. Literally, because all punishment is corporal. They don’t mess around with stern lectures. It’s straight to the beatings, from a young age on.
The system also puts a huge premium on family and community, and nobody there had any desire to ever leave for good. Everyone wanted to get out to get paid, but nobody wanted to emigrate permanently to France or the US. They just wanted to make money, ship it home to “support” their family, and come back to have a little empire of dirt in the bush.
They are also front-line fighters against shitlibs. They didn’t stand for that shit, at all. If you wanted to come into their villages and build some shit, great. If you wanted to give them lectures about how they needed to accept gays or change their ways, mobs and rocks were in your future. Luckily I worked in Agricultural development, so I mostly got to give away stuff. At the time I felt bad for the ones getting the rocks, but looking back I just laugh. Take that, striver poors!
1. Once, a friend of another volunteer wanted to earn some money by baking bread. He got a little bit of money together and used it to buy ingredients. He built a mud stove himself, and cooked 30 loaves of “village bread” - basically misshapen, doughy baguette. He took the bread to the road, and started to sell them, until his father came by. His father said, “You have bread! The family needs bread!” and took 20 loaves for himself and the rest of the kids (this particular father had 4 wives and 8 kids per wife). Our enterprising African friend was left bankrupt. He lost his entire initial investment and never made bread again.
This is the basic story of Africa: communalism gone insane. It is completely unthinkable to refuse a demand of an elder or a family member for money or food. People hid any small money they had, because if anyone knew they had it, there would be a line around the corner asking for loans and favors, and they would be honor-bound or whatever to say yes. I told my friends over and over to say no, and each time they politely explained to me that it was impossible. The whole system is built to pull people down to the lowest common denominator.
2. Every day, I ate the same meal – a huge communal bowl of rice, with fish and some vegetables. Every day, the family I lived with spent a good amount of money (for them) to buy bitter tomatoes and okra to put in the rice, despite the fact that nobody liked bitter tomatoes or okra. I asked, why do you waste so much money on these vegetables that nobody eats? They told me, because we don’t want anyone to think we’re poor.
Africans are all about face and presentation, to the point of self-ruin. We’re talking about people for whom buying a couple vegetables has a huge impact on their bottom line, but they still do it. Saving money is basically impossible. I’m convinced that they have no conception of the future, aside from a vague idea that tomorrow will come. Cause and effect seemed to have no meaning. People who planned well, saved money and invested were not lauded or emulated, just dismissed as flukes or having received the blessing of Allah. Actually, Africans probably took to Islam like flies to shit because in Islam, everything flows directly from God – it is a religion that gives people permission to believe that everything is out of their hands, which they believe anyway.
3. A man asked me if I could give him 10 hectares of land and a diesel-electric water pump to irrigate it. This was not uncommon. The first thing people usually asked me when I told them I was an Agriculture Development person was for tractors, cars, livestock, anything. Completely shameless begging. Men in expensive silk clothes with nice black sedans would shamelessly beg for gimmiedats when they learned what I did. Anyway, I asked this particular guy what experience he had farming or gardening. He said none. I asked, then why do you want such a large scale enterprise? Why not get a small garden from the village chief and a used gas-pump to see how it goes? Maybe you’ll even earn enough money to upgrade in a year or two. He said, well, my cousin got 10 hectares and a diesel-electric pump from the government, so he was going to wait until he could get it too.
Gimmiedats are international. It’s disgusting. Every single cent of international aid is wasted on either bloodthirsty warlords, sniveling SWLP striver salaries, or gimmiedats for the underserving. In case you had any illusions, never give money to any international charity, ever. It breeds a mentality of helplessness and “mana from heaven”, not to mention an entire caste of African hustlers whose only job is to pitch their villages for various causes. The worst thing about this story? The man was completely right to not try a small scale enterprise. He’s African, they have infinite time. One day a government project will come to his village and give him his pump and his 10 hectares. He won’t do shit with it, but he’ll proudly show off his pump and everyone in the village will respect him for his achievement of receiving some gimmiedats.
4. During the festival of Eid al-Hada, a ram must be sacrificed because blah blah who cares. After killing and stringing the ram up into a tree for butchering, a gaggle of boys (they are always around in groups of 10-50, usually begging for presents and money because idiot white people always give it to them) rushed to the dying animal with a pair of scissors, snipped off its balls, and ran away with their prize. I asked the closest mother why, she said they’re going to grill it – the balls are a prized treat for the boys. I asked, do the girls eat it too? Of course not, she said. They would get pregnant with a goat.
Africans are dumb as shit. Basically, they never grow up. You are dealing with 200 pound children. If you go into interactions with that mindset, things go alright, but if you expect anything adult from them, you’ll be disappointed and frustrated at every turn. They believe in everything you can list – ghosts, angels, demons, curses, charms, blessings, and magic. Oh, and magic. They love it. I was party to a number of village magic battles, where charms and counter-charms were buried at people’s doorsteps, protective wards were made, and potions were snuck into tea. It’s a huge deal, and everyone pays big money (for them) to the local shamans and witch doctors to get all these magical trinkets. Yes, even in Islamic Africa, it’s just like this. African Islam is the same as South American Christianity – totally fucked in the head. They are pagan savages first and moon-worshiping goatfuckers second. They just slap a varnish of Islam on it – the magic charm has a Koranic verse in it! – and go about their lives happily as before.
5. A volunteer once fronted enough money for the farmer he lived with to buy fertilizer. They spread it together, and the yield was recorded. In total, it was 9 fold over the year prior. Instead of taking the money back for the loan, said volunteer forced the farmer to buy fertilizer for the next year, and save it. The next year came and they used it again, and again the yield was 10 fold over the first non-fertilizer year. This time, though, the volunteer had left the country. The farmer didn’t buy any fertilizer, and instead blew through the money he earned from his crop on frivolous crap and gifts to every extended family member who cast a shadow on his door. The next year his yields returned to the original level, and everyone went on with their lives as happy as before. The end.
This is my penultimate Africa story. There’s a bit more to it – the Peace Corps showed graphs and charts of this particular case as a successful intervention. I only found out about the little coda because I specifically asked what happened the next year; they didn’t decide to share that little fact in the larger meeting. It brings together everything - the waste, the stupidity, the lack of foresight, the inability to see cause and effect, the massive importance put on frivolous crap, and the way communities tear down their best members. Here’s the takeaway: nobody who wasn’t white on that farm saw the connection between the yields, the money they were making and the fertilizer. Nobody stopped to think hey, we should buy more of this.
That’s the insanity of Africa. 200 pound children, blowing huge stacks of cash on magic charms while they grind out a subsistence livelihood on the border of the desert.
This is already super long, and I could really go on and on about this subject. There are more stories - the myths of the African family, more stories of faux-communalism, stories about crazy African religion and politics, and so on. The long and short of it, though, is this: they’re not terrible people, they just shouldn’t be anywhere near us. Africa is no shit the Garden of Eden. It’s no mistake that the people living there are giant children. Despite tons of diseases and ferocious animals, they want for nothing. Trees growing fruit are everywhere. Every weed is edible. Before the Western-induced population bomb, I’m not even sure they even required agriculture to feed themselves. If we’re going to live a world where complete ethnic cleansing and colonization is off the table, just let them have their little paradise and leave us alone. They have absolutely nothing to offer us nor anything to gain by interaction with the west. They’re a people frozen in time from tens of thousands of years ago, and I have no trouble leaving them like that.
Posted A little backstory on 30 June 2016 - 02:32 PM
The Founding Fathers of this country, proto-shitlords one and all, wrote under pen names like Publius, Alice Addertongue, and Vindex the Avenger, to spread their revolutionary views to wider audiences without being dragged off to the King's gaol
I myself use a pseudonym even as I peddle my hateful memes and shitlord apparel, in no small part because of psychotic stalkers who could be an actual danger to my family and me; please don't think I'm advocating that we all shrug off our usernames and start poasting as our real selves without soberly considering the possible aftermath
However, on social media and in real life, under my real name, I openly express my honest opinions about the matters most dear to my hateful heart, the views that make shitlibs squeal in helpless rage--I realtalk about racial differences in IQ, crime, advancement, and culture; I'm open about my belief that homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviance are not "orientations" but symptoms of mental illness and probably childhood sexual trauma; I'm clear about the documented Judaic hatred of all things Christian and their hugely disproportionate contributions to the destruction of Western culture; I promote Trump's entire platform with unapologetic zeal
When Donald Trump announced his intention to run for President last summer, I took the plunge from quiet shitlord to open shitlord and loudly supported him on Facebook and other social media, as well as in real life conversations with the various flavors of cuck and shitlib of my acquaintance--the most fun I had was poasting a selfie wearing a MAGA hat, Trump shirt, and "I Voted" sticker on the day of my state's primary
The salty reaction from nearly everyone I knew was tremendous and immediate, with many demanding that I apologize for my hateful views and renounce my heretical belief that a United States President should put the United States first--since then, I have been called every shitlib/cuck smear word there is: racist, bigot, homophobe, Islamophobe, ignorant, hateful, sick, evil, anti-Semite, uneducated, provincial, divisive, selfish, greedy, mean-spirited, small-minded, etc.
To date I've lost probably 150 Facebook friends because of my open support for Trump and my promotion of various alt-right positions, but the most interesting thing is that I've gained at least 200 more; my friends count is higher than ever and these are not mere internet acquaintances, but people I know in real life--these are new friends, colleagues, clients, and vendors with whom I can be my true self without concern or anxiety
Social justice warriors and other crybullies rely on our own sense of decency to cow us into submission; they know we have reputations and businesses and friendships to protect, and they use the threat of destroying those relationships to keep us from speaking the truth about our views and saying what we have the audacity to notice before our lying eyes
But their threat of destroying us is a paper tiger; not only do I have more friends and better relationships than ever before since revealing myself as an evil bigoted shitlord hateful Nazi homophobic xenophobic uneducated ignorant meanie, but my business has grown and my newest clients are of the highest quality--they tend to share my views, which means they also tend to be financially solvent and fundamentally honest (all shitlibs and cucks are liars and losers; there is no exception to this rule that I've ever found)
When they call you names, you must admit to everything and then double down--cheerfully tell them that a "racist" is someone who is winning an argument with a leftist; inform them that an "anti-Semite" is someone Jews don't like; let them know that it's awfully easy to be an anti-white liberal from the safe enclaves of their lily-white Northern city or gated enclave or expensive doorman building
Point out their hypocrisy and laugh at them, always hitting back twice as hard as they hit you--never give in, never concede an inch, never admit to anything other than being an honest person while they are incorrigible liars, nothing more than self-loathing, mentally ill, anti-white ethnomasochists or just plainly envious non-whites who wish to destroy the competition
They will always hate you, White Man, you and your damnably wonderful genes, your innovation and creativity, your brilliance, your compassion, your physical beauty, your ingrained ability to improve and bring order to any environment in which you choose to live, your rich languages, your constant quest for new discovery and knowledge, your undeniable and well-documented superiority in nearly every area of human endeavor
They will always hate you, so give them a reason to hate you--become the terrifying supremacist bogeyman they've always accused you of being: an uncompromising, unrepentant realtalker with nothing to fear
As a consequence of my decision to reveal my true thoughts and beliefs, I've lost "friends" who never really were, but built lasting, genuine relationships with fellow shitlords who, like me, are immune to leftist shaming and enjoy poking holes in their delusional worldview any time they give us a chance; were I doxxed today, my every poast and tweet revealed under my true name, I've no doubt I would lose a few more of those false friends, and possibly some business opportunities from oversized clients that have their own human resources departments--but the opportunity for personal and professional growth would be even greater, and I can say confidently that my fellow shitlords would stand behind me, continuing to invite me to their social events, attend mine, and give me their business
Some of us here at MPC have experienced unpleasant consequences after being doxxed, and I'm willing to wager that nearly all of us have worried about what would happen if we were exposed, but the more of us who are willing to mainstream our "alt-right" (read: typical for the vast majority of white Westerners for millennia) views, the safer all of us will be if we are ever unmasked by a vengeful leftist or the lugenpresse
It's a personal decision for everyone and can't be taken lightly--there are still real dangers in letting your poasting career be known, including the possibility of violence or state action against you, especially if you live in a country with no First Amendment protections--but I sleep well at night and fear nothing other than the judgment of my Maker when the time to meet Him comes
It's my fondest wish that one day, all of you will experience the sheer joy and self-contentment that comes with shrugging off those same mental chains and becoming a proud voice for sanity, no matter the consequences
tl;dr: I have become impossible to shame and, as such, am truly free
Posted Cinco Jotas on 20 April 2017 - 09:51 PM
When Based Stick Man first burst into our consciousness on March 4th, I was excited and pleased. As you know, I believe part of what makes street violence so effect is that it produces iconic images, propagandistic photos that sway the normies to our side. By that standard, Based Stick Man was a huge winner. I mean, just look at that photo. It's perfect in almost every detail. The action pose, the flag on the shield, the baseball helmet, even the industrial respirator. Based Stick Man is anonymous, but he's not menacing, and it's because of that baseball helmet and that flag on the shield. Baseball helmets are 100% American with 100% positive associations. Little leaguers wear baseball helmets, for God's sake. And who but a true patriot would paint an American flag on his shield. He still loves the Red, White and Blue!
That photo and the video of Kyle busting a stick on the head of an anonymous villain by-passed our rational brain and plunged deep into the America, Fuck Yeah! part. It was ionic in spades.
Afterwards, when the whole Kyle Chapman story came out, I was dubious that he'd ever do anything of value again. He had a criminal background and had bounced from job to job. Not promising material, I thought. But I was wrong. It turns out that Kyle Chapman is an excellent organizer, a decent public speaker, and a natural leader of men. Check out this interview...
There's a plain-spoken and appealing humility in Kyle. He is very American, in the sense that he couldn't be anything else but American, and he physically put his ass on the line for this country, and we all saw it. Because of these qualities, and because he's canny enough to use them, he's become not just an iconic photo but an actual leader of the alt-right. Now he's organizing a crew of iron-fisted patriots to turn back the tide of poz. That's fucking heroic. But forget that for a second and go back to the baseball helmet. Take a look at this video..
I love this video when it pans down the row of fighters. It's like an iconic moment from the best sort of action movie, when a motley crew of roustabouts, ne'er-do-wells, bikers, chads, minor league baseball players and one giant fat tranny have to save the world from evil. It's The Seven Samurai for 21st Century American Shitlords.
Now, watch at it again and notice what they're not wearing. They're not dressed in all camo. This isn't some goofy militia LARP'ers playing dress-up soldiers. The Oathkeepers and 3%'ers were at Berkeley in their tacticool camo, but they didn't leave the park and engage with Antifa on the streets. That was Kyle's crew that did that. Likewise, except for the first biker, they're not wearing all black. (Hey Antifa, what idiot decided it was a great idea to dress up like faceless video-game henchmen?) All black is cool for a single rebel, but menacing for a mob.
As for what Stick Man and friends ARE wearing, it is LITERALLY the best thing they could have worn. They nailed it. They literally could not have done better.
In the first place, they're all dressed differently and individually. American don't like uniforms. We're individuals, not cogs in a machine. Dressing up in brown shirts and goose-stepping down the street doesn't appeal to ordinary American, only goons. By this same rule, LARP'ing in camo is silly.
Sporting gear in bright colors is non-threatening to normies. Baseball helmets, again. By the same token, dressing like a Chad, in jeans and a button down oxford, is a winner withe the normies. A fit young man, with neat hair and neat clothing clocking a filthy hippies is iconic.
Color-wise, unless you're going for the biker look, which is sort of played out, avoid black. Red, white and blue are always going to be in style for MAGA brawling.
Here's a skinhead(?) with an Apple watch(!) and the Alt-Right Spartacus. I guess the guy in black is on our side, but there's no doubt about who Spartacus is fighting for. He's dressed in a ludicrous fashion, but those flag shorts tell us everything we need to know. He's a heroic American eccentric doing battle with the forces of evil, and ICONIC.
Which brings me to another point, Spartacus looks like he's having a Hell of a time. As are those two characters dancing on the dumpster. As is Jesus Will Judge You. As is the Maroon Maniac. As is Kyle's battle buddy, Skywalker, the bearded animal in the yellow helmet and blue shirt seen in this video...
Who knew that when the Saxon Began to Hate it would be such hilarious good fun?
And that, ultimately, is why I think Kyle and his motley crew of lunatics might have saved Western Civilization on Saturday. Like Trump, he's shown us how much fun it is to save the world. It's contagious, you want to join Kyle's lunatic band, just like you wanted to jump on the Trumpenwagon. That inspiration to action is a gift of enormous value, you can't manufacture it on purpose, it can only appear in someone genuine like Kyle Chapman.
Posted I Mildly Touched Richard Dawkins on 03 October 2016 - 10:57 AM
For all its Vox Day-ness, SJWs always lie is damn good stuff. Never apologize. Never surrender. Especially never surrender the narrative.
Trump is already ahead of Romney. He's polling closer in blue states-heck, Washington is just about in play. NJ too. Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, PA-when were these last in the game? Hes even holding steady with Romneys numbers in California. Even New mexico will come down to how Johnson's 24% collapses nov 8th.
By any measure, Trump is the best Republican candidate since Reagan. Bush I coasted on Ronnie. Dubya got a split decision by judicial fiat, and barely managed to put away JOHN KERRY in 04 with a point here or there.
I have not a word of criticism. Every scandal faded when he ignored it. The entire media elite on both sides has only held him to a tight race with a near certain win (many paths to victory!) and a potential electoral landslide. His gaffes arent not a bit worse than anyone elses.
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood...and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
Be as alpha as you like. Be as silver tongued and fearless as you like. Any of us-anyone else- would have long since broken. Its been a year and a half and every day from every side, Trump has been under unremitting, vicious, downright depraved attack.
I mean- we forget, you know? Not to get mushy...no, fuck it. Lets get mushy. Lets get real.
Theres no reason in HELL to do this. For all the shitlib conspiracy theories, he has the favors, the connections to get out of any supposed debt or legal tangle. Hes been good friends with the Clintons, the Bushes, the Kennedys, a dozen others.
His name, his family, his company, his legacy, his health, his pride, his history; his life-both his social and literal life-all of it thrown on the altar. Not to mewl cuck BS but because he loves this rotten shell of failing dreams. He loves the country that gave his family everything, and he has pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor to fight for her in terrible peril.
Damn us all. Damn us all to hell. A year and a half ago every cockswinging deplorable was jerking off to Teddy Cruz and glumly ready to suck it up and vote Jeb. So we could get our amnesty with a side of guac before we ran to some fucking hideyhole. Maybe let our kids turn ten before the jigs moved in next to the spics. So we could huddle down and "enjoy the decline." Maybe catch a piece or two of bluehaired pussy while the Romes our fathers built-not just one, but a dozen Romes from coast to coast- rotted and burned.
Criticize? Comment? The unlimited hubris of it. We were WHIPPED, gang. We joked about road wars to whistle past the fucking graveyard because we knew it'd never be that good. Just slow rot and shitty jobs until we died, getting older and weaker and fewer while an endless horde of muds twerked in the ruins of our grandeur.
70 years old. Taking 15 months of endless hate to take a chance at 8 years more.
The more I think of it, the more it moves me. I didn't think we got men like this anymore. Laugh if you like. I dont give a damn. Donald Trump turned his back on endless, unlimited fame, wealth, hedonism, luxury and peace. Cincinnatus left a plow, not a throne.
I dont care if he ain't couth. I dont care if he had every wife in Christendom, or missteps ten times or ten thousand times, or doesnt hand me every policy I love on a golden platter.
Theres a story, about Washington. After the war, with no money coming, a number of officers started the Newburgh Conspiracy-plotting a coup. Fascinating stuff, but the gist is this. Washington found out, and went to address them. He gave a speech-great, beautiful speech-to little effect. In a last attempt, he pulled out a letter from a congressman promising (again) money. Started to read it, and faltered.
He took out his glasses. Something almost none of them had seen him wear. And said:
"Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."
From anyone else,almost any other man in history that would be grotesque pandering. But Washington was really everything they say he is. And his men, these tough bastards from Saratoga and Valley Forge, wept. The conspiracy ended.
I never thought Id see a leader like that. I never thought they'd make another.
Call me naive. Call me glorystruck, blind, a sycophant and a fool. I dont care.
That's how I feel about Donald From the By God Celebrity Apprentice Trump.
We say "God Emperor" for ironic detachment. A fantasy from Dune or a silly game for overgrown manchildren. The symbols of our cultural degeneracy used as a wall to shield us from the terrible hope we feel. We nitpick and niggle to stay on the details of this and that maneuver to hide away what we're scared to say. Using the same humorously ironic detachment we condemn in straggling millennial twerps to hide from ourselves.
He isn't a "shitlord" or a fantasy figure, or a meme.
The terrible, terrifying truth is for the second time-for all the warts and wives- we got another man that goddamned GOOD. We deserve-hah. After decades of failure, neglect, tomfoolery and greed, we deserve to get exactly what they say he is. Every filthy lie, every depraved fantasy of the sniveling fucking cowards we call fellow citizens is our due.
But by the grace of God-the no shit, real deal, grace and blessing of the Great Jehovah- the dying remnant of our gangrenous nation flipped one last card.
And it came up a Trump.
Im with him. If he wants me to go to Valley Forge or hell, Im with him. Even if he loses, he gave it all, all the costs he'll bear-and he will suffer terribly- to cut a path for us out of the wilderness.
Im going back to ironic detachment now. But I wanted to speak my mind to say that I no shit, no homo, no takebacks, no lie-love Donald J. Trump. And the only thing we could ever do to repay this truely great man, is Make America Great Again.
Posted Pikkledik on 18 July 2013 - 03:46 PM
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 27 March 2017 - 03:40 PM
"Spewing hate" is the preferred Mrs. Grundy term for questioning any aspect of establishment liberalism, a brain-dead and increasingly prissy ideology of constant verbal wincing.
Yes, a busybody shitlib would wonder about it, wouldn't he? Half the country being allowed to participate in national discussion? Seems a little high to me, Ellis muses.
Of course Wapo doesn't mean "extreme" as in Slate, Salon, Black Lives Matter, PETA, HuffPo, or any other whacked out venue where liberals fume and rant about conspiracy theories and talk openly of killing the president or hoping the military stages a coup. They mean "extreme" as in people who notice that blacks are violent, that diversity doesn't work, that Jews react hysterically to criticism, and that a reckoning is coming for Western civilization and for the entire globalist project owing to its hubristic greed. Although, yes, we're sexually extreme in that we believe every boy should have two post-op mothers. Touché, Wapo.
Finally, the mainstreaming of SCALE is really happening. No help from the fucking Nazis I keep banning!
Wapo don't link, but it's worth it for just this one humorless paragraph that aggressively doesn't get the joke.
Sure, you say that, Andy Kill, but then why does 23andMe have a HitlerMeter™?
Lie, lie, lie. I was never sent an email from Wapo. I checked every email address I've ever used, including the one this website is registered to. Lazy reporters made no attempt to email me then covered for it by claiming I didn't respond. Well, what do you expect? It's a marvel when these glorified bloggers avoid obvious plagiarism.
Offensiveness, of course, is purely subjective, and culturally-determined--there's no objective standard for it, and for multiculturalism to have any coherence it cannot assume a standard (particularly one that is purely WEIRD in expression). But liberals liberally paint anything that confuses or bothers them with a "hate" brush, which they assume requires no explanation. It's the perfect, unbeatable way to protect yourself from other ideas.
We've talking about the liberal attitude to free speech in the past, and this touches on another dimension of it. To declare that there is an "offensive" exception for political speech (which is what MPC plainly is, where it is not autism-confounding humor) is to denude the entire concept of free speech. Moreover, to selectively target such political speech for boycott campaigns is to negate the goal that free speech in the modern age is meant to achieve: to ensure robust debate and argument consistent with the needs of a liberal democracy, and particularly of minority ideologies within it.
But these Bezos wage slaves will have none of this intellectual sophistication, as the dunning, overwrought clickbait article shows. If we have nothing else, we at MPC have the dignity of not being journalists.
And, incidentally, these cheap Jeff Bezos (Faggot Dr. Evil) surrogates are one more BIG reason why you should donate to our cause. (Do not wait for the PLEASUREJIZYA, brothers.)
Indeed, one of the perversities of this richly inane political age is that newspapers which hide beyond first amendment law openly support actual blacklists, and only lament that curating them by hand takes so much work! Careful, liberals, your "What Would Big Brother Do?" wristbands are getting itchy. This is the declension that "free speech" inevitably sinks to in a mass society--you can say whatever you want, but if you violate the taboos of establishment liberalism, which are largely determined by corporate pigs like Bezos (thanks for the Amazon referral money!), no soup for you.
The SPLC is little more than a group of left-wing Jews putting out their own form of clickbait in order to raise money from senile co-ethnics. As a scam it's an evergreen, and liberal (usually Jewish) media whores can always count on them to fill out their otherwise spare blog entries.
Note the effort to move the goal post to "someone in the comments"--HEY, WHACHA POSTIN, RABBI? It's worth wondering how many Internet Nazis are mobying Jews (it can't be just bomb threats they're into), as opposed to real-life pizza-delivering intellectuals like Salo's Thomas777.
We know about the incongruities of ads here at MPC. The Wapo paragraph appears to be written in an effort to conflate MPC's erudite SCALE-ism with pro-Nazi views--typical Jew cherry-picking and mendacity. (Note to media whores reading this: we hate the Jews only because we love the Jews.)
Well that's one way of avoiding the word filter.
Forces driving the world apart? Sorry, from the window seat of this hate zeppelin it looks more like liberalism--which is fomenting wars in MENA countries, creating refugee crises, supporting massive population movement, and doing it all from antitrust-defying megacorps that farm manufacturing to Asian slave pits--is doing a lot more to "drive the world apart" (typical hackneyed libspeak) than a little old Internet forum that just wants to get straight answers on Sandra Bullock's real gender.
I somehow doubt that emails were sent to anyone.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 24 June 2016 - 09:22 AM
The overexpanded structure of globalism was untenable. It has escalated conflict across the world with breathtaking acceleration. It has tried (and now failed) to suppress democratic expression, that one cure and promise that makes men safe and free. It will die from its own massive weight, and its receding shadow will allow sunlight to touch nations and peoples for the first time in decades.
Most revealingly, the servants of globalism were venal politicians, amoral businessmen, and poisonous anti-democrats. They were weak and fat and stupid, but by conspiring together thought they had achieved permanent power. Now they face the end of the End of History, which means that men will shape events, not grey bureaucrats and managerialists scheming together in meetings.
The European Union was the epitome of fragility, narrowly escaping crises on the assumption of inevitability until finally its luck ran out. And all at once it will now collapse.
As the dominoes continue to fall--Scotland, Denmark, France--the public will see that this is a time of change. The future that was always looming ahead of them has suddenly disappeared, replaced with: nothing. The heart of the world has stopped for several seconds, suspended by this leap forward. They will now sense the possibility of shaping the future themselves.
In any time of change, the most discredited and uninspiring choice is the status quo, and what embodies that choice more than Hillary Clinton, a 90s throwback whose campaign is formed out of a combination of cronyism, "it's my turn", and inept cynical manipulation.
When the Berlin Wall fell it doomed the presidency of George H.W. Bush, because it told the world that this form of Cold War managerialism and hapless domestic compromising was extinct. So Brexit dooms the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton.
Trump fits liberating change. The more you hear the world is changing, the more you realize Trump is a leader for that world.
That is what Brexit means for us.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 25 August 2016 - 02:43 PM
Then, last night, Richard Spencer reached out to me. We had a long talk--I had to adjust the treble down to hear him clearly, as he's a light-voiced uptalker--and Richard shared with me his vision of the Alt Right™, PHALANX™, and his new secret society Reigning Men™. I immediately saw that it was genius.
The following is my announcement on the TRS forums, which I consider "MPC Pro", which I want to share with you. These represent my sincere feelings.
The forums have been reassigned per Richard's wishes. There will be a new influx of so-called "pissposters" who will act as moderators and PHALANX-level thought creators. This also means there will be mandatory membership fees--Jack Donovan's jacuzzis don't disinfect themselves (God I wish they did).
I can't tell you how excited I am to be a part of this. "Let's roll!"
Posted Bumbling American on 20 January 2017 - 06:24 PM
Good riddance, die in disgrace, watch as we MAGA.
Posted Cinco Jotas on 12 November 2016 - 09:19 PM
And wait... I figured we'd be waiting for a cataclysm, some disastrous event that would plunge us into a sea of blood and fire. What we got was even less expected and more outrageous: a genuine great man of history.
Don't let the carping of the cat ladies, faggots and jews turn your head. Trump is the real deal, an Olympian of the first rank, our Augustus. Even that last comparison may not be overstated. Like Octavian after Actium, Trump is in a position of uniquely unrivaled power. He enters Washington as its master. Starting as a political amateur with not much more than name recognition and a twitter account, in ten months he completely burned the GOP to the ground. In the five months after that, he stomped the Clinton machine into the dust of history and broke the back of the Democratic Party. And those weren't even his biggest victories; Hillary was not the final boss.
Trump's biggest and most important victory was over his toughest opponent: the mainstream media. By humiliating and routing the media, Donald J. Trump is now poised to become the most powerful American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
UNPRECEDENTED MEDIA ENVIRONMENT
The biggest coup Donald Trump pulled off was laying waste to the entirety of the American media establishment. I've talked in the past about how Trump has been studying how to beat the media for 25 years, and about how he overwhelms the press with sheer Trumposity. (One analyst compared what Trump does to a DDOS attack.) But that doesn't really recognize the totality of his achievement, nor does it tell us what's coming from President Trump.
Donald Trump makes his own media weather. As a private citizen operating in the world's biggest media market, and as a political candidate with every major newspaper, magazine and television network aligned against him, he was unstumpable. He humiliated and neutralized, in sequence, Fox News, Megyn Kelly, the Washington Post, Morning Joe, the New York Times, and anyone and everyone who dared attack him, and they ALL attacked him.
Trump defeated the media with a smart phone and a twitter account. He revealed himself as the greatest media troll in the history of mankind, thus winning the allegiance of the best and baddest trolls on the internet. Julius Caesar raised a legion to fight in Gaul; Trump raised the Legion of Kek to fight online. Hillary Clinton spent millions of dollars trying to defeat a volunteer army of NEETs, autists, cranks and shitlords, and failed, big league. We beat the ever-loving shit out of journalists and Hillary supporters, we made the internet a toxic environment for anyone who challenged Trump. We hammered them until they screamed, and then we hammered them some more. We won the Great Meme War with a comprehensive victory, nothing of the enemy's was left standing at the end. And American journalism is now a smoking wreck. It'll be rebuilt as something entirely different, more partisan and thus more honest, probably more like the British press. We'll see.
To repeat, Trump as a candidate, with every respectable media outlet against him, was unstumpable. Now, imagine President Trump weilding the Bully Pulpit. He will be the Colussus of the age. Do you think petty media "scandals" will topple our new Jupiter? He will rule from a mountaintop smiting those who resist his Olympian reign. He is the God of Media.
UNPRECEDENTED ACQUIESENCE FROM CONGRESS
One of the standard cuck/dem/media talking points is, "Trump will have to learn to work with Congress, or he'll fail."
No, Trump does not have to learn to work with Congress. Congress has to learn to work with Trump.
On January 20, 2017, the only Republican who will have any leverage over President Trump is Jeff Sessions. Trump owes no part of his victory to anyone in Congress except Sessions. He traded no favors, sought no counsel, made no deals with any congresscuck. In fact, the senate is ONLY in GOP hands because of the Trumpening. Even better, the particular way Trump won--by turning out working-class voters in the upper midwest--means that the cuckiest Republicans will have to depend on some of the Trumpiest voters to win their primaries in 2018. Make no mistake, many Republicans are genuinely terrified of Trump and his supporters. Most of them will not defy the God Emperor, and the few that do will be destroyed by the Kekians meme-lords, an object lesson for the rest.
As for the Democrats. They're a broken party. It's not just that the Clintons sucked up all the resources and tamped down any possible rivals, it's also that Obama is a terrible politician. He's looks good in a suit and is a decent public speaker, but his political skills are shit. In eight years he not only didn't help the party, he destroyed the party. They've lost the Senate, the House, and nearly three-quarters of the state legislatures. Their political bench is filled with nothing but shrill feminists, downlow brothers, weird-looking Aztecs and enough sweaty, shifty-eyed jews to stock a dozen yeshivas and/or photography stores. Everyone you've heard of is over 70 years old, except Pocahontas, and she's not going anywhere. (Note to Jim Webb, what are you waiting for, friend? Come home to the party of white men.)
Can the Dems stand against Trump in congress? Not if the Republicans are united. What about the filibuster? Two days after the first successful Dem filibuster, Jeff Sessions will replace Mitch McConnell as majority leader and push the button on the nuclear option. Filibusters will be a thing of the past.
Also, new minority leader Chuck Schumer, who's been around Trump for decades, is not stupid. For months, he's been hedging his bets about Trump, occasionally even saying nice things about him. (Schumer has refused to call Trump a racist.) And, Trump is a negotiator, which means he favors a win-win solution for those that go along. He'll horse trade with Schumer and make sure that he gets something, but when push comes to shove, Trump will get what he wants.
Taken all together, Congress will not be able to impede any part of the Trump agenda.
UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY IN THE SUPREME COURT
In February, Trump will ram through a replacement for Nino Scalia, making the court 5-to-4 "conservative". (The election might even put some spine in Chief Justice LightLoafers.) For this position, I'd like to see Trump nominate a heritage-breed, American Protestant.
After that, it can't be long before the cancer carries away the obstreperous RBG, to be replaced by another Protestant, I hope. The next two oldest are the Reagan-apointee Kennedy at 80, and Breyer (another member of the tribe) at 78. ClarenceThomas, who's now 68, might also retire before the end of Trump's second term.
If all that comes to pass, at the end of Trump's eight years, it will be a 7-to-2 conservative court, with most of the conservative justices in their 50s & 60s. (Alito will be 74, Roberts 69.) With Kagan and the Wise Latina mere speed bumps on the road to history.
UNPRECDENTED CONSTITUTIONAL OPPORTUNITY
Obama and the Clintons destroyed the Democratic Party. They are now almost entirely shut out of politics at the state level, to the point that Republicans are one state legislature away from being able to call a constitutional convention...
Imagine the possibilities! Do you want to end birth-right citizenship? Solidify the Second Amendment? If President Trump can pull the Republicans to statehouse victory in the 2018 midterms you might see some serious shit.
UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO REMAKE THE WORLD
Trump has both China and Mexico over a barrel. Without American markets China's economy collapses. Without American remittences, Mexico would rise up in revolt. Trump will negotiate with both from a position of strength. We'll still trade with both, but the terms will be more favorable for us.
Trump has promised to turn American energy producers loose, which means he intends to cut out the petro-kleptocracies of the Middle East. We don't need them any more and Americans won't die there anymore. QED.
Russia will do the heavy lifting against ISIS, with US helping in the air and with intel. Based Assad will based.
In Europe, Trump will align us with the nationalist movements. Nigel, Marine & Marion, Frauke, Gert, Viktor et alia will all be allies. Uncle Schlomo will no longer support the globalist poz factories.
This post has to be divided up. In the next part, I'll lay out what I see as the dangers and impediments for the Golden Pepe, how I think he'll govern, and what I think will happen politically going forward.
Let me just say, we're on the edge of something YUUUUUUGE. This is generational transformation in motion.
Posted Ricky Vaughn on 13 October 2016 - 03:53 PM
It is abundantly clear that there are two Americas. In one, Donald Trump is a cartoon villain, liar, serial groper, racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, Nazi. In the other, Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, lying, globalist politician.
Put these caricatures aside for a second and look at who is lining up on the two different sides. On one side, you have the crooked media, the crooked politicians, 95 percent of elite Jews and Mormons, 95 percent of the big corporations, the permanent bureacracy, the cosmopolitan entertainment business, and the bloated, useless academics.
All of these institutions failed you. And it wasn't an accident. They failed you because they hate you. It was on purpose. They betrayed you. They attacked you for being Christian. For being Catholic. For being a White man. For being a White mother and having White children.
Ladies: They called your men privileged, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, Nazi scum who hate all women and minorities. They mock and denigrate you in the popular culture. They bombard you with imagery of weak, cucked men. They encourage you to hate your fathers, your brothers, your White children, your ancestors, your history, and your culture. They tell you having a career is much more rewarding than having a place in a loving family and loving community, with children and a husband who love you.
Men: They encourage you to be weak, and for your wives to despise you and actively work against you in the voting booth. They encourage the image of the "goofy white Dad" who cannot even control his own household. They told you to indulge in drinking bouts and sportsball, to smoke weed and live only for today. They encouraged you to chase pussy, and then later on denigrated you as a privileged white male rapist when you took them at their word. In the popular culture, they portray your sisters, wives, and daughters as trash. Sluts. Harlots. And if you try to object, you are labeled as suffering from an authoritarian personality disorder.
The enemy has flooded our country with millions of low-skill, hostile foreigners who do not speak our language and hate our way of life. They have encouraged our factories to send jobs overseas to cut costs, and their investment banks profited off of every transaction and every offsourced job. Then, they allowed these foreign companies to flood our market with cheap goods, allowing international corporate interests -- many who reside in this country -- to gain wealth. Wealth which they then used to buy up the D.C. political establishment. They turned our politicians into cheap whores. They seduced those who were malleable, and replaced those who couldn't be swayed by cheap, pliable non-entities like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio.
So, the choice in this election is quite simple. You can either vote for the corrupt, bloated, effete, decadent, and unworthy political establishment. Or you can vote for Donald Trump, an outsider, hated by the political class, who promises to restore our sovereignty and our control over the political system, and to punish those who have betrayed us. Choose wisely.
Posted Dillonaire Philanthropist on 15 November 2016 - 08:25 PM
However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost — as many of the precepts of Marx — and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they’re really finding quite attractive. And if they don’t see another alternative, it’s going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”
So I think the discussion of, should we put a cap on wealth creation and distribution? It’s something that should be at the heart of every Christian that is a capitalist — “What is the purpose of whatever I’m doing with this wealth? What is the purpose of what I’m doing with the ability that God has given us, that divine providence has given us to actually be a creator of jobs and a creator of wealth?”
Like an echo chamber in a parenthesis factory, by the end you could almost hang a Jew on every other word.
Despite the judeo-Christian phraseology in the rest of the article(2014), Bannon just demonstrated his de-scaleing mindset several times over, which was so opaque to Buzzfeed that they simply published it in its entirety.
Posted Monkfish on 04 July 2016 - 11:00 AM
Posted Monkfish on 18 June 2016 - 08:04 PM
The journey to Tel Aviv consisted of multiple passport controls and baggage scans in Europe, plus a myriad of checkpoints and interrogations after landing at the airport. Israel is a fortress. The Israelis have no shame profiling and regulating each and every individual entering the country; if you're Muslim, you don't enter, end of story. Passing through each checkpoint, I was asked about my professional and personal activities planned in the country, religion, ethnicity, to listing previous job history and relationships with anti-Jewish (or pro-Palestinian) movements. At the final checkpoint, the guard caught a quick glimpse of an expired military ID card (old keepsake) and brushed me past after saying "Well, why didn't you say so? Go on ahead." Israelis have great respect for their star-spangled footstools.
In contrast to the prison-like surroundings at the airport, the walls of Ben Gurion International are adorned with colorful mosaics and twelve-foot stretch photographs of Ethiopian Jews and Ashkenazi refugees being bussed from the tarmac and waving Israeli flags while crowds of the Chosen enthusiastically welcome them. It was during these checkpoints that I noticed how "un-white" (pre-MPC, the most fitting term) the population seemed to be. Sephardic Jews look like deranged Italians or Greeks that spent one too many years locked in the attic (hehe). About one third were Orthodox or dressed conservatively. And there are soldiers everywhere. At the airport, on the streets, in the shops, on the buses, in the taxis, everywhere. I would estimate a quarter of the population carries some sort of advanced weaponry slung across their backs, and as readers here can probably expect, the typical Jewish critique of American gun rights is entirely absent in contemporary Israeli political discourse. I've never seen so many tricked-out M4s, or in even greater circulation, the new Tavor rifles fitted with ITL MARS optics.
Tel Aviv is a lively city full of energy, almost a less-faggy duplicate of San Francisco transplanted on the shores of the Mediterranean. The buildings and streets have a distinct style of architecture but are closer to Western buildings Middle Eastern. The houses typically had a bottom floor cut out halfway (a patio or garage of sorts) with thick pillars supporting the upper two floors. Moving closer to the beach, crowds of Ashkenazi and high-testosterone Sephardics (presumably off-duty soldiers) played volleyball, jogged, or danced around in celebratory scenes reminiscent of The Pianist. Arabs were few and far between and generally kept to themselves in more secluded areas, like the outer ends of Jaffa (the Old City of Tel Aviv, somewhat separate from the metropolitan area). The Israelis take great pride in turning Arab parts of town or historic areas into well-kept tourist traps, which serves the dual purpose of pushing out the Arabs and providing additional sources of tourism revenue. Needless to say, the Arabs are fucking pissed. I've traveled to over a dozen Islamic countries and there's simply no comparison. Those not moping about have a very distinct look of disguist on their faces and walk with an aggressive purpose, but for the most part, they behave like frightened rodents and scurry away the second an Israeli cop car drives by. They're not treated well.
American flags can be seen hanging from roughly a third of the beachfront properties and stores. If the population vanished for a day, a passerby would think Tel Aviv is an American colony. I remember seeing several Israelis wearing decorated VFW hats ("Vietnam Veteran") and hearing American English spoken as frequently as Hebrew. The American vibe of the place struck a strange chord with me - why are we risking life and limb for a foreign country that enjoys greater prosperity and safety than many of our own cities? Why are American Jews so quick to flaunt their American culture here, yet work so tirelessly to undermine it back home?
Israeli Jews are an entirely different breed of insect than American Jews. Basic ethnic differences aside (Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Ethiopian, etc.) the Israelis are a socially closed group and display a coldness and unreceptiveness toward strangers more commonly associated with Germans in Nordfriesland. It's not a harsh coldness, but rather a flakiness or perceived sense of repulsion requiring contemplative thought; I always had the impression they took 2-3 seconds to raise eyebrows and think before answering a question with an odd smirk. Past the beach, they are very openly tense and on edge, even more so in cities like Jerusalem and Ashdod, like a wound spring just waiting to pop. The women are even colder than the men - they listen, they respond, they move on, no courtesies. Fair mixture of redheads, curly-head Orthodox Jews, and an even greater number of mangled-tooth inbred Jews I can only describe in aesthetic terms as coathanger abortions gone wrong. Also, the food is fucking disgusting. Pickled dog shit on pickled bagels with pickled lemon juice for extra pickled flavor. But I digress.
A network of bus routes connects most of the country and it's very cheap to travel between cities (Ashdod, Eilat, etc. are all day trips). After spending some time in Tel Aviv and Jaffa, I purchased a bus ticket to Jerusalem, about a 2 hour journey for the Shekel equivelant of $10 or $15. The station itself reminded me more of a military base than a transportation hub; whole platoons bullshitted and horseplayed while waiting on buses to duty assignments. Ethiopian Jews always seemed to wear different patches and insignia (my first impression was ethnic segregation within the IDF) and wander about aimlessly. One of the most memorable experiences in the country happened when I asked a random soldier for help finding the correct bus, and he responded back in perfect American English. The kid was 19 years old from New York City, and came to Israel to complete his military service. He invited over a handful of other New York friends for smalltalk. The grunt in me wanted to knock this fucker's crooked teeth out for dodging the American military to instead serve a foreign country but he seemed to be genuinely nicer and friendlier than his native counterparts. He elaborated on the IDF's equipment and capabilities but didn't seem to be impressed with his comrades in uniform ("We have a few decent units, but most are bookish nerds who will pass through after their time is up.")
Excluding the drab beige and green buildings in Tel Aviv and surrounding villages, the color palette of the landscape is astounding. It really is a beautiful country. If you see brown or orange dirt, it's the most vivid brown or orange you'll ever see. Green grass is the brightest green you'll ever see. The mountains and valleys form natural defensive barriers and it's not hard to imagine Roman legions or Crusaders marching through the pine groves in columns. The entrance to Jerusalem itself follows narrow, winding roads and is guarded by sloping barricades that prevent any unwanted tanks or vehicles from approaching outside designated roadways. Massive concrete bunkers dot the way into the city. Exiting the bus station downtown, I was a bit more cautious walking around as a string of car attacks and stabbings from Palestinian muds had been taking place throughout the week.
It was in Jerusalem's Old City that I observed - for the first time in my life - legitimate police profiling and brutality. If you looked Arab, you were going to be questioned. It's not if, it's when. After about 15 minutes walking through the narrow streets, policemen roughed up a mud teen (maybe 16 years old) in the entrance square when he refused to show necessary identification. He was slammed to the ground, and after wiggling around a while, received a boot to the face so hard it's a miracle his empty head didn't pop off. The Israelis love this shit. It's a sexual release for Israelis to brutalize Arabs in the Old City, on turf they still consider to be their own. Witnessing these incidents in rapid succession was the only time I ever felt true sympathy for Muslims. The psychological warfare goes both ways though, and the solemnity of touring The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the location of Jesus' Last Supper, etc. was often interrupted by Palestinian teens driving in circles around the Old City blasting garbage Arab music as loud as possible to piss off the guards. The inner streets were relatively quiet though, narrow walkways smelling like commercial spices and selling typical tourist wares. The Al Aqsa Mosque, like Jewish holy sites, was closely regulated by a series of checkpoints and it was difficult to determine where Muslims actually entered the place.
Christian tourists clashed with the surroundings. Busloads of Bill Gates vaccine recipients in matching purple and yellow outfits dumped soda cans and candy wrappers along the streets, leaving behind an aromatic skidmark of body odor capable of suffocating even the most conditioned of noses. Fat Evangelical tour guides beat worn out Bibles in front of fanny-pack religious tourists while extolling the virtues of Israel, the eternal custodians of our most cherished and sacred holy sites. If Jesus came back today, it's not hard to imagine him chasing out the obese Texans and kiosk merchants that turned his Father's house into a marketplace.
At the risk of writing too long-winded a poast, I'll finish by saying Israel is all you'd expect it to be and then some. The Israelis enjoy unprecedented levels of economic and cultural prosperity in a beautiful, walled-off country at the expense of the American soldier and the American wallet. With the exception of leftist beach fags and New Yorkers on Birthright vacations, they are a rabidly ethno-centric nation of scheming land thieves who ejaculate at the thought of curbstomping Palestinian babies.
Posted John Rocker on 17 June 2017 - 02:57 AM
However, it often happens that after my senses have dulled from too much fake news, some pleasant reminder of the 2016 realignment jolts me back to reality. An average citizen of Trumpmerica surprises you. Hope springs eternal once more. Such was the case yesterday evening.
A couple of gentlemen from my local Trout Unlimited chapter joined me on the stream, and in the course of casting our flies we came upon the topic of Amazon and its purchase of Whole Foods. One of my co-anglers, mid-30s with a young family, mentioned a family member stuck working in a giant Amazon warehouse. He went on to decry the death of retail, and how it seemed like "two or three damn companies will own everything before long".
I know both these men fairly well. They're both Scots-Irish Christian kulaks who operate their own small businesses (one with a couple of partners). Not even two years ago, these guys would have been parroting talking points from The Federalist. They both supported Ted Cruz in the GOP primary race. Their political interests had narrowed to a pathetic, tiny Overton strip that amounted to "please, please just leave me alone and let me keep my guns and possibly cut my taxes, thank you."
But as we kept on talking about Amazon, about globalization, about automation and corporate misbehavior, it became clear that these men were no longer libertarians. They may not even realize it, but they're concerned with protecting American labor. There's now a Trumpian language for them to discuss these matters without sounding like a limp-wristed pinko: "ripping us off", "shipping our jobs away", "flooding us with cheap workers". They've begun to place men like Bezos into the same mental category as political hucksters and snake oil salesmen. It's clear that if the globalist cabal has their druthers, someone dear to them will suffer as a result.
And then it occurred to me that the political left, even the old guard, will never give Trump the credit he richly deserves for doing what they could never manage to do. How many trillions of words have bugmen - from Michael Harrington's "The Other America" onward - spilled in a vain effort to appeal to the heartland kulaks I was catching trout with? How many cloying and maudlin anti-corporate appeals?
Yet the delicious morsels of truth (SCALE is awful, elite oligarchs are fucking us, our American way of life is threatened by these ghouls) were always baked into a fetid casserole of shitlibbery. Perot and Buchanan notwithstanding, it was impossible for a self-respecting, fly-flinging, trout-catching, small-business-owning kulak to co-sign these truths before Trump's arrival. If he sympathized with those perspectives, he was also invited to gulp down the poison pills of third-worldism, feminism, revolutionary sexual morals, and his ultimate dispossession and replacement as recompense for "dem historical injussissus".
Trump has split the atom. He has threaded the needle. He has balanced the equation.
And he will never be properly recognized for it in his lifetime.
Posted Bumbling American on 22 July 2016 - 09:01 PM
Also lol at the semitic vindictiveness of the system he represents--it's not enough to win battles, you have to humiliate the people you beat and demonize them for hitting back in the mildest way or even noticing there's a fight going on
Seeing the thunderclouds gather around this fucker and his friends is gloriois, and knowing that they see them too is even better
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 28 June 2015 - 02:02 AM
Of course, this is never the way it works. First, any apology given is assumed to be insincere. Then it is tortured for hidden meaning or stubborn refusal to be abject. Then it is rejected because there are still hurt feelings and it just isn't going to work out as everyone hoped. This isn't without meaning.
Catlin's claims in his blog post are plainly bullshit. Demanding that Eich apologize for "the discrimination we faced" and yet offering to allow him to "keep his personal beliefs" is an illusory compromise--beliefs are meaningless in a democracy if they cannot find political expression. But this was the actual point of the episode: to sadistically punish someone and demand total submission. This political humiliation is not a side effect of the crusade for gay approval, it is in fact the primary goal.
As if his affected blog post were not evidence enough, Catlin decided a year later to remind Eich/humblebrag about getting him fired:
The exchange between Catlin and Eich removes any lingering doubts that the purpose was to wallow in Eich's humiliation. It seems as if it was also intended to goad Eich into a reaction that Catlin could use to further attack him, and was suspiciously timed to overshadow recent news about Eich's work on WebAssembly. Another gay man picked up on these aspects of Catlin's tweet:
We know that the push for gay marriage is largely bogus: of the small percentage of gays who get married, upwards of 75% have no intention of keeping their vows. Gay activists speak openly of transforming marriage, that is, making it over into a hedonistic partnership disconnected from family and community. Judging by their behavior, the most important part of a gay marriage isn't forming a sexual or social union, it's ordering a cake from a Christian bakery.
What they wanted was not marriage but the defeat and humiliation of critics of homosexuality. They didn't want rights to exercise or duties to fulfill--homosexual marriage is uniquely dutiless--they wanted to dominate and punish their targets, silence debate within social networks, and ultimately enforce criminal and civil sanction on political enemies.
To understand the stridency and hostility of this activism and how this fits into the modern trend of leftist politics, we must step back and look at the social changes that gave rise to it. This also means addressing conservative misconceptions about what has happened and why it has happened.
To start with the misconceptions, the main one is that gay marriage represents liberal politics defeating conservative politics. I want to reframe this: what has happened is that the process of atomization has drained society of moral energy. The rising tide of liberalism is actually the steady erosion of social bonding, the process which creates moral order. What we see is not gay marriage advancing in perceived legitimacy but the collapse of social life, and thus the destruction of social meaning in marriage itself.
Morality is not a set of rules that people consciously adhere to--it has an almost wholly intuitive character and is tied directly to the formation of social bonds. Put simply, moral life begins with the internalization of others as part of oneself. This is most apparent in the intense moral feelings that surround kin relationships, which involve others who are literally part of us genetically.
Previous to mass society and its large scale population movement, the second level of relationships by intensity consisted of networks of families which had interbred within a geographic area. After this there was the relatedness of countrymen who shared strong cultural and religious values as well as the biological bonds of a relatively static population of larger geographic scope.
These concentric relationship rings comprise an organic social network that provides psychological support and sparks cooperation and altruism because the relationships are genetically driven and highly internalized.
Today, at every level, these relationships have diminished or been supplanted by relationships of lesser intensity and durability: ideological, class, occupational, avocational, and what I would term relationships of efficiency--for example, obedience to rules as the most reliable way of maximizing resources for oneself. These comprise the synthetic social networks, transactional and not deeply embedded.
An attenuation of relationship strength has been hinted at in books like Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, but its ramifications have not yet been fully worked out. I believe this attenuation overshadows nearly every political development of the past century, and in fact determines most of the political outcomes we have seen, including that of gay activism.
Consider that the last unifying American presidency coincided with a period of ascendant political and social conservatism. Such unification on a national scale is impossible today due to more fragmented demographics, declining families, and less stable communities. Urban planning has deliberately increased population movement, which disrupts community formation. In the Southwest, but increasingly everywhere, immigration has produced dramatic population change. Meanwhile, family networks are tiny compared to the recent past as couples produce fewer offspring and have less frequent contact with their smaller family networks. As Putnam has documented, local communal activities that strengthened neighborhood identities are far less common.
This state of attenuated social relationships can be summed up as atomization. Atomization does more than make us less cooperative and more combative: it reduces moral feeling. I have argued that moral feeling is produced by (organic) social relationships, which in modern society have been replaced by voluntary association (synthetic relationships). Even marriage, of which family unification was an important byproduct, has devolved into mere partnerships.
We are only beginning to understand the effect of atomization on behavior. When I first wrote about changes in scale of society I focused on the idea of a numerical increase in social interactions overwhelming our mental capacity, producing an overcrowded "conceptual space". While population density undoubtedly plays a role, the change in quality of social relationships today is very striking.
I think there is evidence that atomization leads to a sadomasochistic element in social conflict. If atomization results in retarded moral development, we have a handy model for this: children. Because children interact socially before they have developed emotionally, we can observe what social behavior should look like among morally retarded, unempathic adults by studying child behavior.
It is fairly normal to see children in groups of three or more periodically engaging in bullying, exclusion, and humiliation. These childish conflicts exhibit an amoral quality and suggest a fascination with wielding social power over others, devoid of moral feeling. Today's larger school environments and online social networks provide more opportunity for such behavior, and detached parenting can reinforce poor social development that exacerbates it.
If leftist activists are trapped at a childish stage of moral development, it would explain their extremism and single-minded desire to humiliate opponents even after political victory has been attained. If my speculation is correct then their nastiness may become even more extreme as growing atomization leads to people who are so drained of moral energy that only humiliation and self-amusement are attainable experiences.
Conservatives should respond to this by demonstrating solidarity. The scope and manner of this solidarity can be discussed further, but it is important that conservatives provide support and resources for those subject to extremist political attacks. Many of the attacks to date rely on small but loud activist groups using social media to organize and then sympathetic mainstream media to amplify their voice. Conservatives should learn to form larger groups to respond effectively (the media will not amplify them). Fortunately, conservatives are actually better than liberals at this when they are properly organized.
This also suggests the means to become invulnerable to these attacks: strengthening of personal relationships, living in lower scale communities, maintaining strong family ties, and working independently or for smaller businesses in which co-workers have stronger social bonds with each other. The tactics of extremists rely on environments in which relationships are weak and in which people exhibit low altruism.
And, of course, never try to apologize simply for stating your views in your own words.
Posted RexLex on 17 June 2017 - 10:36 PM
Posted Hyperion on 15 October 2016 - 12:55 AM
This is Ken Bone.
Ken Bone is a 34 year old coal plant worker living in a steel town near St. Louis, in southern Illinois. He asked a question about energy policy at the second presidential debate last Sunday - specifically regarding the candidates' plans for coal power plants and retrofitting older, dirtier plants with new scrubbing technologies. It was a two part question inquiring about both the candidates energy policies and environmental policies.
Ken Bone wore a bright red sweater, and sported a very interesting moustache.
Within only a few hours, he was an internet meme. He became a media celebrity. He was apolitical, stating ad nauseum that he was truly undecided and would not be revealing his candiate choice. This is important, because it gives us a look into what the media does. It gives us an almost clinical look into how they create stories and drum up controversy.
The Honeymoon started off great.
He has no agenda. No one is marching him on stage as a political prop (yet). He's just a normal dude. He's not a Pepe meme or a Twitter egg or a Bernie Bro, he's just Ken Bone—somehow the one guy not spewing hate and divisive language this year. He's someone, something to finally feel good about.
...Ken Bone -- he's no conformist. He's the person a divided America needs right now. The man who brought some levity to the ludicrous, some vim to counter the vitriol. The only thing that was making America great again.
Sports Illustrated Online:
He was being interviewed by all sorts of journos, reporters, and personalities. He was interviewed by Jimmy Kimmel. He had his own shirt made that you can buy online. Interacting with Ken Bone meant "entering the Bone Zone". Porn companies were giving him offers for webcam shows. Pretty soon he even had an Uber endorsement.
This honeymoon phase gives us a glimpse into how the media creates narratives. Ken Bone would have been a short lived meme anyway regardless of whether or not the media decided to fan the flames. Within only fourty-eight hours of the debate there were hundreds of 'articles', if you could call them that, talking about Kenneth Bone, American Hero. Most of these articles included some thinly veiled bitching about Donald Trump and his mean words and lying ways.
All these media whores, desperate for page views, hopped on the bandwagon and put the national spotlight on a regular Joe Six-Pack from southern Illinois. Of course, this wouldn't be the media we know and hate if they didn't try to destroy him in the process.
It started with an AMA over on Reddit. Unlike most pre-rehearsed, PR-manicured commercial AMAs, this was just a regular dude who used his regular reddit account. This ended up being a mistake. Here were some of the posts he's made with his account before the AMA:
Worst of all was the post where he thinks the shooting of Trayvon Martin was justified:
What followed was the aptly described 'media fuckery'.
The Daily Beast:
Ken Bone was hailed as a symbol of all that is right and good in America after his debate question on Sunday. Now, however, a fuller picture of the guy in a red sweater is emerging.
Of particular interest was the fact that every news article claimed that the worst thing in his history was the fact that he thought George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin. This, I may remind you (since we tend to forget these things in Clown World) was also the opinion of the grand jury that acquitted Zimmerman.
The Daily Beast:
On Friday, five days after the debate ended, the New York Times, in its sophisticated serif headline font, eruditely concluded that "We May Be Leaving the Ken Bone Zone".
The New York Times:
This Ken Bone of our imaginations was born on Sunday, during a presidential debate, when the American public saw him and decided that he was more important than whatever those two nameless individuals running for president had to say...
Now the bell tolls for Mr. Bone.
This is a story told in headlines and quips, but its a story we all know very well. By now we all have it memorized. Man wears red sweater to debate, media decides to bruteforce a narrative down our throats of a good guy gone bad. While the Quartz article complained that his meme-dom reeked of the kind of mean-spirited attitude (in their words) jocks have when they 'adopt' a nerd for a day, the only people that used and abused poor old Ken was the media, desperate for page views and advertising dollars and willing to stoop as low as necessary to get them. They probably don't even realize they're doing it since by now its probably second nature to them.
Even when covering a light hearted story like this, the media manages to not only blow it way out of proportion, but also tries to destroy the people involved in the process. So the media does to Ken Bone, so it does to Donald Trump and countless others.
Posted GhostfaceCracka on 16 September 2015 - 09:18 PM
really no further commentary necessary
Posted Terrence Rhine on 11 September 2015 - 08:55 PM
The lie this nigger faggot is telling here is at the crux of much our current politics.
No one cares about not being able to call Capehart a nigger. They care about not being able to discuss crime and education and the tribal politics that will define their children’s and grandchildren’s home nation. They want to be able to talk to their fellow parents about the racial makeup of the local schools without having to sniff out with each new acquaintance how safe it is to do so. They want to be able to talk to their neighbors about the safety of their neighborhood without having to compromise the seriousness of the discussion with euphemisms. They want to be able to discuss race—the safety of where their children live and learn, the quality of life that results from the daily behavior and decency of whatever quality of people live near them—without having worry their neighbors will inform on them in some way. They want to be able to live in a country other than one where even among friends there is incentive to secrecy about what you really think because you never know what will eventually get out or which of your friends wasn’t as sensible or tolerant or honest as you hoped they’d be.
No one cares about not being able to call Capehart a faggot. They care that they can’t make in-depth arguments against their sons’ Boy Scouts following the Catholic Church because there isn’t any way to discuss the matter beyond “uh, well, it’s my faith, I'm really sorry.” Liberals sneer at critics of homosexuality because they say the only premise for objection the opponents have is some primitive text where they choose to ignore the part against shellfish. But that’s the only argument that’s been remotely sayable for years (and it isn’t really anymore); no one can publish or last long publicly talking about mental illness or hedonism or sociopathic tendencies or apologetics for and complicity in abuse. A major CEO can’t even make a personal donation to support his view of marriage without losing his own company, so clearly a normal person isn’t going to be able to voice concerns that monogamy won’t be a part of marriage anymore if an aggressively un-monogomous cohort can be married. They want to be able to say things like that, not pointless insults or jokes. They’d be happy to do it as politely as possible but they’d still be called uncivil and hateful.
No one insists on being insensitive to some emotionally bewildered co-ed who thinks she’s been raped. They want to be able to discuss libertinism and abstinence without being written off as a misogynist. No one feels any desperate need to make fun of Bruce Jenner let alone some confused, mentally broken kid who thinks he’s a girl. They want to be able to argue for women’s restrooms to remain actually women’s restrooms without it being a hate crime. No one absolutely can’t get through their year without telling a Holocaust joke. They want to be able to talk about foreign policy without being crucified for anti-semitism. And just kidding obviously about being able to go a year without bake-off jokes, you don’t have to update your list TOG.
This deliberately obtuse horseshit about wanting to be rude and vulgar is a strawman that our gatekeepers use to deny the existence of all the real subjects to talk about above. It’s not that there aren’t plenty of us who are enthusiastic about being vulgar and uncivil in certain contexts, of course there are and it’s part of rebellion and part of release and part of bonding and part of having a human sense of humor. But it’s an abject lie to say that that’s what the resentment and resistance of PC is about, that that’s what people want when they want their free speech back.
They want to be able to talk about reality without losing their jobs or friends. Why don’t they make sure they get like-minded friends? They can’t know the minds of any new acquaintance for any given amount of time because they can’t talk about these things first. Why don’t they make sure they get jobs that are safe from reprisal? Because they’ve lost their country and they don’t have the control over the social infrastructure to make sure they can get those jobs or that those jobs even exist.
First liberals lie about this dynamic even existing, as Capehart is doing here. But if you do manage to point any of the above out they will admit it does, that what people really shouldn’t be allowed to talk about is race and education and the implications of their children being despised and impotent minorities. They eventually admit that the dynamic is real and they like it that way. But most people aren’t philosophically equipped to get there so they never get even that damning admission. The lie that this is about politeness enforces the crimestop that is at the crux of this problem with our politics.
I don’t mind that I have to post anonymously on the internet or make sure that I’m in the right rarified company if I feel like pointing out that Jonathan Capehart is a faggot and a nigger. It’s fun to point that out but it’s not important to me. I mind that no one can discuss the fate of the country their grandchildren will live in without shackling what they’re trying to express with newspeak and without fear of losing relationships, careers, and livelihoods. That, not “the ability to insult anyone” is what I “really mean” and it’s what the other people this faggot nigger is lying about really mean too.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 08 June 2017 - 12:19 PM
What such spectators do not realize is that Trump doesn't fit templates of high accomplishment politicians because he has a radically different sense of how to play this game. (It might or might not work out for him--but recognizing its difference seems beyond these dreary people.) To say Trump's perspective is shaped by his business dealings would also miss the point, because the difference between Trump and the political establishment goes far beyond that. In fact business types seldom do well in politics precisely because they are used to controlling what anyone says about them and having little press oversight--they struggle to appeal to broad electorates, having emerged from relatively monastic and inbred corporate organizations. They have few skills and are usually quite shallow strategists. This is also why founders are so radically different from corporate executives--and Trump is more from the founder mold.
What makes Trump's profile different and closer to anti-fragile is that, like most founders, he accepts high levels of risk and prefers a more chaotic environment. Chaos is dangerous to most politicians, who lack many skills beyond networking and who prefer to have long tenures from which they gain big payoffs. For a politician, the payoff is always threatened by deviations from the norm, hence politicians are loathe to deviate (other than with Congressional pages). Trump clearly does not have this motivation--he's a billionaire and could spend the rest of his life living like an emperor no matter what happens. He's personally motivated to build something--he has the founder need to create.
A high risk strategy has obvious downsides, however if Trump understands the establishment war on him--which I believe he does--then the safest place for him is the middle of a tempest. Here large threats exist to him but also to his risk-averse opponents, and momentary collisions provide Trump with much-needed opportunities that the establishment would prefer to deny him. To understand it this way is to understand why Trump routinely produces the kind of chaos that establishment politicians spend their careers running away from. This is a high risk strategy, but also a high reward strategy if Trump succeeds in exploiting opportunities. (Note that a key factor here is that Trump has few if any allies--the Republican establishment is as opposed to him as the Democrats are.)
Needless to say, those who are used to thinking of everything within the dull establishment framework miss all of this and conclude that Trump is an impulsive idiot (he just somehow lucked into a $10 billion fortune, unlike these geniuses who write blogs). To them there is nothing dumber than to do what Trump is doing, because they don't understand his payoff isn't their payoff. (Although their payoff increasingly looks like spending a career grinding away at blogs in order to enjoy their golden years with 30 tabs of hentai porn and a lot of angry tweets.)
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 09 December 2015 - 01:52 PM
some stupid liberal cunt:
It is blatantly obvious that muslims are, as a group, incompatible with our society. Read up on Rotherham. Read up on the zones of sharia law that have cropped up in Western cities with high concentrations of muslims. Read up on the rioting, the drugs, the prostutition, the dole-leeching aggressive young men that form their sewage product. Perhaps what it will take with you is to be woken up at 5 AM by a call to prayer from the local mosque zoned into your whitebread residential area. The idea that we are all the same and infinitely miscible is patronizing babble from sheltered liberals who think that everyone really is just like them, because who would reject their deracinated, hedonistic outlook?
The propaganda of a hyper-partisan left-wing org like Media Matters is intended to lobotomize you. Support Marine Le Pen's National Front. Support Pegida in Germany. Learn something about the immigration crisis abroad. (It is not a "refugee" crisis, for starters--the immigrants are from all over, virtually all of them seeking Europe's generous welfare state, not escape from hardship.) This is no time to stay wed to ignorant leaders and failed policies. They will only produce an endless succession of crises.
Posted Cinco Jotas on 20 January 2017 - 09:42 PM
The funny thing is that these characters are usually very personable and easy to be around. They're most often polite, well-spoken and cheerful, and can pull tons of semi-decent pussy (if they're not fags like Barack). Let me just say that at a party filled with aggressively brittle, grad-school jews, a goofy-bright, lazy-ass black kid is like a ray of sunshine. These characters can happily coast for an entire lifetime in a government job, a corporate diversity sinecure or a social sciences faculty (although publish-or-perish is really problematic for them).
Lord Purpa Drank is of this type. His undergrad career suggests as much, bouncing from Occidental to Columbia was stepping up in status. He got elected to the law review at Harvard without authoring a single article because he was popular. Got the giant publishing contract for his post-Harvard memoirs, but couldn't write the book. As an adjunct at the U. of Chicago Law School he was famously lazy. Barack Obama is the high-Q, lazy-ass nig writ large. Even his governing style is lazy.
What distinguishes Barack from the others of this sort is that he was a third-culture kid. Raised neither here nor there, he's always felt disconnected from America. This alienation is compounded by the fact that, like a lot of mulattos raised by white women, he's also had a giant problem with his negritude. He's not white, but not fully black. So in Chicago, he had to affirmatively decide to become black, hence Michelle. If you marry a hulking black brute like Michelle Robinson, you've thrown your lot in with The People of the Bix Nood.
tl;dr: Conclusion. Obama doesn't understand America and dislikes Americans, but although he was smart enough to be really dangerous, he was also just another lazy-ass, high-IQ nig happy to coast through his eight years in the White House while collecting his government gibs.
Posted Ricky Vaughn on 08 July 2016 - 09:17 PM
Whereas in the past these people would have a set identity that would give them a framework to identify problems and solutions, now they are so empty, they can only come up with banal pabulum.
These people are formless, they will be like silly putty in the hands of a strongman or an incipient mass movement that will give them a sense of purpose and hope. We see this with the movements generated by Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and Trump. One of the reasons I support Trump is I don't see a resolution to this problem of SCALE, so I figure we might as well make the best of it and get out own strongman in there.
Posted Cinco Jotas on 29 March 2017 - 09:26 PM
First revelation: Based Stick Man is a repeat-offender felon...
Chapman would have been cast as a “thug” and career criminal had he been an anti-fascist protester, but all that is ignored in favor of the manipulative patriot narrative currently being put forward by those camps. It’s important to understand that the relationship of fascists and the right-wing to the rule law is highly utilitarian and superficial, and one that can and will be ignored to create the spectacles of violence and the authority needed for furthering their revolutionary fascist politics.
Whoever wrote this isn't entirely wrong. The right, like the left, does have a somewhat utilitarian approach to the rule of law. The difference is that the left isn't hypocritical about its utilitarianism. They have no problem interpreting law however they want, nor do they have much problem just ignoring it. (Remember Obama unilaterally deciding not to enforce the inconvenient parts of the ACA?)
As for Based Stick Man's criminal history, there's a long and honorable tradition of redemption in battle. Cowards who lead forlorn hopes erase their stains. Petty criminals who fight on the side of right, when few others will, earn honor and can keep it as long as they don't relapse into criminality. We've known for a long time that when the Road Wars to Make America Great finally get here, we'll be fighting alongside some pretty unsavory characters. But when has it every been otherwise? Petty thugs and committed ideologues are the shock troops of revolution.
I've got no problem supporting Kyle Chapman, despite his criminal history, and despite his Proud Boy/Gavin McInnes beliefs. He showed up and tussled with AntiFa when most of us stayed at home. So, props to him for doing that.
Ultimately, what we're seeing here is that the revolutionary vanguard of the Trumpening has begun to coalesce: street fighters and intellectuals.
Speaking of street fighting intellectuals, remember this guy from the Scuffle in San Jose?
He showed up in Berkeley...
His name is Eric Zarahn...
Zarahn is pro-Jew, although I don't think he's Jewish. The AntiFa continues...
Bingo! And this is why you should occasionally take a tour through the hard left and anarchist websites. The MSM and the Democratic party (but I repeat myself) are both filled with stupid people who can't be arsed to look deeply at what's happening in American. They've got their narratives and they're sticking to them, despite tons of evidence to the contrary. But, there ARE some smart and perceptive people on the left, it's just that they're not a big part of the amoral, opportunistic, (a)political class that runs things. Like us, they're more ideological and more committed to their struggle. And also like us, they're the intellectual wing of a revolutionary vanguard.
This is why what's happening right now with Trump is so important. During the 25 years following World War II, the left's revolutionary vanguard captured the zeitgeist, intellectually and culturally. When that happened, the ambitious opportunists (politicians) and those who hang on them (journalists) aligned themselves with the rising narrative. That's how you know a comprehensive political victory is almost won, when the carpetbaggers start showing up to stake their claims. The ideologues pushed their narratives further left, while the politically ambitious held the actual power, made the compromises and collected the laurels. The victory of the left was so complete that Republican politicians--also ambitious, amoral, (a)political operatives--picked up the scraps that fell from the table, staying just far enough behind the left (about a decade) to maintain plausible deniability.
Trump broke that cycle, crushing the dominant narrative, routing the left and flattening the cucks. Trump's political victory was complete, but Trumpism is a nascent narrative, young and strong, but not the dominant narrative. It can only become the ruling narrative by vanquishing its rivals. This is where the revolutionary vanguard comes into its own. Politicians, big media journalists, the Dems, the Cucks and the Neo-Cohens are all unsuited for the struggle we're now fighting. They're insiders and bureaucrats, toadies of power and pullers of levers, not brawlers and polemicists.
The Alt-Right is the revolutionary vanguard of the Trumpening. Our road warriors are stepping forward and our intellectuals are waxing polemical. Meanwhile, the revolutionary vanguard of the left has grown soft and fat on victory. They've alienated their brawlers with gender nonsense and made their intellectuals stupid by forcing them to deny reality. However, this is not a permanent state of affairs. If Trump fails, or if we're not fighting on all fronts, the left will come back. They'll eventually figure out how to fight a memetic war and we'll be in trouble. Trump cannot win this fight alone. He can make the conditions favorable for us to fight, but he can't win the street fights for us, and he can't win the polemical battle without us.
Posted R. Jammington III on 21 March 2017 - 05:54 PM
I thanked him for his time and left
Posted Jewish_Neocon on 29 January 2017 - 03:59 PM
Posted Chicano Studies Major on 29 July 2016 - 05:19 PM
But complex solutions beget creative workarounds and the more we try to optimize these processes by legislative fiat, the more abuse we're inviting. The H1-B program was introduced as a way for companies to hire foreign specialists with rare skills that couldn't be found on the domestic labor market. 20 years later, an entire industry has sprung up just to game this system and pump as many desperate Bangalore graduates as possible through the pipeline. In return for slightly improved hiring conditions in niche industries, we've created a huge open flank on our working class that is being shamelessly abused by the moneymen.
Would the US economy be less competitive if we simply banned the hiring of non-citizens, a very primitive solution to this problem? Certainly. Would this primitive solution improve the lives of countless workers threatened by the mere possibility of H1-B scab replacements? Even more certainly. But our elites are not interested in acknowledging this downside of complexity as they directly or indirectly benefit from it.
Joseph Tainter gives the example of the Byzantine Empire to illustrate how a society forcibly reduced complexity to ensure survival. Threatened by encroaching Arab invaders that the overburdened empire couldn't deal with anymore, it radically shrunk its professional army in favor of peasant militias, devolved administrative power unto the provinces and limited government to core functions. This most certainly reduced the standard of living enjoyed by the inhabitants of the imperial capital in particular, but it allowed for a consolidation process that enabled the empire to repel further invasions. Had they insisted on maintaining a level of complexity that was apparently unsustainable at the time, then Constantinople would've likely fallen to the cult of Mahound centuries before it did.
Likewise, the West is currently facing existential threats that further complexity only seems to exacerbate. A desire to optimize the global division of labor is draining us of our industrial base; a hunger for cheap labor and certain misguided egalitarian beliefs are facilitating the more or less peaceful invasion of foreign peoples; and unmoored individualism is destroying families, gender roles and healthy sexual repression. These problems seem beyond the capacity or even willingness of Western elites to manage. Thus, the only solutions can be radically simple ones: protect industry, build the wall and create a fecund environment for traditional family structures.
Yes, these measures will likely have a negative effect on our hedonistic pleasures. But on our current trajectory of unsustainable complexity, Western civilization will simply cease to exist as anything but a shell or a cargo cult. Byzantium could've chosen to prolong its grip on the provinces for a few more years and reap the material benefits, but its fate would've been similarly grim.
Simplicity is the dictate of the hour. We should embrace this invective our enemies so carelessly throw around and make the case that a simpler society is indeed the more attractive choice and our only means of survival as Anglo-Saxon and European peoples. Nobody should have to acquire intercultural competencies just to navigate his everyday life. Nobody should have to be expected to move around like a gypsy just to earn a living. Nobody should have to worry that his children will come back as genderqueer trannies after spending time at some faraway college removed from all social constraints.
People have fond memories of the world that used to be precisely because they didn't have to worry about any of that. Life really was simpler and it was great. Let's make it simple and great again.
Posted Ricin Beans on 28 June 2016 - 04:49 PM
Why would anyone not trust experts? I mean, other than a few mistakes, like a series of unwinnable wars, continually increasing inequality and the erosion of the middle class, disastrous immigration policies, and financial crises that seem to get more frequent every generation, they've been pretty much perfect.
Evidence of the failure of the experts aside, there's an obvious issue staring our author in the face and he somehow can't understand his own words: These people have never taken into account that people can care about anything other than GDP. Leaders have understood this for centuries and yet our self selected "experts" have studiously forgotten it.
I mean he's literally coming out and saying it: it's the rich and their foreign pets against the middle class. BUT WHY WON'T THOSE STUPID PROLES GET ON BOARD WITH WHAT IS GOOD FOR US AND THUS FOR EVERYONE (presumably they can drive our Ubers).
A good way to start would be to hire immigrant thug squads to bust up their rallies. Maybe get control of the media and use it to slander them. Another possibility would just be to ban their political parties and referenda (after all you know who else used votes? HITLER http://www.dailymail...ted-Dachau.html
One thing that had never really occurred to me until I read this: these people think they are doing a heck of a job (Brownie). They think that things are just hunky dory and nobody has any legitimate complaints. And they have no intention of changing anything or even taking a serious look at themselves. They are going to ride this train all the way to the guillotine.
As for the profile of our writer, well it's no surprise that he echoes and that he went to all the right schools and comes from the right background
Well there you go. This is our degenerate jewish elite, and they are going to save us from ourselves. They've learned the "lessons of history" after all. And if history teaches any lessons, it's that detached elites holding their subjects in contempt and recruiting support from stateless aliens never get their comeuppance.
Posted Chicano Studies Major on 24 June 2016 - 10:00 AM
It's either "we didn't explain the EU's benefits well enough" (translation: proles are stupid and slow), "prejudice prevailed over reason" (translation: proles are morally repugnant) or "now is the time to relaunch the EU as a truly European project" (translation: the proles just wanted more rootless globalism). None of them get it. This was a vote on ethnic integrity, national sovereignty and the most basic kind of political freedom: the freedom not to have petty tyrants in foreign lands dictate your way of life.
Leftists care about none of that. They just don't understand how anyone could object to the EU's inoffensive multicultural officialism. The ideal world of a left-liberal intellectual is a gargantuan city state filled with all colors and creeds who believe in inconsequential variations of liberal dogma and complacently submit themselves to the benevolent social engineering of a caring bureaucracy. Judging by the shocked and horrified reactions to our latest referendum, they also cannot imagine how anyone could not love this idea.
Indeed, the tide of history was briefly on the side of the left. Rapid increases in material wealth and urbanization produced a populace that was willing to give uprooted globalism a fair try. The failure of this project is increasingly visible to anyone but left-liberal dogmatists, who bitterly cling to their granola and COEXIST bumper stickers and lash out at anyone who demands change. But now that Based Nigel has dealt an embarrassing blow to one of their great pet projects in the most public way, the genie is definitely out of the bottle.
Dear shitlibs, batten down the hatches over your safe spaces - a storm of completely unchecked privilege and unreconstructed bigotry is brewing.
Posted Bersicker on 19 April 2017 - 11:46 AM
Posted Terrence Rhine on 24 July 2016 - 09:20 PM
…Mine is not a nice piece. But it is a sincere and I think truthful one. Trump supporters will not like it, but some of them may experience a shock, or at least a tremor, of recognition.
If he does say so himself. We will now proceed to see about that but let me hint at the ending: the contents of the lexicon are perfectly recognizable but Nordlinger’s self-congratulation about such an elementary list is unwarranted, and the shallowness of his take on the terms is significant.
As he says right away, Nord does not consider himself to be addressing the Alt Right (“I am not going to talk about the Nazis or the fascists or the racists or the ‘identitarians.’”), and he segregates the term “cuck” from the other terms he discusses. But the fact is that he is talking about the Alt Right, because the terms and ideas he grapples with here are what the rising real Right is really all about—he just can’t see it past the gas chamber memes. (He does say “I may address them another day” so, you know, ) If anything, the reason these concepts aren’t merely “alt right” is that they’re bigger and more basic and inherently more mainstream than that, they’ve just been repressed until now.
So though he tries to segregate it with the Alt Right and pass it over in this piece, the actual first term in his Trumpster lexicon that he has a jaundiced view of is our favorite one, our masterpiece, our baby:
So we writers at National Review, for example, would be “cuckservatives,” led by “William F. Cuckley.” That’s the way they talk.
It would take a heart of stone to read this without laughing and swelling with pride at how much eloh’s stupid little term still gets to them after well over a year now. (yes note to Nordlinger for when he’s ready to research his follow-up piece on the racists: the term was coined by forums martyr “eloh” in one of his meltdowns; I’m available for interviews on this Jay let’s talk)
The best summation of what a cuckservative is goes like this: a conservative who loves his country so much that he wants everybody to be able to move into her. Nordlinger presumably believes the dark-skin rapist angle to be hysterical, but that’s not really the charge. The charge is that cucks do not dedicate their politics to their own posterity but to that of others. They may love their country, but they insist that she belongs to everybody. Here Nordlinger would typically object that NR supports immigration restriction and then neglect to mention their consistent support of pro-immigration politicians and also that William F. Cuckley fired the immigration restrictionists.
We then come to the Trump folk terms proper:
For the record I still use and embrace the terms “cosmopolitan,” “rootless cosmopolitan,” and “Jew,” all still terrific epithets in my opinion. If Jay’s interested there is also “merchant,” “traveling friends,” and my favorite, “high-functioning gypsies.”
As Orwell said, depriving a concept of a name is powerful. What name then will Jay allow us to give the thing we are talking about when we say “globalist” or “rootless cosmopolitan” ? What would be the non-nonsense word?
Nordlinger loves bitching about the petty linguistic tyrannies of the Left. Yet he is never more effeminately leftist himself than in his frequent habit of accusing people of using anti-semitic code whenever they complain about bankers or the 1% or globalists or whatever. What terms will he accept that are neither nonsense nor code for “Jew” when we want to describe that thing that “globalist” is meant to describe—you know the thing that Romney and Ryan and the GOP donors are, that thing that Americans don’t want to be but that prior to Trump no one was willing to grant them a legitimate opposition to? Nordlinger insists that he and NR have been pro-sovereignty this whole time, but then why does he sneer at using a word to describe the opposite?
Ryan and his congress just pushed through (using lies and backroom secrecy) a trade deal that could not possibly be considered pro-sovereignty—what word are we allowed to use for it?
“Even if you have been arguing for a restrictionist immigration policy your entire career.” Yes and supporting mass immigration politicians your entire career.
“At some cost to yourself.” Peter Brimelow et al were not available for comment.
Nord proceeds to tell some pretentious story about the Khmer Rouge, his point being that “open borders” when hurled against noble immigration restrictionists like NR is a meaningless epithet like a communist calling someone “CIA.” (Or a neocon calling someone “fascist,” or a cuck calling someone “racist”…). But George W. Bush really did try to have open borders—his immigration proposal in 2004 was a visa for anyone who could get a position as a serf, along with their families. Paul Ryan really did just pass open borders trade legislation—the president can bring in any new workers he wants. The question is why isn’t “open borders” an epithet that NR throws around, if they’re such immigration hawks?
Open borders for Israel / Israel Firsters / Neocons / Perpetual or endless war
He doesn’t have much to say here except to whine about the terms. The commitment of the now-dying conservative movement to idiotic belligerence in e.g. Syria isn’t even addressed.
yeah it is
This is a strawman made out of run-of-the-mill Trump supporters that denies the larger ideological movement that at its heights certainly does know what a neocon is (a lot of his evaluations here are strawmen about imprecision). But at any rate Nordlinger doesn’t want to educate us on what a neocon is. That’s because he’d prefer the word not exist, Orwell-style. He always tries to paper neocon foreign policy with something like “Reaganite”—fighting for freedom wherever there’s trouble.
Despite the number of terms here that address the American empire in Israel’s neighborhood, Nordlinger doesn’t bother to explain why any of this is wrong and acts like he doesn’t understand the spirit behind the terms. We have been at war in the Middle East for decades and all of Nordlinger’s politicians want us to add and escalate new ones. Yet while we fight them over there we have to let everyone move here, according to NR’s preferred candidates. Nordlinger pretending not to understand the dispute here is the main area where he seems less goofily, childishly clueless and genuinely sinisterly dishonest.
well of course that’s what someone in the establishment would say
haha no let’s still call him a RINO
Donor class / cocktail parties / Elites
when the shock wears off
Here he continues his approach of just ignoring the case behind these expressions and whining about them (how is he not working for the donor class when he promotes their mass immigration politicians?), but one tack that his whining takes is telling:
He does this a lot in his writing, moaning that “class” is supposed to be a left-wing thing. It’s impressive how consistently it fails to occur to him that maybe there is something to “class” as a political concern if so many people insist on bringing it up. In his Orwellian disdain for so much as using the words “class,” “elite,” “donor,” he just reconfirms that he isn’t really on the side of sovereignty, immigration control, or Americans at all.
It’s not about ideology / It’s not about box-checking
Well it wasn’t about ideology when Nordlinger supported Bush, McCain, and Romney. They failed whole rows of boxes on the NR checklist—Bush explicitly rejected small government in 2000, reacting to the Republican defeats of the Clinton years; McCain agreed with NR on basically nothing significant but war—but NR supported them and Nordlinger loved them gayly. What people mean by “it’s not about ideology” is the same thing as when they reject left vs. right in favor of nationalism vs. globalism. Trump is the first politician in decades running on the platform that we (like Israel) deserve to have our own country. We can argue about what kind of policies to have in that country incidentally but we need to reestablish that it is our country first. Nordlinger is pretending that the “America is a marketplace for everyone” approach of his beloved Romney, Ryan etc would leave any kind of country left for us actual Americans to argue policy in.
You’re for Hillary / Another vote for Hillary / The primary is over
(Nerdlinger tendentiously punctuates a lot of these with exclamation points to make the Trumpsters sound bratty but I'm not going to do that. Jay himself is a real sissy though so it wouldn't be inappropriate to imagine a lot of his self-pitying sentences in this article as crybaby exclamations)
He whines that he’s being told he’s helping Hillary by not holding his nose and voting for the imperfect GOP candidate. Yet disaffected whites were supposed to vote for Dole, Bush, Mccain, etc…
Your time is over
don’t worry Jay I will probably keep doing posts about you long after the now-defunct National Review is literally gone (i.e., a few months from now)
George Will, classic conservative.
Mona Charen, you’re not a conservative.
Now we’re getting somewhere but the bottom line is that there is no conservatism—no small government, no self-government, no accountable government, no traditional culture—with globalism or mass immigration. Just the nth example of how Nordlinger is lying when he insists he and NR are immigration restrictionists; he says he is and then he says someone who supports transformational migration can be a conservative.
lol fuck you the anti-Trump cucks have been threatening retribution this whole campaign. it’s just sadder coming from them because their time has passed
He concludes with some pompous note on respect for the truth: “Live not by lies” *fires John Derbyshire*
Nordlinger thinks language is his wheelhouse but this piece is just pathetic: it’s mostly crying about boilerplate expressions and piling on imprecise colloquialisms used by nonprofessional civilians. “It’s not about checklists, you’re not a true [group identity here]”—these are just things rank and file people will always say. Nordlinger is just being a baby imbuing them with importance.
But there is something else behind this. The persistent themes are effeminate butthurt and next level disingenuousness about the stage of the road the Right has come to. When I say this article really is about the Alt Right whether he admits it or not it’s because the political direction that this lexicon represents—its preoccupation with globalism, the donor class, elites, immigration and foreign policy unrelated to American interests—is the new north star of the Right, and of the patriotic, tradition-and-liberty-desiring American citizenry that constitutes it. And Nordlinger doesn’t know how to deal with it.
Posted Cinco Jotas on 11 July 2016 - 07:36 PM
In a lot of ways, the left-wing line of thought is based on a belief of white superiority...
Of course it is. All of them--left wingers, Blacks, Chinese, even Jews-- act like whites are the most dangerous people on the planet because we are. We're the most capable, the most innovative, and the most systematically violent people on earth, and the reality of that is as plain as day.
In the last 500 years, Europeans and their descendants in North America pummeled the world into submission, and when we ran out of opponents we pummeled each other in the two biggest and baddest wars the world has ever seen. After that, when it was clear that we had the ability to destroy all human life, every post-war institution, western or Soviet, worked to keep whites from making war on each other again. We understand that Germany has been deliberately neutered, lest it make war again, but we don't usually understand that all the rest of the white nations have also been deliberately neutered for the same reason.
The great post-war project has been the deracination of whites via the elimination of nationalism in the first world, the construction of interdependent political and economic systems, and the moral burdening of white society. Yes, the elites personally benefit from this, but they feel justified because they're keeping whites (including themselves) on the leash, and thus preventing the apocalypse. There's a lot of complex moving parts in this system, and a mountain of self-deception and pious lies, but that's it in a nutshell; we've purposely hobbled ourselves so that we don't blow up the world. (The Jews, who are honestly terrified of goys, didn't start this program, but they've benefited from it greatly and helped push it forward for their own purposes.)
As for Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al: we allow ourselves to be bogged down fighting petty wars against semi-savages because that's part of the post-war hobbling. Does anyone doubt that if we really wanted to solve our Islamic terrorism problem we couldn't do it in a weekend? We solved the problem of having to invade Imperial Japan in a couple days in August of 1945 with piston engine planes and optical bomb sights. With the Arabs you wouldn't even need nukes. They're not Japs. They can be brought around with an exemplary firebombing or two. Start with Riyadh.
That's what everyone knows at some level and everyone is terrified of, that whites suddenly regain the will to act in their own interest. And that's why Trump is spooking them all, because when the Saxon begins to hate, it's game over.
Posted Ricin Beans on 08 July 2016 - 05:04 PM
I've noticed that almost all of it has a few characteristics in common.
1) It's cliched
It's almost as if it runs through a standard set of stock phrases and ideas. "Thoughts and prayers", "cycle of violence", "we need more love". Sometimes the more verbally adept will find better ways to say these things but they all ultimately say the same thing.
2) It's filled with a sense of helplessness
It's almost aggressive in expressing its unwillingness to confront, or even understand, the awful things that are being discussed. It's almost as if they think that this is somehow meaningful or expressive in and of itself.
3) It's emotionally stunted and devoid of content
There's never a suggestion to solve or ameliorate a problem. And when there's not an approved villain (i.e. whites, cops, or better yet white cops) there's never critique, commentary, or even anger. Without a villain it's a "tragedy", not unlike a hurricane or an earthquake. The problem of evil is never considered, much less root causes. There's just an empty sadness.
So why do these Deep Thoughts exist in such large numbers, and why are they so annoying? It's not typically mean spirited, and for the most part it's not rooted in smarm. I think the people who write this stuff are earnest. I think that they feel that they need to "say something" to let people know that they care. But with their thoughts so thoroughly circumscribed by the limits of Nice thought, they are stuck with this empty pablum. And it's annoying because it drowns out anything that might lead to a solution, or at least an improvement.
Posted SeventhSonTRS on 26 January 2016 - 08:17 AM
Thanks for coming on, Pman. It was a lot of fun.
Posted George Hiwuhi on 31 January 2017 - 05:27 PM
Hot damn, American tech workers jumped for joy! As it happens 130k is just above inflation, which has nearly halved salary values since H1-B legislation was last passed in 1989. If only this legislation was such that we wouldn't need to pass future legisla...
HALLELUJAH PRAISE THE LORD
My friend is a technical recruiter, and this will would utterly eliminate any chance of his company ever hiring an H1-B again. Certainly, out here in my state there is no H1-B worth that price tag. In fact, let's take a closer look at the nationwide numbers.
Less than 10% of H1-B holders nationwide would meet these new salary requirements! Take a look at the above link and check out the salaries in your local area. Here in my state we'd be ditching 97%+ of our H1-Bs.
By the God Emperor, make this happen.
Posted Chicano Studies Major on 01 January 2017 - 09:02 AM
These cold winter days around the turn of the year make for great reflection, and there certainly was a lot to reflect on. I hope this won't just devolve into a subconscious rehashing of Jung Man's seminal remarks from November - but I'll give a little credit in advance just in case (and a strong hint to Jung Man to POAST MOAR).
I think I speak for many among my faggot generation when I say that we've always felt like strangers in our own lands. The end of history afterglow of the 90s was quickly extinguished by the WTC attacks, the rise of the surveillance state, Bush-era neoconservatism, good jobs disappearing to Asia left and right. As if this wasn't bad enough, the political reaction to this mess came in the form of Obama and unhinged postmodern leftism. Obama was the first leader of the free world I experienced as an adult, and his reign made abundantly clear that my feelings had been right: this was not meant to be my world anymore.
Like so many others, I experienced my politically formative years as an outcast in the wilderness, uneasily juggling libertarianism, MRA talking points, HBD spergery and the warped moral framework that so many Millennials have acquired, trying to make it fit somehow. But while the old guard in all these fringe movements seemed to have fond recollections of a world that once was, I didn't. There was no hope. There was only techno-aristocracy and working as a depth groveler after the 2070 paradigm shift. But gallows humor didn't make it better, and neither did Charles Murray or Steve Sailer.
As the refugee crisis in Europe unfolded, I was all but ready to throw in the towel. Exhausted peoples signing away their future under the macabre tutelage of cat ladies and NGOs. Every last bit of reactionary culture pessimism was seemingly confirmed. What could a single person possibly do to reverse this?
But what my depressiveness concealed from me was that so many others were asking the same question, waiting impatiently for the opportunity to enact meaningful change. And then, seemingly out of nowhere, it started happening. Big things, small things, everything was in motion: the current year had arrived. As millions of dissatisfied deplorables around the world started punching the hollow facade of managerial liberalism, we finally noticed how many we are and how scared our superiors were of us. Sure, they could still try and pick off some of us individually, but they couldn't stop the movement as a whole.
20, 30, maybe 40 years of things going slowly but steadily downhill had finally awoken the Saxon and gotten him in the right mood to pick a fight:
This is still my favorite video of the last current year. It's the defamed stale pale male, slightly greyed, hugely outnumbered, but not afraid, not backing down, drawing energy from the fight in real time. A walking, talking trigger to undesirables of all stripes, just like his commander-in-chief, the great and inimitable Donald J. Trump.
Such is the world we live in now. Such is the current year. Hear the ongoing lamentations of cucks and shitlibs, know that you've been given another chance and rejoice, for this is 2017 and our dead gay civilization is finally in conversion therapy.
Posted Jeffrey Johnson on 21 June 2016 - 02:46 PM
I flew into Monterrey which is a big modern city in Northern Mexico. I had heard that it was the most modern city in Mexico and had the highest standard of living in Mexico. When we got off the airplane and had to pass through migration we were divided into two lines for people entering Mexico on Mexican passports and American passports. In the line for people with Mexican passports the people were all tall, well off and most of all they were very White. You could see that these were the descendents of Spaniards. The line for people travelling with American passports were overwhelmingly short mestizo looking Mexicans who came to America as illegals.
You can see that Mexico is literally dumping its Indians and mestizos on America with its emigration policies. While I was waiting in line I got thinking about Mexico’s policy of dumping its Indians and mestizos on America. Mexico gets three big advantages from sending its Indians and mestizos to America. First of all they get to dump its least intelligent and motivated people onto America. They don’t have to deal with their crime, poverty and other problems and they make America deal with them. Second Mexico makes lots of money from Mexicans in America making Mexico a wealthier country. Third Mexico gets to lower the birthrate of their Indians and mestizos. If the men from their underclass are off in America working, committing crime and collecting welfare, they aren’t in their villages making more poor babies. It has a eugenic effect on Mexico’s population.
One of the things I respected about Mexico was the way they handled migration. They had more workers getting all the Mexican citizens through migration first and then once the Mexicans were through migration, they opened up all the windows to the Americans. In the States we have to have equal amounts of windows serving American citizens and foreigners which makes the foreigners get through first while Americans are standing in line. Wouldn’t it be great if Americans got nice benefits like getting through migration at the airport first, like what happens in Mexico? It would be great if our government gave us small benefits that showed that they fundamentally on our side.
After we got through migration and customs my girlfriend’s dad picked us up. He drove us down into the city. I noticed two things about Monterrey. First of all there weren’t the shanty towns that you see in many cities in Latin America. We drove by some places that were older and for sure were crappy but it wasn’t worse than cities like Oakland or Los Angeles. Second the city wasn’t polluted. Normally when I go to Latin America I spend the whole time coughing from all the pollution. In Monterrey the cars were all pretty modern. I was surprised by this because Monterrey was in a valley between mountains and I expected it to be highly polluted because it is an industrial city. Most of the industry is new and modern. You can see that when American businesses went to Mexico with NAFTA they built new and beautiful factories there.
When we got to my girlfriend’s house two things jumped out. First of all in her neighborhood they didn’t have to stay totally locked up. In many Latin American cities the well off people have to lock themselves in their neighborhoods because everything that isn’t locked down gets stolen. While there are lots of security controlled neighborhoods, in Monterrey middle class people don’t have to be on total lock down. Second when we got into her house, it was brutally hot inside.
Monterrey is a very hot city and humid city and it affects everything that goes on there. It doesn’t cool off enough until 3 or 4 in the morning for most people to sleep. Everybody has air conditioners but they can’t get you cooled down until very late at night. Because people don’t get to sleep until late at night, the work day doesn’t start there until late in the day, even for the middle and upper class corporate jobs. The work day goes from 11 AM until 7 or 8 PM. People who have to work early all end up doing siesta in the afternoon when it is so hot the heat just makes people lie around in a stupor.
Another big thing I noticed was how much soda people consumed. It is super hot and humid there. People don’t drink the tap water because its Mexican water and nobody wants to get sick. I’ve read that the obesity epidemic is worse in Mexico than in America. You can see that the obesity epidemic comes from the vast amounts of soda everybody drinks. In the next 15 years or so Mexico is going to have lots of people dropping dead from Type-2 diabetes.
After being in Mexico for a few days, I was low grade sleep deprived and I noticed that everybody else was low grade sleep deprived. Even the middle class and upper class people are sleep deprived. It hurts the productivity of everybody not just the poor Indians and mestizos.
On Saturday I went for a day trip with my girlfriend, her sister and her sister’s boyfriend. In Monterrey the people with money all buy lots of toys. As we were driving out of town we saw tons of trucks towing boats, ATV’s and those Razor things. We ended up at a day resort and near us there was a big party going on. These guys were just pounding down the booze and then driving their ATV’s and their Razors at high speeds around town and up into the hills. They spent all day drinking and driving. These were 40 and 50 year old men, playing loud obnoxious music, getting drunk and driving their recreation vehicles around. You can see that the national pastime in Mexico isn’t soccer but its driving drunk. You can see that drunk driving is a big part of Mexico’s culture. Mexicans love to drive drunk and it makes the roads unsafe. I’m amazed that there aren’t even more deaths on the road due to all the drunk driving.
One of the things that jumps out at you down in Mexico after taking the red pill is how race affects everything there. Just by looking at people you can determine their economic class. The lower classes are dark, mestizo and short. When you go to a poorer part of town everybody is an Indian. In the better parts of town the people are taller and lighter. When you go to nice restaurants the people eating there all look like they are right out of Europe, while the serving staff is very dark.
America is a hyper political country. Everything in America is political. There is always a new degeneracy being pushed by our government and (((media.))) In Mexico there is no mention of politics. It seems that on one hand the people know that their government is hopelessly corrupt and stealing from them while at the same time the government and (((media))) isn’t rubbing everybody’s nose in it.
It’s interesting to see how people in Mexico like their country. You can see that the upper class there isn’t hammered with conquistador guilt. The upper class Mexicans all talk about how they are all Mexicans where as in America everybody is divided into their own different group to keep everybody divided. The Mexican media is controlled by (((certain groups))) but they don’t attack Mexico’s upper class. Objectively Mexico is a prime country for (((certain groups))) to mess with because everything is divided by race but their (((media))) doesn’t attack the White culture. If there ever were a country where “White Privilege” is real, it’s Mexico.
One of the things I noticed about Mexico is how the people seemed better connected with family and friends. When people praise Mexican culture you always hear about how they are more family oriented. The thing I noticed about Mexicans being more family oriented is because their (((media))) and schools don’t spend all their time attacking the family. As I thought about it the thing that I realized was Mexicans being more family and friends oriented is what America and Europe was like before (((certain people))) destroyed the family. It made me sad to realize that before European culture was purposely destroyed we had all the good parts of Mexican culture without all of its baggage.
Across all economic classes Mexicans are more extroverted than Americans. You can see the racial differences between Americans and Mexicans. Americans are overwhelmingly from Northern Europe while upper class Mexicans are overwhelmingly from Spain. Even after leaving our respected European homelands, hundreds of years later we still have the same tendencies as people in our home countries.
When I was out on the town at the mall one of the things that jumped out was I never saw girls with blue hair or weird body piercings. Lots of middle and upper class girls would dye their hair blond to try to look Northern European. The girls were prettier on average than girls you see at the mall in America. The girl quality in Monterrey is very good. You can really see how American women have been degraded when you realize that American women should look just as good as the girls down in Mexico.
There is a huge militarized police presence in Monterrey. You see tons of police trucks with a cop in the back with a big machine gun mounted to the top of the car. On the last day we took a day trip to the mountains. On our way back in to town one of the men with us pointed out a freeway overpass and told me that was the spot where the drug cartels hanged and lynched some small time street vendors who refused to pay protection money. You’ve probably seen those photos; they are very graphic and disturbing. I was at that exact spot. While on one hand, there isn’t as much petty crime as in other Latin American cities you are still surrounded by violence and you know that something bad can happen at any time. All the people still have to live in low grade fear. It’s very tragic.
You can see why Mexico’s government is so desperate to keep Donald Trump from getting elected president. If America builds a wall and stops the flow of Indians and mestizos from Mexico crossing to America it will take away Mexico’s pressure safety valve. Mexico is dependent on people leaving to improve its demographics and improve its economy. If America deports the illegals it will send 15 to 40 million people back to Mexico. Cities like Monterrey instantly will have huge shanty towns pop up over night. They will get tons of petty criminals who will prey on the middle and upper middle classes. Almost overnight Mexicans will have to barricade themselves so that everything they have doesn’t get stolen.
Mexico doesn’t want to get its illegals back. Many of the illegals in America are now very used to getting their monthly welfare checks and EBT cards. They are going to try to get similar benefits out of the Mexican government. These people have been politicized by America’s hyper political Cultural Marxist society. They are going to want their gibsmedats. Either Mexico’s government will have to give them their gibsmedats, bankrupting the country or Mexico won’t give it to them and suddenly have millions of angry people wanting free stuff. You can easily see how these people can easily become a revolutionary movement.
Also there are many illegals here in America who do work hard. When they have to go back they will push the wages down for lots of Mexicans. Also they have acquired skills here in America but in Mexico they won’t be able to use them because of the weaker economy and the fact that people really do factor race into hiring practices. When these returned illegals see real racial discrimination back in Mexico after learning all about it in America, Mexico will have millions more angry people.
None of this is America’s problem because it was Mexico who decided to view America as a place to dump millions. We must build the wall because if these people go back, it is going to destabilize Mexico and cause them massive problems. If we do deportations without a wall; Mexican destabilization could cause an even bigger rush to come to America. America could benefit from sending the Mexicans back and its destabilization. If Mexico descends into chaos, businesses will want to get out of there and bring jobs back. Plus many Mexican businesses will want to jump ship on Mexico and come here. The Great Wall of Trump will protect us and bring us economic benefits.
The Mexican government has a ton to lose from a Trump presidency. We can expect Mexico’s government to meddle as much as possible in the 2016 election. We can expect lots of Mexican hordes attacking Trump rallies and protestors. Mexico has a ton to lose from a Trump presidency and will do everything possible to stop him.
That was my week in Mexico and the lessons I learned from it.
Posted Gabourey Sidibe's Booking Agent on 02 November 2015 - 08:06 PM
It was owned by a since disgraced Saudi family with pretensions of grandeur who really only wanted a media front to play with. The scion was off at Davos all the time, hobnobbing with Clinton, etc. Court connected, a minister, the whole thing. I never once met him, even though I was designated a legal director of the company. It had been run by a bindi and was a complete scam—basically being looted by the employees and a joke in the marketplace. Bind’s big plan was to get Canadian visa for his retarded kid, which he eventually got. I got zero support from anyone and it was a complete nightmare from day 1.
A prestige editor turned out to have a taste for $800 bottles of wine and 2 hour workdays and my first act was to blow him up. He was one of these fuckers who traipsed about in the whole white Bedu get-up and admittedly looking amazing. Everyone said not to do it as he had a notorious Saudi temper and was connected. I did and he slunk off never to be heard of again.
Then I had a Syrian journo who liked to stay in the office until late—like 2 am. A photog came into office dropping off equipment and found him jerking it to online porn—which we could access because we were based in Dubai Media City, where they didn’t block the internet. Of course it was caught on camera, which had been installed because of the employee theft of equipment that had been going on. That was an interesting meeting the next day—the guy was 45, married, kids… I didn’t end up blowing him up and he actually behaved himself after that.
I had a bindi tea boy who claimed he had an MBA from some diploma mill in India who we had to fire because he attempted to rape one of the bindi secretaries. Nice.
Had a delivery guy who was a deserter from the Paki army. Turned out to be pretty good actually!
I had a bindi custom guy in full uniform try to shake me down because of some bullshit postage thing for $50k. Told him to fuck off—only worked because I was white as he had done it before with the former bindi MD.
Did an event at a big 5 star hotel which was pretty well attended. An Emir was keynoting at some big finance thing that no one showed up for at the same time and he ended up crashing our event, pretending it was HIS event, even though it had nothing to do with him. Only in Dubai.
Had a sales guy who took a week holiday. Three weeks later, Dubai police dropped in—he did a pump and dump, siphoning about 100k from easily available credit cards and ended up on the lam and bought into a brothel in Bangkok.
Had a raving Saudi literally come off the street and demand I pay him because his family was ‘in need’—had no idea what his deal was and half figured he might have been a local. Ended up giving him the bum’s rush, but only after very careful consideration. Piss off the locals and you wind up in deep shit, white or not.
The locals got into mischief that never made the press. A stupid Swiss kid got raped by his Emirati ‘pals’, ended up with aids and the shitlib mother who dared to complain was thrown out of the country. No charges ever brought. Sword fights amongst clans in the lesser known emirates were common. Lots of weird exotic pets were popular like tigers and alligators. There was a court case around someone who sold a black rock to locals who claimed it would shield them from a bullet. Sorcery charges WERE brought. Drugs rampant. Fag hook-ups between bindis and/or Arabs VERY common (they even had back of paper personal ads which I found bizarre considering it was all totally illegal). $1 a day bindi slave labour run down on highway meant their family was entitled to blood money—about $2k—but only if it was proven (rarely of course).
Came home from a break in Sydney to find out my driver had been using my car as a gypsy cab and my leased car had been impounded by police. Took him three months of salary to pay the fine off, dumb shit. Said driver insisted on acting as my spy, beginning every conversation with “Sir, I must inform you…” with some staff nonsense I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about.
Big treat for the bindis were holidays where they’d get to eat biriani, which contains goat meat. They’d bring me in a dish which, after spotting some goat hair, I promptly dumped in the bin. Sometimes, they’d get together to buy a goat, which you had to do for some moon cult holidays.
Wife, daughter and sister came to visit before I actually got an apartment and I was in a scummy (but still expensive) long term hotel. The stove didn’t work and they must have sent up ten bindis with three different stoves they wheeled in. Every time they’d spend an hour checking it out then declare—“This cooker don’t work!” and wheel it out again.
Had to go to Riyahd and Jeddah for meetings. Had one guy tell me how great the Bin Ladens were and that they were really ‘good guys’. .50 cals and bomb checks to get into the Intercontinental. Got detained at airport by army guy who refused to accept my passport, even though I had all the permissions, stamps, etc—scary stuff.
Labour camps jammed with Bangladeshis, Russian whores at the Marriott, burqua’d Saudi women blowing thousands in mall jaunts, low class Brit chav builders brought in to do construction management they had no training for, ‘residential developments’ that collapsed leaving dumb assed western investors destitute— every day was a parade of mindless incompetence and almost child-like magical belief that if they aped westernisms, it would all come out all right.
My contract concluded just as GFC was exploding. People were just abandoning their leased Mercedes at the airport and GTFO. It was surreal. It was a long two years and I earned every penny I made. And no, never again. Never, ever again. I will only ever work in White People places after my time in Dumbai.
Posted Chicano Studies Major on 20 January 2017 - 07:50 PM
Turns out that endless wars, Soviet-level surveillance, suspension of basic rights, epidemic poverty and decadent golfing are just fine if, and only if, the people in charge are diverse. All of Dubya's sins would have been forgiven, indeed never even brought up, if only he had been black, gay or a woman.
There's no more denying that this is the one and only remaining moral category of the left, which is why so many normies have turned away from it in frustration and disgust.
Posted dain on 19 November 2016 - 10:18 AM
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 02 February 2014 - 12:51 AM
One of the most common arguments for relationship-hopping is that you need to find out who you are compatible with. God forbid you fail to optimize your relationship stats. You have to have sex with several people and live with several people and perhaps marry several people before you can be sure you are with your soul mate.
The best argument in favor of settling down early is strong but seldom made. Maybe for some people it won't do much good, because due to a lot of bad influences they approach relationships selfishly--what am I getting out of this? Any relationship is necessarily a subordination of self, so it's very hard to make relationships work when that is your attitude.
Because of this subordination a relationship always captures a part of you more or less permanently, which you can think of as the sum of shared memories, feelings, and changes over its course. Those experiences belong to the relationship, and when you leave the relationship you leave them in a past that continues to recede. One of the things that makes relationship endings so painful is the loss of those experiences from what you might think of as your current existence. Sometimes it feels like a kind of death and takes years of grieving to get over. It's the pain of losing a part of yourself that was fused with that relationship.
The most vivid experiences you have are often firsts, as in your first trip abroad or your first apartment or your first job or your first home or your first move away from where you grew up. Much like a lot of physical experiences, the first captures the greatest degree of intensity and subsequent iterations lose emotional resonance. These are important experiences in isolation, but when shared with someone they involve an extra quality of experience--well, we're social creatures. If you go to a comedy club alone, no matter how funny the comedian is, it's not the same as being there with someone who is sharing your enjoyment.
All of these first experiences change you, but when you end a relationship and start a new one you are essentially rebooting to a new, smaller set of shared experiences that can never include already experienced changes. Not only have you lost some part of the experiences you shared with someone else (in my experience they don't retain the same vitality they had after a breakup), but as changing experiences they are excluded from all subsequent relationships.
This is true even with bad experiences, which oddly enough can also be important in binding people together. Surviving a tough financial stretch, or getting burglarized, or losing your job, or becoming hospitalized--these also provide an important social glue, and when the relationship in which they took place expires you lose out on the binding effect they gave.
If you keep ending and starting relationships often enough, you will eventually reach the point where all your new relationships are relatively shallow partnerships, where the best of both of you--at any rate the changes that made you who you are--lies in the past.
I think we intuitively know all this, and it's partly why people will choose to coast in a relationship that isn't going anywhere vs. breaking it off (it's also just a lot of work to break off a relationship of significant duration). Why relationships coast is a whole other subject, as is why people end up picking unsuitable partners. But the way we experience our own past and the way we socially bond suggest that we should avoid as much as possible starting over from scratch.
Posted Hazmat Harry on 15 June 2017 - 08:32 PM
Posted Alcofribas Nasier on 11 March 2017 - 12:53 AM
Google campus. Imagine working for a company that sees these as a "perk."
What will you do when you see Islamophobic harassment?
I don't even know why I choose these signs to take a picture of. They are all over the place. These are a long way from the most shitlibby on the block.
This is probably the most politically interesting photo that I took today. Need a job? A reasonably creepy guy, 40-50 years old, white and probably shitlib, saw me take this picture, and asked me "who would pay that sort of money for activism?" I didn't miss a beat, "George Soros." Then he asks "what sort of work do you think it is?" "Wearing masks, carrying baseball bats, and shutting down free speech."
I don't remember the third side, but it was surprisingly not "Put Trump in the Dump."
This was the least objectionable panhandler of the day, today. The worst are the musicians who play for donations in crowded rush-hour cars. I missed taking a picture this evening of a shitlib woman kneeling on the sidewalk next to the parked wheelchair of a panhandler, listening to the sob story with a "I feel you pain" face.
The hallucination part is right.
The homeless are all over the place, even in ritzy parts of San Francisco. I couldn't bring myself to take a picture of anyone with open sores and disease, etc.
Good luck finding anything that works in the BART system. Non-functioning elevators and escalators are standard for one of the wealthiest cities in the US. And this is one of the better stations by far. The next station is a scene from Mad Max.
Notice the stain between the man's legs. Be glad that photographs don't capture smell. After snapping this, I moved way down the platform, just in case he decided to get on the train. He did decide to get on the train, and marched down the entire length of it looking for a seat that he could take a nap on. This was after rush hour, but still on a reasonably crowded train.
I missed taking pictures of so much today, including the tranny on the train coming home, and the 35-year-old guy in the "X-Wing Test Pilot" hat next to me reading some sort of Stars Wars wiki thing. I know that there are a few other Shitlibistan posters here, and any of them can tell you that I haven't even captured 1% of what it's like here.
Posted Moxie on 20 December 2016 - 08:31 PM
The casualties of war. Every winter the older bees will commit seppuku for the make glorious benefit for the hive!
The bee yard at the beginning of the year. The main hive is two large boxes which is where the queen lays eggs, young is raised, and pollen and honey is stored.
The bee with the blue dot is the queen. If you pay extra when you buy a package of bees they will mark her for you. Otherwise I just look for groups of bees who form circles and then look to see if they’re around the queen.
The bee yard at the end of the year. The smaller boxes stacked on the two larger are called “supers”. There is a screen which prevents the larger queen from laying eggs in the supers so the other bees just use that space to store honey which is what we harvest.
The Kangz of Egypt showed the first signs of honey bee domestication around 5,000 years ago. They didn’t really do anything of import with the honey besides store it in jars for intrepid huwyte archaeologists to dig it up at a later date. Beekeeping as a practical profession and pastime didn’t really take off until an American guy by the name of Langstroth showed up.
Langstroth really perfected the hive and determined what amount of space you could give bees before they would build wax comb into it (about ¼ inch). This also allowed hives to be built in a manner in which they didn’t have to be destroyed in order to harvest honey from them and thus the honeybee became a truly domesticated animal.
Even though Langstroth’s invention was pretty revolutionary it didn’t really impact bees all that much in terms of their biology. Bees naturally swarm every spring where the hive makes a new queen and sends her out with a bunch of new bees to start a new hive somewhere. It didn’t really matter that the old one stayed behind. Where bees really started to get fucked is when this became a reality:
Industrial beekeeping in a nutshell. Tractor trailers drag bees cross-country for months on end where they pollinate fields which are eventually harvested by hordes of muds.
Industrial agriculture, in this author’s humble opinion, is responsible for the precarious position that the honey bee finds itself today. This phenomenon lends itself to the SCALE explanation quite readily, and bees are a linchpin of agriculture today. Really the only reason that the fruit tree orchards and almond trees can exist in their current state is because honey bees are insanely productive. Productive on scales that have allowed multi-million dollar industries to pop up. Of course, the nig-spic cycle sees all and exploits all so upon the labor which bees have wrought ‘seasonal workers’ hop in and facilitate the unsustainable growth. You can also take all of the other shitty things about industrial agriculture and apply them to honey bees as well. Less forage because that 20ft strip of prairie next to a creek needed to be turned into corn to feed Agagabwe in Nigeria, more pesticides, etc etc. It also doesn’t help that urban and suburban SWPLs who find it fashionable to keep a hive in their backyard to signal to their friends their environmental bona fides, are really just harbors of disease and rob more productive hives (like mine ) of forage. Most people aren’t really aware of the work required to maintain a hive and usually too stupid to realize when their hive has been decimated by disease or pest only to pass on their infected equipment to the next person and infect even more hives.
When I go out to the bee yard it’s a very relaxing activity. I don’t wear gloves when I work and don’t get stung too often. Bees will let you handle them without too much fuss and they’ll let you know when they’re pissed off. I really try to use the experience to interact with something naturally beautiful and pass that along to my friends and family every year at harvest time. It’s very rewarding to hand someone a product which you’ve cultivated over the years and see the happiness it brings them. It's like giving them a handmade gift but on a whole other level. Bees are also great for experimenting and being creative in problem solving. Trying new hive arrangements, different hives, techniques etc. mean that each year is different and never really boring.
Posted TEO: Anti-Semitism Frog on 18 November 2016 - 10:09 PM
Apple uses brutal slave labor to produce its niggertech: buy a new one every year.
Never change shitlibs
Posted ivan lampshade on 18 November 2016 - 01:30 AM
Posted Chicano Studies Major on 13 November 2016 - 09:35 PM
I don't even know what to feel, man. And Trump isn't even president yet. Is it really going to be Christmas morning every single day for the next eight years?
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 28 September 2016 - 10:28 AM
Anglin gives a comprehensive list of subgroups that make up the alt-right, which is really an umbrella term for the space on the right outside mainstream conservatism. If we were to leave it there, then there has always been an alt-right and it is typically made up of fringe ideologies that have little mass appeal. There are three noteworthy things about the alt-right which distinguish it from these fringe ideologies.
First, the alt-right was created by the ideological and physical shrinking of mainstream conservatism. What I term Buckley conservatism, and which morphed into "cuckservatism" in its old age, coalesced around a series of increasingly anti-conservative ideas such as: religious faith in free markets, individual liberty over public governance, and a severely truncated social conservatism. In the main, Buckley conservatism developed in opposition to Soviet communism during the Cold War. As Buckley conservatism shrank in the range of ideas it accepted, it also evolved in various ways to remain acceptable to a media-defined Overton window, which led to increasing efforts to purge heretics from its (thinning) ranks. This is a crucial point in explaining why the alt-right came to be.
Second, the old one-way mass media model of Western communication was being weakened by the Internet. This damaged the ability of official ideological leaders (usually supported by plutocrats) to manage right wing discourse. With forerunners like The Drudge Report and Breitbart, alt-right groups developed their own modes of communication and siphoned off those who remained within mainstream conservatism out of inertia. The decline of the mass media model caused a greater range of creativity and personalities on the alt-right, and selection pressures became more populist. Mutually influencing alt-right groups went through a rapid evolution of ideological and rhetorical styles, learning from each other at a quickened pace.
Third, a generational break occurred. When political circumstances change, they can lead to a state where existing political divisions no longer make any sense. At such point there is a need for political divisions to realign to a state that is more in accordance with the current political circumstances. However, political views tend to be conservative--that is, people tend to retain the same views over time, especially those views which coalesced upon reaching full adulthood. This is because political views have a social dimension, and to that degree go into forming social identity. In this regard they are much like fashions, manners, and buying habits. After young adulthood, when social identity settles into its mature form, political views tend to be retained even if they no longer describe the outside world very well. When there arises a marked change in the political environment, succeeding generations form views more in tune with new circumstances, and as the older generation passes from the scene this leads to political realignment on a mass scale.
These three factors are what make the alt-right something different from a traditional political fringe. (Indeed, in some respects it is mainstream conservatism that is at risk of becoming a political fringe, as indicated by its elderly demographics and waning influence. This despite being backed by an enormous amount of capital--but then, to a large extent it is this capital which has caused it to develop an inflexible and stultifying hierarchy.)
Looking at the alt-right as a whole, it is ideologically unformed. From one end to the other it looks extremely heterogenous, and over the few years it has existed there has been a changing mix of ideas and focus. Its coherence comes not from ideology but from adjacence and populism. The subgroups which Anglin identifies all have alignments with at least one or two other subgroups, and they all share common enemies, namely the anti-populist political and media elite. Its inherent populism and its diversity of views have also thwarted the efforts by putative "leaders" to hijack the alt-right for their own purposes. There are simply not enough conforming views to facilitate such a takeover.
At the same time, the alt-right is incredibly energized for such a heterodox collection of subgroups. This comes from both its relative youth and the long-suppressed emotional energy contained within populism. With populist ideas as fuel, the alt-right has surged forth in such an explosion of creativity and confidence that, despite its relative numbers, it has captured elite attention (and provoked elite anxiety) and completely shaken up the American political scene in just a few years. Not bad work at all.
Posted power juice on 19 September 2015 - 09:02 AM
Posted Turkmenbashi on 20 June 2017 - 10:21 PM
Things are looking grim for the DNC. First and foremost, Ossoff's high-profile loss will make it difficult to convince high-quality Democratic candidates to risk embarrassment and challenge GOP incumbents in 2018. Similarly, donors will be hesitant to throw good money after bad following Hillary's stinging loss in November and an even more well-funded Ossoff implosion. Dwindling donor generosity won't be helped by Obama, who is actively competing with the DNC to fundraise for his Chicago-based 'Organizing for Action' slush-fund. Finally, the establishment's low-level civil war with the Bernie Bros is going to heat up again after tonight. Despite repeated rejection of Clintonism by voters and undeniable evidence that the 2016 Democratic Primary was rigged, the DNC has continued to deny leadership positions the activist wing of the party. Tonight was a complete humiliation for the establishment, and they risk an outright mutiny if they continue to deny the Bernie-wing entry. This means letting tankie communists and and nutjobs like Keith Ellison in on the action.
There isn't a path forward for Democrats in the foreseeable future. Despite unprecedented amounts universal support from the media, Silicon Valley, and the deep state they continue to fail. Their leadership is too small-souled to think outside the box and change course. Next year, 25 Democratic incumbents will be up for re-election compared with a paltry 8 GOP seats. Democrats traditionally struggle with turnout during midterms, and if trends continue 2018 will be an all-out bloodbath. No amount of astroturfing and Sorosbux can convince normal people to vote for them.
Posted Money Vampire on 25 March 2017 - 06:36 PM
I'm estimating attendance to be about 350 people, and about 50 of them I believe to be military veterans. This was a crowd looking for a fight, in fact there was a general sigh of disappointment when one of the organizers announced that there was zero sign of any counter-demonstration. The marchers assembled at the McKinley Park in Sacramento and marched for about 45 minutes through the streets. It was a pleasant march all things considered. The only opposition we encountered at all was a (probably gay) man calling us Fascists. After the march, we resembled back in the park to hear a few speeches. Way too many of the speeches were "Dems are the real racists", which I found annoying, but it played really well with the normies.
To my complete surprised Kyle "Based Stickman" Chapman was there. I said hi and told him that I'm a fan of his work. He asked me to attend the April 15th March in Berkeley and told me that, "We could use all the muscle we can get and you've got a lot of muscle. Will you be there?"
Being a bodybuilder who is also Gay and Racist, I'm INCREDIBLY susceptible to flattery and I promised to join him for the Second Berkeley March.
Posted proper prole on 03 December 2016 - 09:34 PM
Wait until next month when the impeachment campaigns start.
That's why we have Mike Pence.
Impeach Trump now!!!!
Ok. Let me just go grab his replacement.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 25 October 2016 - 09:55 AM
Or, rather, erred. Slate's pet blacksplainer, the laboriously bloglike Jamelle Bouie, gushes at length, but his subhead is one big fat spoiler:
Bouie's annoyance that people are still talking about the white working class (not his beat) screeches through. You see, the way politics works in Multicultura is that your interests inherently take oxygen from my interests, so my job is to shout over you until you can't be heard. (Which, incidentally, is how protest groups all function.)
But black voters don't really accept or reject politicians, they vote as a bloc for their patrons. Corruption in black politics would be legendary if it weren't so banal, whether it is Jesse Jackson shaking down companies to pay for his baby mama or Al Sharpton inflaming race relations everywhere first class can take him. The sophistication of black political rhetoric is exemplified by pampered moron Ta Coates, an adult male who still reads comic books.
Neither midwit hacks nor pet nig bloggers like Bouie care to discuss the rabid black violence behind "stop and frisk", the violence to communities that mass immigration incurs, the obviously alien nature of Islam, etc. Because black politics are purely tribal, all that matters is that Trump is not their patron. Actually, one thing matters more: that "working class whites" seem to love Trump. This is how diversity works; the friend of the other tribe is my enemy. In a zero sum game (which is what tribal politics is) this must be so.
Onto this stunning and brave SNL sketch. The setup of "Black Jeopardy" is that a black host and two black contestants show off the cluelessness of the lone white contestant, who flubs questions about anything of interest to blacks (stealing, being paranoid about authority, racist white people). This time the gimmick is that Tom Hanks, dressed up as a Trump voter complete with MAGA hat, turns out to harbor the same suspicion of white people in authority that the black contestants have.
(You can already see the liberal distortion field at work. One of many dunce cap race tropes that liberals promote is whites recoiling in fear irrationally before harmless black folk.) The irony of this equation is that the media actually derides Trump supporters for their suspicions, while fawning over blacks for theirs (which, as a reminder, include believing that Snapple was designed to make them sterile).
Jones and Zamata turn to look skeptically at Hanks’ character, while Thompson laughs and gives the punchline. “Well, it was good while it lasted, Doug.” To which Hanks says, “I have a lot to say about this.” And then the sketch comes to a close.
Bouie gets excited, like an antsy youth eager to share an improvised poem about his latest muh-dikking.
Bouie is huffing the fumes of liberal ideological exhaustion. In fact we know there isn't fair and equal treatment of citizens, because cops are more likely to shoot white suspects, because schools adopt zero tolerance policies to punish white students at the same rate as more violent and disruptive black students, because affirmative action and minority set-asides deliberately privilege incompetent blacks, and because an overwhelming amount of violent crime is perpetrated by blacks. This is all waved away by liberals every time a strutting black male is told not to niggerwalk in the middle of a street. In Black Jeopardy terms, what you do in that situation is a) loudly wail about racism, b) make random violent flailing movements, or c) assault a cop.
The intended message is yet more pandering to black narcissism:
Yes, that's right: shouting "Black Lives Matter" whenever a black person is involved in a shooting is about going beyond identity politics, and voting for the candidate who pledges to help all Americans is actually embracing identity politics.
You can't believe this without being stupid, either born stupid like Jamelle Bouie or made stupid by a different kind of tribalism like Jay Rosen. It's a complete and total inversion of reality, and Twitter is the perfect venue for this glibness because 140 characters is only enough to assert how "brilliant" and "subtle" something is and not enough for someone else to deconstruct it. Although we can at least ridicule it in kind:
Ridiculing this racial narcissism and hatred of whites is something that mainstream conservatives refuse to do, much less show its self-serving distortions. At most they blame the problem on Democratic politicians, as if blacks who seethe with resentment at whites while living off their income are blameless. But now mainstream conservatism is dying, and we are running out of sympathy and patience.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 30 August 2016 - 02:37 PM
2. Stronger populism - because of the federal-state division of power, there is an abundance of politicians to cynically promote populism, which means there is a greater chance of accidental populist outcomes
3. More racist - scientific studies show more exposure to niggers = more racist, and we have way dumber, more violent niggers than anyone it's not even close
4. More sexist - bizarre androgynous Euros require women to lead their alt-right movements because their men are so ineffectual
5. Gun rights - in Europe you have to apply for a permit five years in advance for permission to cradle an approved single shot hunting rifle while dreaming of ending it all
6. It's a big, beautiful country - SCALE, schmale, America's "vast reaches" are pretty impressive in their own right, much of it inaccessible to niggers because it involves leaving ravaged urban centers and learning how to read a map
7. Imperial measurement - metric system is for fags, end of
9. The 80s - pretty much invented here, and some of us still live in them
10. God-fearing - more or less the last refuge for Christianity in the West, we love religion so much we're still inventing new ones
More to come...shit we need 91 more...
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 10 July 2016 - 12:20 PM
Here is what I wrote about it on FB:
Moreover, the sentiment behind the command will quickly wear off, as it is more or less simply an outburst in response to a surge of negative emotional energy.
Because it is a plea it advertises its own weakness. Still worse, it fails to reflect the perspective of any side of the conflict--which is usually one of the main complaints at hand. "We need to listen to each other" is both ineptly vague and counterproductively provoking to the participants in the conflict.
Imagine if you were injured, and at that moment you were told to listen to and understand your attacker. Most likely you would not respond well. This is exactly the scenario with large social conflict--all sides feel injured, and thus demand that the other sides listen to them and change their behavior.
In their different responses, Trump got this right--he emphasized the complaints of all sides of the conflict, indicating that he's heard them--and Hillary Clinton got it badly wrong. She delivered a lecture on behalf of one party of the conflict and a list of commands for the other parties to follow.
Hillary Clinton's response is sure to escalate the conflict, while Trump's offers the only path to de-escalating it.
In reality it's unlikely that we're about to have a big conversation about the root causes of distrust, alienation, and hostility in large cities, the ability of blacks to function in those environments, and the pathology of SCALE that afflicts police departments and other government agencies. We will, most likely, argue for awhile about who is really to blame, impotently command people to listen, and then as the emotional energy naturally subsides we'll go back to life as usual, having learned and fixed nothing.
That said, one candidate had a far better response than the other. Perhaps he has mastered social dynamics in the process of building a large real estate and branding empire, while fathering high-achieving offspring. Perhaps the other candidate, a notoriously bitter paranoid who appears to have difficult social relationships with everyone around her (except her personal servant, Huma), is showing why she would be an incredibly poor choice for president.
Posted RippedPhreak's Personal Halal Cart on 23 June 2016 - 02:58 PM
I ended up pulling up an episode or two off of youtube to show her what I meant. All of the segments I've ever seen from this show follow the same repetitive format: present some "argumentation" and "facts" for about 10 seconds, then quickly follow these up with a snarky quip (which themselves overwhelmingly take the form of complete non-sequitur or otherwise absurd metaphor) before any rational processing of the preceding argument can take place in the mind of the viewer. Further telling is that the only 'beats' or mental pauses in the show's pacing exist solely to highlight the approving laughter or applause of the studio audience. Repeat this basic formula without variation 20-40 times in a row and you have one of the 12-20 minute 'segments' that form the backbone of the show.
The end effect is (obviously) not to deliver information, but rather to literally teach the viewers -- on a subconscious level -- to mentally associate derisive laughter with any person or opinion that is at odds with the narrative's take on the chosen issue. And it accomplishes this by maintaining a strict adherence to a roughly 20-second cycle in which a stimulus is presented, and a response is cued. This is the sense in which the show is fundamentally hypnotic in effect -- even moreso than its precursors in the genre (Daily Show, Colbert, etc).
To my mind, oliver's show is representative of the media's increasing mastery of the methodologies of mass conditioning; in fact it is almost such a perfect technical accomplishment that I would almost have to admire it on technical grounds, if only it weren't so troubling a development, which moreover is in the hands of the entirely wrong people.
Posted Dio on 27 January 2016 - 12:24 PM
There is a phenomenon called the treadmill effect, similar to what we saw with neomania [the specific sort of “neomania” Taleb refers to here is in technological adoption -DT]: you need to make more and more to stay in the same place. Greed is antifragile—though not in its victims.
Back to the sucker problem in believing that wealth makes people more independent. We need no more evidence for it than what is taking place now: recall that we have never been richer in the history of mankind. And we have never been more in debt (for the ancients, someone in debt was not free, he was in bondage). So much for “economic growth”.
At the local level, it looks like we get socialized in a certain milieu, hence exposed to a treadmill. You do better, move to Greenwich, Connecticut, then become a pauper next to a twenty–million–dollar mansion and million–dollar birthday parties. And you become more and more dependent on your job, particularly as your neighbors get big tax–sponsored Wall Street bonuses.
The class of persons is like Tantalus, who was subjected to an eternal punishment: he stood in a pool of water underneath a fruit tree and whenever he tried to grab the fruit it moved away and whenever he tried to drink the water receded.
Such a permanently tantalized class is a modern condition. The Romans circumvented these social treadmill effects: much of social life took place between a patron and his less fortunate clients who benefitted from his largesse and ate at his table—and relied on his assistance in times of trouble. There was no welfare at the time, and no church to distribute or recommend charity: everything was private (Seneca’s book De beneficiis... was exactly about which obligations one had in such situations). There was little exposure to the other wealthy biggies, just as mafia dons don’t socialize with other mafia dons but with their constituents. To a large extent, that’s how my grandfather and great–grandfather lived, as they were local landowners and politicians; power was accompanied by a coterie of dependents. Provincial landowners were required to maintain an occasional “open house”, with an open table for people to come help themselves to the fruits of the wealth. Court life, on the other hand, leads to corruption—the nobleman comes from the provinces, where he is now brought down to size’ he faces more flamboyant, wittier persons and feels pressure to prop up his self–esteem. People who have lost their status in the cities conserve it in the provinces.
You cannot possibly trust someone on a treadmill.
Taleb’s treadmill is familiar here, we normally just call it striving. One thing notable about court life which Taleb did not mention (it isn’t particularly relevant to the aims of his book, either) is the fact that court life has an accompanying urge to decadence: Versailles was a hive of mistresses, affairs, liaisons, and probably even anal, as well, and English and Prussian court life was little better. Detached from organic relationships and responsibilities, it’s no surprise that decadent behavior increased (and among the Romans, as patronage was broken down in the late Republic and the leading families became more socially incestuous, decadence increased, as well) for reasons that have been discussed thoroughly in other threads around here.
What’s interesting is that we’ve repeated the court phenomenon in modern America, though we’ve generally missed the analogy. Charles Murray may write a work like Coming Apart, but IIRC he never noticed the historical parallels regarding the court–ification of feudal nobility.
Like any analogy, it isn’t perfect. While former provincial and historical elites provide some portion of the ACELA† class, the large presence of elements alien to the Historic American Nation (not just Jews or Asians, but also more recent arrivals from European nations that were not among the primary sources of the Historic American Nation) makes it a different phenomenon. Court Jews were still, importantly Court Jews, even when raised to the nobility; the combination of full–emancipation and free assimilation (though almost totally only within the Court) is unique to the modern situation.
What Moldbug misleadingly called the Cathedral isn’t really better understood as the Synagogue, but more as a Court. When we see the free movement between high finance, academia, the federal government, and other elite institutions, what we are seeing is the rise of a nobility which is increasingly becoming socially sealed–off from the rest of the country. Around that nobility is a much larger class that aspires to entry, or works for its institutions, and it’s these two classes that form the Court of American power— ACELA elites, the Cathedral, etc.
Taleb identifies this class’s primary moral failing in that it buys its stability—its antifragility in his terms*—by increasing the fragility of other classes. Taleb calls this a lack of “skin in the game” (skin in the game is increased by having organic client relationships, btw), and expends most of his ammunition on the big offenders—economists who failed to predict the ‘08 crash and still get powerful government/business positions, banking executives, etc.—but we can usefully generalize this to the entire class. While immigration and outsourcing problems aren’t a concern of Taleb’s in Antifragile, they’re a clear case of buying antifragility for a small portion of the population at the expense of greater fragility for most of the population— and, more importantly, the system as a whole.
In an argument that’s come up more than once or twice in the shoutbox, Gwerks has asserted against the claims of pretty much the entire rest of the board that the ACELA class does not hate flyover white proles for who they are, but rather the content of their ethical beliefs. A lot of MPC finds this idea too stupid to even be worth engaging much with, but I think it is worth answering, and I’ll try to provide what I think is a pretty fair reading of her position.
Gwerks focuses on this being a question of red tribe vs. blue tribe (which I think is somewhat accurate), but focuses on the strictly political elements of red & blue, which I think are epiphenomenal, and perhaps even more so for members of the Court than those outside of it. For Gwerks, ACELA elites despise white proles because they are envisioned as opposing gay “marriage”, fetus slaughter, and gibs.
Gwerks points out how they will embrace hicks who say otherwise, but such embracing is always patronizing and actual admittance to social contact would require much more extensive change. Generally speaking, for ACELA elites, some redneck mom who posts on Facebook about how she loves her gay son is basically in the same category as a lot of exhibits in the “Hood of Good” thread around here: they’re amusing tokens and they appreciate them signalling the correct beliefs, but they would never want to actually have to interact with those people. Further, on the other side, BB has mentioned how elite conservative Catholics are often tolerated within Court circles and their opposition to abortion is seen as quirky, but not in itself an object of moral horror worthy of social exclusion. (I can personally attest to this somewhat in that I’ve expressed very socially conservative views in venues where it should have resulted, along the Gwerks Theory, in exclusion to avoid moral contagion; and while it has certainly upset people to actually be argued with, it’s rarely actually impacted my social relations and friendships. Why? Despite my anti–preftigious education and flyover background, I’m obviously not a prole.)
Importantly, though, the war between the ACELAs/media elite/Court and the flyover members of the Majority (in the Wilmot Robertson sense) predates the shibboleths. Abortion did not become a litmus test in the primary Court party until the early 90s. Gay marriage not until a couple years ago. The gibs/black question is a little more difficult, but some dissent on welfare was allowed even through the 90s and, to some extent, think pieces on “what to do about blacks?” are still given some room to exist in Court organs like the NYT. Radical forms of racial signalling are still not required within the Court class, as significant pushback in The Atlantic, NYT, and elsewhere has demonstrated.
Negative media portrayal of the Majority, and especially its lower orders, has been the norm for much, much longer, and thus can serve as a useful proxy for general attitudes in the era before the internet gave people an eye into the social antipathies of alien classes.
But why did this happen?
A typical answer here might be to say “Jews”, or maybe along Kevin MacDonald lines to say Jews were a necessary, but not a sufficient element. However, I’m not certain Jews are particularly important to this story. They have certainly added elements to it (hostility towards Majority proles is a Jewish atavism), and maybe even importantly added the new moral dimension to courtly decadence we see in this incarnation: we now have elaborate verbal edifices created to extol sexual perversion as enlightened and moral, and though we had some presentiment of this in earlier decadent eras, it never reached the level of general acceptance we have seen this time around. However, my suspicion is that the removal of normal networks of social integration for the ruling class (both by dislocation and social isolation and by importing first members of the elite and then importing an alien lower class for much of ACELA**) is even more important, that perhaps, pace MacDonald it is the Court that is the “necessary, but not sufficient” element (though it’s actually possible that both elements could be defined as such).
Our Court class is tantalized not just because it only has itself to compare to (thus why strivers who will never be naturals within it are considered particularly loathesome), but also because it is cut off from all natural relationships with the lower orders. People no longer have housekeepers or nannies they have organic relationships with (unless, perhaps, they are aliens who are importing lower class aliens from home, as South Asian elites often do), they work to minimize interactions with the lower orders at all times and often are poorly traveled within their own country. (Something I came back to again and again living among ACELAs was how they seemed to only think a vanishingly small percentage of the US was worth seeing, even as they fetishized more exotic travel.) They have no sense of ease within their elite position (unless they are psychologically abnormal or truly, truly born to its heights) because they have no sense of their larger place in society. For rooted elites with client relationships among relatable lower orders, the reality is very different. Even if exposed to other elites who are perhaps cleverer, richer, skinner, and get to spend more time at their vacation home, they are still confident in their status as elites— they know where they exist in a larger network of relationships and have organic contact with persons they have a sense of responsibility towards.
The anxiety created by striving or Taleb’s “treadmill” (which aren’t equivalent, but close enough for our purposes) can be in part assuaged by the creation of an outgroup which can be conveniently looked down upon both to reaffirm membership within the Court among Court members but also to, in Taleb’s words, “prop up their self–esteem”. In fact, the causal chain seems to be more likely exactly the opposite of the one described by Gwerks in which proles are not so much disdained for their clinging to guns & religion as guns & religion are disdained because of their close association with the lifestyle of the non–prestigious portion of the Majority.
Indeed, take the history of the pro–life movement: As pro–life Catholics like to remind Evangelicals, Protestants were latecomers to the pro–life movement; even the Southern Baptist Convention was, around the time of Roe v. Wade, pro–abortion by current standards. Abortion simply didn’t play much of a role in anyone’s moral universe and would have been unuseful for moral signalling. However, the fallout from Roe v. Wade’s top–down imposition of abortion woke up many members of the Majority (especially in the provinces) to an issue they had ignored, or simply held naive beliefs about. Throughout the 80s, opposition to abortion moved from something you could primarily associate with Catholic ethnics (and intellectuals) to something that you could more generally associate with the Court’s dreaded outcaste. The of Bob Casey, Sr. at the 1992 Democratic Convention and the “closing” of the Court’s primary party to the issue came only after it became an Evangelical (code for “wrong type of Majority member”) issue, though anti–Catholicism also played a part (Catholicism has become increasingly identified with the wrong types of whites as well, as downcaste members of the Catholic ethnic groups are displaced as Court clients and assimilated to the Majority in the minds of the Court, if not the Majority as well).
Obviously such a social driver is something impossible to prove: the person who is ideologically–minded will see simply an evolution of liberalism–as–thought, “Cathedral ideology”, liberal morality, etc. I believe that what Newman called “paper logic” is not nearly as important as all that and just like he referred to it in relation to his conversion to Catholicism, the relation is really more like that that the quicksilver in the barometer has to the weather than that of being an actual engine— the ideology of the Court is the record of where it has moved more than it is where it will move. (I also hold that modern moral thinking is not coherent & compelling enough to actually be an engine in this fashion, but that would be a separate subject.)
There are further topics to explore with the Court concept, but this post is already well over two thousand words (and very stream–of–consciousness as it is), so I want to leave with a list of questions for further exploration by myself or others:
• What are other analogies we can find to previous periods of court decadence?
• What drove the selection of the provincial Majority as the outgroup?
• Does the Trump phenomenon bear any meaningful resemblance to other revolts against alienated Court societies?
• What drives the resignation, if not the enthusiasm, for the destruction of their ethnic brothers among Majority members of the Court?
• Did cocooning, social anxiety trickle–down from the Court (or, more specifically, its marginal members) or did we see it rise generally in society with SCALE?
• Does SCALE lead to Courtification?
I don’t think this post is wholly original, but the initial insights did help me connect and rethink previously held ideas, so I hope it has at least some utility in that sense for its readers. I also understand the analogy has a lot of limitations (it has a hard time accommodating the transnational nature of the highest echelons of the court, for example), but obvious imperfections in analogies like this are actually a strength in my book, as they prevent people from taking them too seriously as comprehensive explanations.
Also I wrote this at work, so I apologize for the lack of links.
† Dain says I should explain what I mean by ACELA class: It's become chat speak for East Coast Elites, referring to the ACELA Express rail line which runs from Boston to DC.
* BTW, I find Taleb’s notion of antifragility to be very useful. The word itself may be a bit cute at first, but it does fill a vacant role. Taleb’s point is that the opposite of fragility is not robustness or resilience, but rather things which are able to get stronger via shocks. The robust resists shocks and comes through largely unchanged, the antifragile is that which improves when exposed to sudden events.
** Not to pick on Gwerks too much (really!), but a fairly early exchange I had with her here centered around what I found to be a morally horrifying preference she had for alien service employees. On MPC and in the alt–right at large, there is a tendency to focus on ethnic animus as a driver for population replacement, but cocooning and social isolation also play a critical role. Note that the Court isn’t just replacing whites, but also ethnic whites they have some relationship to, and even more so, American Blacks, their ostensible clients. Fifty years ago, a white NY family might have had an American Black housekeeper, now that is almost unimaginable. You don’t have a natural sense of responsibility or organic relations with aliens— and, for better or worse, American Blacks are actually not wholly alien to us.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 21 December 2016 - 09:13 PM
Posted Work Spans Every Continent on 11 November 2016 - 08:06 PM
Posted Dr. Hasslein on 11 November 2016 - 09:21 AM
Posted Hazmat Harry on 09 November 2016 - 08:05 PM
The fantasy end game of the managerial class was a multi-ethnic global trade empire ruled by them. The problem is, that requires them to win elections, and that's where the problem comes in. See, the problem is that for the foreseeable future, they need the spics & nigs to come out to vote, but they also need a big enough chunk of the white vote to actually win. This is a problem because the dusky hordes don't actually like rich, elderly, pantsuit-wearing white women...but that's who you need to run managerial liberalism.
Not one negro in America believed for a minute that Hillary learned to "whip it" and "nae nae" (whatever the fuck that means, I don't do negro music) for any reason except to pander. They didn't like her, they didn't take her seriously, and they didn't turn out. Meanwhile, white people are coalescing as an ethnic bloc, and they're unsurprisingly not centering their interests on keeping the spic-nic economic cycle funded.
An Obama---a dusky-skinned, rootless, cosmopolitan mulatto raised by a white woman---is a one a billion politician. There's not another Obama.
So the Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They need a white candidate to get the whites to turn out and to actually manage the machine. But they need an authentically stupid, corrupt negro or Latino to actually get their minority client groups to turn out.
The GOP could still fuck this up, of course. But the Democrats have bet everything on Third World hordes consistently turning out to give Harvard-educated whites and Jews unlimited power, and the dice just came up snake eyes.
Posted Cinco Jotas on 14 May 2016 - 02:27 AM
The action begins when Admiral Bezos orders a fleet of twenty WaPo reporters to sink the USS Trump at all costs. All of the reporters are state-of-the art and battle-tested: built in Ivy-league shipyards at enormous cost, and armed with heavy, mark II Watergate torpedoes.
But, just as this mighty fleet gets underway, it's overwhelmed by a fast-moving swarm of taco bowls, women's cards, racist butlers, phantom publicists, and a thousand other outlandish and picayune controversies, each one crazier and stupider than the last, all of them things that no one could have imagined in a million years of reading Woodward and Bernstein. Worse, like the Iranian speedboats, each one of these "controversies" has to be addressed (a thousand-word think piece on Taco-Bowl-Gate! An op-ed on racist butlers!) because if one slips by without being mentioned, then the leftist twitterati will howl in indignation and Hilary's toadies will mutter threateningly about editors that Feel the Bern.
And if that's not enough, while the fleet is foundering at the mouth of the harbor, the Trump steams into the middle of the ruck and fires it's big guns at the Bezos, scoring a direct hit, and threatening to sink the flagship with a Trust-Buster if it does not retreat from action.
The ultimate result is that the press is tangled up in a hairball of enormous proportions, and exhausts itself and the patience of the American people months before the election takes place. And Trump controls all of this wIth a couple of social media accounts, Morning Joe's telephone number and Roger Stone's merry prankster commando squad.
It's genius and smart shitlords better be going to school on it
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 06 May 2015 - 02:25 AM
His health has been seriously damaged, but as others have said, he made/is making his own choice.
Anyway. Like you, my MIL found that there was zero support for her, and everyone, from therapists to online “support” groups, told her she was the one with the problem because she wasn’t thrilled at the idea of sleeping with/being married to a tranny, and didn’t believe that he could actually “become” anything more than a castrato with fake breasts, which is exactly what he is. More than once she ended up in tears because of how she was spoken to and treated by those people, and because they made her feel like SHE was the one at fault, SHE was the one whose behavior was cruel and unforgivable. It’s likely you will run into people who will say the same to you or treat you the same way. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. YOU ARE NOT WRONG TO THINK THIS IS HORRIFYING AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT WRONG TO PROTECT YOUR DAUGHTER IN ANY WAY YOU CAN.
(Sorry for the all-caps, but I feel the above needs an emphasis as strong as I can possibly give it.)
I cannot imagine how difficult this must be for you, having a young child. I am absolutely furious on your and her behalf at the monstrous selfishness and disregard for both of you that this man is displaying.
One of the things that can be observed with serious addiction cases is the gradual disintegration of personality. In effect, the addict's body and personality become mere devices for the procurement of the addictive substance or behavior. Everything else, every other characteristic, is blunted or erased completely.
But I think if we look closely at the people around us, we can see that behavior which pushes people away from social interaction causes gradual erasure of the self, to be replaced with what are merely tics, fetishes, and compulsions (these lead to arousal and excitement but are curiously joyless).
The same process appears to be at work with transsexuals. The first clue is the willingness to destroy close relationships through neglect, abandonment, or outrageous behavior. Such destructive activity results from a long descent into the fetish of autogynephilia--the process of fetishization infects the personality like a cancer, eventually crowding out all other desires and attachments. Relationships, which have inherently altruistic qualities for healthy personalities, weaken and break apart because the fetish becomes the central desire as in cases of chemical addiction.
The second clue is the desire to self-mutilate, usually in the form of taking opposite sex hormones but sometimes going to the extreme of genital mutilation to outwardly resemble that sex (of course internally nothing has really changed). Similar to cases of anorexia nervosa, in which women are so consumed by a distorted self-image that they destroy their own bodies in response, transsexuals often make repeated alterations to their appearance that exposes them to significant health risks--everything from tracheal shaving to facial surgery to radical genital alteration.
(As should always be pointed out, when they opt for the last approach they are obliged to keep dildos shoved into their improvised fuckholes--the body cannot be fooled.)
The third clue is the newly self-centered personality. Before assumption of a transsexual identity (that is, when there is still some control over the transsexual fetish) many of these people achieve success in their careers and produce families, whereas afterwards they appear to exist for no other reason than to be transsexuals.
Contrary to transsexual arguments, this is not because they have discovered their true identity but because they have obliterated their true identity. As I have mentioned elsewhere, at the heart of this is a great misconception, that the self is a pure entity that is masked or distorted by conformity to social rules. The exact opposite is true--the self only comes into being through the formation of healthy social relationships. The brain is plastic but it is not indifferently so--there is healthy development and unhealthy development. The former maintains psychic security and resilience through social relationships, and the latter malnourishes through isolation and obsession.
One need only look to the claims of transsexuals to see that they are completely deluded and inauthentic. Among other things they claim that they feel profound discomfort unless they are allowed to wear opposite sex garments (especially underwear) which do not really fit their bodies. This is a classic fetish symptom, the sense of agitation or restlessness unless they can experience the fetish even though it interferes with enjoyment of normal activities.
My argument is that this is more than just delusional behavior, it is part of a process that destroys personality. Secondarily, we can judge the unhealthiness of this and other behaviors by the degree to which they damage important social relationships.
Posted Cinco Jotas on 09 June 2017 - 09:47 AM
And all he had to do was offer me his hand in friendship and loyalty. Sad.
Talk about pour encourager les autres! The image of James Comey, top of the careerist heap, being destroyed Trump will now be seared into the brains of every managerialist bugman in Washington. Trump is a dangerous fucking animal, a lion let loose in the petting zoo. Get your asses on side or get eaten, bitches.
Posted Quads: Russian Botnet Hivemind on 19 March 2017 - 10:41 PM
We now live in a world with legal nightly Tucker beatdowns, where Rand Paul will alpha John McCain between rounds of bullyciding Paul Ryan, where even Ted Cruz can troll yellow trashmag news gawkers into crying uncle. Shitlibs are in retreat, huddling around white flags while cowering before weaponized assault gifs. These aren't just trivial feelgood fluff stories (though they are that too). These stories are urban folk legends to set the new ethos of our times. (Steve King is a Winner.) The men of this new world are the same men of the old world, but newly-emboldened and ready to fight the left on their own terms.
The left's hold on The Right Side Of History is breaking -- we are the new future and every day births the new narrative of history. The myth of progress can't hold up against real American laughing shitlords and "alt knights" who unapologetically stand for everything the left holds to be evil. ("You're going to be so proud of your country!") The old right believed that the left had won and we just had to ride the decline; with every victory the new right believes that we can and will win. ("Because we're gonna turn it around, and we're gonna start winning again!") When the gay lady reports that under Trump ICE agents are having fun, they aren't just reporting the news; they're memeing into existence the new reality where the rising right crushes its enemies. ("We're gonna win so much, we're gonna win at every level!") The group action of politics is more emotional than logical, and the right is no longer sad and weepy but cool and fun. ("You're gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning!") Everybody loves a winner, and as one success begets another ("We have to keep winning, we have to win more!") the winners accrue more power until they command The Right Side of History. ("We're gonna win so much your head will spin!")
Winning fulfills a primal instinct. That instinct had atrophied under the old right until glum cuckolds expected to lose, enjoyed losing, and wondered why any rightists even tried to win anymore. That age is over; Trump killed it. Now rightists everywhere are tasting victory and learning to enjoy it. To glory in victory is motivation to win again. That maxim goes beyond Trump and will guide all the players and actors of the new age. There will be setbacks and losses, but they won't be felt as inescapable bad breaks by a surging right that fights to win. Each will be a prod to fight harder. That's the difference between winners and losers and why it's so important to nurture our thrill to win.
This thread is for basking in reflected glory, to see our enemies driven before us and to hear the lamentation of their women. This thread is for all those stories that only tangentially relate to some bigger issue but still scream to be shared for the warm glow they give you. This thread is for the urban myths of our developing cult of victory.
To inaugurate this thread, with Spring coming, it's a perfect time to ask: What is Chad doing for spring break?
Spring Breakers chanting “Build That Wall” in Cancun is unacceptable
Shitcanned coon just can't over Cancun "Klan chant":
This is just one of the many blameworthy behaviors that young spring breakers have shown recently in Cancun and that are described as acts of xenophobia and discrimination against Mexicans within their own country , which is (or should be) totally unacceptable.
It warms my heart now that the boot is on the other foot and lefties get a taste of a vision of the future stamping on their face:
This situation is far from being an isolated incident, and it adds to the growing number of complaints from tourism sector workers, who point out that in recent days many Spring Breakers have been offensive, rude and haughty towards Mexican people.
The face of the future:
What else awaits us in this brave new world that has such people in it?
Posted The Cuckservative on 10 February 2017 - 11:54 AM
>Steve Bannon logs on to MPC
>Locates The Shtetl of Mettle thread
>Looks for Elliot Abrams
My people are telling me he's not qualified.
Posted R. Jammington III on 12 August 2015 - 10:38 AM
You know, and it amazes me. It does, actually. It amazes me how simple some problems are. 'Oh, it's so complicated, we need more nuance' or, you know, now that they're here we have to convince them to join a church. No. It's very, very simple. You redirect the traffic. You send them to HGTV.com, they can learn to garden or something. I have many friends who took up gardening. You know, I think it builds character, but physically, they're filthy. It's disgusting.
We know that Pleasureman won't do any of these things I'm talking about. Pleasureman, who said, 'Roissy can be insightful.' Insightful! And we're getting killed by their shitposters. By the way, the WORST forum admin of all time.
*head bobbles manically for several moments*
And look, people say to me, oh, how can you say that, you just upvoted his effortpost on scale two days ago! I upvote everybody. That's the system. That's why I can private message PMAN right now and ask for the emoticon list. But it shouldn't be that way. No one should know what the emoticons are. And no one will know under a JAMMER administration. Make MPC great again. Thank you.
Posted Machop on 19 April 2013 - 02:56 PM
Chechnya is very easy to spot on a map
Since the dawn of time, the only people living in the mountainous region now know as the Chechen Republic were bandits. Their entire livelihood came from robbing caravans coming into Russia and Alania. A very good account of early chechen history can be found in Lermontov's poem "The Novice".
During the reign of Alexander I and Nicholas II, Russia annexed Georgia, Eastern Armenia and what is now known as Azerbaijan.
Needless to say, the robber monkeys did not like not being able to rob anymore, so they banded together into an islamic state, an "Imamat" and started a full on dirka-dirka strategic assault on Imperial Russia's defences in the Caucasus, most of the time wielding nothing but shovels (which is ironic, since it's near impossible to make them work with a shovel otherwise). For around fifty years they were getting completely slaughtered by russian officers, after that they kinda got bored and signed a peace treaty, agreeing to be Russia's subject.
It has to be said, Chechnya's neighbours just about had it with it's fucking bullshit by this point, but none hated chechens more than the georgians (murdering georgian monks was chechens' absolute favourite pastime), so when georgian Uncle Joe came to power, he didn't need any extra reasons to send the entire writhing mass of these inbred tribes to gulags.
But they still decided to give him one, by inviting nazi forces to Chechnya to meet with tribe elders, greeting them with open arms and deserting from the red army (90% of chechens deserted almost immediately). This resulted in Stalin implementing the wonderful and morally right Operation Lentil, consisting of the total and utter liquidation of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, along with the populace.
The russian left consider Lentil only a part of "how bad Stalin was", saying he didn't hate chechens in particular, since he deported hundreds of thousands of armenians, georgians and 9 other peoples, but that's bullshit, seeing as he asked Beria (another georgian) to oversee the chechen deportation personally, and telegraph him every day (the messages were really boring, like one said "moved them out on plan. shot all rebels. no incidents to report.").
So just remember that titbit for when you encounter commies who like to talk about how Stalin wasn't racially motivated because he was a POC or whatever.
After 1957, Khruschev allowed the poor, oppressed mudnogs to return to their mountain trees, which officially resulted in them building the bright communist future for a lil bit. Unofficially though, they came back with a grudge, and started robbing, raping and pillaging with a truly islamic vigour. Partly it was because the commies still couldn't count for shit, and moved 200,000 wild animals into a gentrified Grozny all at the same time. This resulted in catastophic unemployment levels in the region, hunger, 300 murders in the space of a couple months, and, finally, in a good old bloody riot.
Within one year, 113,000 russians, georgians and ukranians left Grozny to rot with it's apes, and that it did, with the power basically falling into the hands of organised crime.
When communism fell, the place that couldn't perceivably get any worse, got worse fast. The affluent clans that held the shambling republic fell as well, and the giant hordes of robbing, raping animals started attacking neighbouring republics. This finally resulted in the huge clusterfuck that was the Ossetian-Ingush Ethnic Conflict.
Long story short, an ex-poet named Yandarbiev and a pro jewhater called Udugov asked the arabs for a lot of money to fund their "independence war", went into the Grozny city hall, turned everything inside into mince and pronounced themselves glorious leaders. Since the arabs were a little too crazy for them, they appointed a chechen general to be their military genius, an ex-red army pilot named Dzhokhar (nice name, huh?) Dudayev.
This started the true end for this shithole (for history's sake I must note that a lot of Dudayev's efforts were funded from Moscow. you can read more on this here, under 'chechnya and russia'. also please know that for, like, five years, every night, planes took off from russian army polygons loaded with everything the russian army had, from tanks and ILs, to about 70 tonnes of shells - all to sell via Grozny. people like Yeltsin and Chubays got very, very rich, to the total tune of about $70 bln.).
So, the First Chechen War, right? The place basically turned into a black hole, with all the chechen clans instantly wanting to kill each other, weapons and drugs being smuggled everywhere, locals drilling for oil (no, really) and selling it in gallon cans by the roadside, trains being stopped, robbed and burnt daily (1993 saw 4000 train robberies), military warehouses being emptied, etc etc.
But Russia needed this war more than anyone else (Dudayev tried to sign a peace treaty multiple times) - they essentially wanted their guy to rule Chechnya.
Funnily enough, in 1996, when the russian forces finally got to Grozny and started squeezing at the remaining chechen forces from all sides, an idiotic russian general called Lebed was sent to Grozny to sign a peace pact. This was like having a winning chess move next turn and suddenly asking for a draw.
Anyway, the treaty was signed, Dudayev caught a rocket in the face, and everything was brillo pads, well, yknow, except for four fucking years of chechen terrorism on russian soil, human trafficking blossoming in the republic (tens of thousands of people), Taliban accepting Chechnya as an independent state, wahhabists appearing all over and swearing jihad, shahid camps popping up all over the place, sharia law and executions ruling supreme, and thousands upon thousands of refugees pouring out of the place.
The Second Chechen War came round in 1999, when Shamil Basaev and Ibn al-Khattab entered Dagestan, then took Grozny in 2000. The russians had just about enough of sitting in these fucking mountains, so they started a full on cleansing of all chechen extremists, which when on till 2009, when it, uh, stopped I suppose. Nobody really cared at this point. At some point in 2002, Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev immigrated to the U.S. with their father, after a Chechen community in Cambridge, Massachusetts helped fund their relocation.
So then Russia proceeded to pay the chechens around $2bn. per year "for the restoration of the republic", or the please shut the fuck up and be quiet tax. The slimes, predictably, built themselves a $5mln. mosque.
But hey, Russia did get her wish of putting a tiny, constantly angry, super pro-Putin midget on the throne there, so I guess that's something, right?
Nobody even speaks russian there anymore, 96% of babies are chechen, and packs of wild youth gangs from the new brood are already roaming the streets.
The extremists have been forced out of Grozny and right into the long-suffering outer rims of Chechnya (especially poor Ingushetiya), where they proclaimed a new jihad against their neighbours in 2010. They continue to blow shit up on an approximately monthly basis. Kremlin proudly proclaims they kill at least a dozen of them daily. War is the best business in the Caucasus, mostly because there isn't any other business left.
Some countries have accepted chechens with open arms, places like Tatarstan and Kyrgyzstan, where the brothers have spent quite some time.
A lot of details are coming out about the brothers Tsarnaev now, but if anyone dares to call them russian or white to your face I hope you know you should spit in theirs.
They were rightly the most hated, violent, unevolved and inbred of all nations the Russian Empire, in it's latter-day syphilitic idiocy, has taken under it's wing. It has regretted it ever since.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 17 June 2017 - 11:00 PM
Posted Habakkuk Mucklewrath: Autism Has No Gender on 08 June 2017 - 12:21 PM
Posted Joe Schmoe on 06 January 2017 - 12:17 PM
First, our "enemies" are paper tigers. Africa and the Middle East would starve to death overnight if we stopped feeding them and maintaining what little infrastructure they have. Niggers and hajis will never be able to build B-2 bombers and nuclear weapons at any time in the foreseeable future. They cannot invade us or overrun us if we do not want them to do so. If we want to keep them out of our countries, all we have to do is build walls and keep them out.
If they are more numerous, this means nothing. War isn't a numbers game. History is filled with examples of whites vanquishing enemies who were hundreds and thousands of times more numerous. The real issue is competence. The Japanese are an example of a competent enemy -- they were capable of building their own aircraft carriers. The current wave of "refugees?" Please, they are rabble.
I admit that the current situation is unsustainable. Western Europe and most of the US have allowed themselves to be overrun, and the fact that whites have overwhelming technological superiority, while our enemies are barely literate, is cold comfort to the white residents of Malmo and Ferguson. But the solution to this problem is deportation and secure borders. We are so much more capable than our enemies that there is no reason to engage in genocidal warfare. If we want to get them out and keep them out, then they're out. We just need the will to make it happen.
I see the logic of Weev's approach, but I think he is overestimating the threat. Yes, middle-class blacks who go to church can be seen as "leaders" of the black community -- officers, if you will. This assumes that the black community presents a serious threat. But they don't. These people can't even feed themselves. They never even invented the wheel. If whites simply show a little cultural dominance, the niggers will tone down a lot of their misbehavior. They behaved much better in the 50's and 60's. Weev is also right about the psychological dynamics -- when people feel despair, they stop fighting. But the blacks are the ones who feel despair. The ones who live among us know, deep down, that they could never invent the iPhones that they hold in their hands. Right now the (((media))) and (((activists))) have conditioned them to act out. But if we simply let them know that niggershines will no longer be tolerated, they'll act out less often. And if we separate, we won't have to worry about them at all.
Second, murder is a sin. Brevik went around pumping bullets into naive 19 year-old kids who were begging for their lives. And then he reloaded and did this again and again. They were liberals, sure, but mostly they were just ambitious 19 year-olds who (1) bought into the conventional wisdom; and (2) wanted to get ahead. Roof killed a bunch of church ladies, as opposed to drug dealers. This is just plain evil. It's every bit as horrifying as a partial-birth abortion. I can't celebrate people who would do something so hideous.
We've all had to overcome a lot of social conditioning to get to where we are today. We've all questioned -- and rejected -- a lot of fundamental assumptions. And sometimes it's hard to keep your moral bearings in a world that celebrates the the perverse and evil, like 8 year-old kids who claim to be "transgendered." But there is a reason why your gut turns over when you hear about a crime like Roof's. You should listen to your gut, because what Roof did was wrong. I feel sorry for Roof and don't understand what pushed him to become as angry as he is. And I'm sure I'd agree with him on many issues. But his anger drove him to commit a terrible sin. I can't celebrate that.
Look, niggers are, on average, our genetic inferiors. I accept this. But they're still human. They're not like us, but they are like our mentally slow cousin with a mean streak. Jews are morally sick, like the uncle who is an alcoholic or a compulsive gambler and steals from grandma's bank account. But our enemies are still human. They are still made, however imperfectly, the image of God.
I don't want to live in a black neighborhood, I don't want the (((media))) indoctrinating my children with poz. But I don't think the solution to those problems is violence and genocide. If the Europeans finally get their shit together and start securing their borders and deporting refugees, I think it's OK to use force to enforce those policies. But that's the way to handle this, we shouldn't encourage guys like Roof to go shoot up a bunch of cab drivers praying at the local mosque.
A lot of us are angry. I know that I'm pretty fucking angry at the status quo. So angry that if someone were to start knocking off, say, porn producers, BLM activists, Wall Street bankers, and prominent cuckservatives, I'd sleep pretty soundly . But i wouldn't do this myself, because I know it's wrong. It's important not to let your anger, even though it is entirely justified, get out of control. We've all got to keep that in check.
Posted Jung Man on 06 November 2016 - 08:24 PM
I have tried to write this several times over the past week, but it always comes out too saccharine. Seeing as we’re at the 11th hour, however, I’m just gonna roll with it, and hopefully the more chic MPC poasters among us can forgive me the sentimentality. I’m both very excited and very nervous right now, and I’m afraid it’s bleeding into my poasts.
Trump winning the election was always an impossible dream. When I first happened upon MPC in early 2015, I had consigned myself to not voting in US elections ever again. Even at my relatively young age, I was so supremely disillusioned by the multiple back-to-back Current Years of 2012, 2013, and 2014 that I had – like many in this particular political sphere of the Internet – essentially given up on any sort of interaction with the system. What we now refer to as the elite or the establishment seemed to have such absolute power, such wide-encompassing resources, and so many talented if craven people working for it that it all seemed completely hopeless. I was thoroughly blackpilled, having watched shitlibbery march through the universities and institutions unabated, each year adding an even sillier and more detached outrage, increasing the anti-white sentiment as we went from Trayvon to Ferguson. Worse yet, looking to what we now refer to as the cuckservative leadership for some reprieve, there was nothing to be found but clowns and (((jesters))). It was a dark time, friends; the Overton Window (to use a blast from the past) had essentially grown wings. The poz was inescapable.
What struck me about my first visit to MPC was the humor, far funnier than anything I’d encountered in the despair-mines of Unz or the chans or (forgive me) Takimag. To be sure, there was still a perceptible stench of doom about the place, but at least these shitlords were handling it with a sense of style and grace. The discourse was easily 1488x more intelligent than anything I’d ever read on /pol/, and I enjoyed the complete skewering of some of the sillier ideas I’d entertained in moments of weakness (Moldbug). “These guys really get it”, was what I found myself thinking while I lurked, “and they hate naggers, too!” So began my passage across a sea of hurtful words.
Still, even the bleeding-edge visual grammarians of MPC had to let out a virtual groan over the prospects of Election 2016. Here came Jeb! the Empty Man, just a completely worthless sad sack who was obviously incapable of winning the election against The First Vagina Pres, let alone stopping the issue du jour, HUD-sponsored nagger colonizers being deployed onto unsuspecting whyte neighborhoods. I was still having a good time lurking, but even the humor started failing to mask how dire things seemed for non-gay right-leaning white folk in the West in general and America in particular.
And then he appeared.
In an age where a man LARPing as a woman with a penis was being tentatively considered as the hip, new, Cronenberg-esque face of Republicanism, real-estate billionaire and reality TV star Donald John Trump rode a golden elevator onto stage and announced that the Mexicans were doing the raping and it was high time to kick them the fuck out and that he was running for President of the United States of America to do just that. The sheer tonal bitch slap of that first press conference, when The Donald first showed his characteristic insouciance by dropping his brass YUUUGE ones right onto the podium, was the black swan event (apologies to Taleb if this isn’t quite the exact definition) of the Alt-Right generation. The stunned trickle media down whores could barely believe their eyes… and neither could what would become the foot soldiers of the Trump Army. After all these years, and so many false starts, it was finally happening (faggots).
I mean, if we could just pause for a moment, Donald Trump really should not exist. In an age where Jeb “Bottom of the Barrel” Bush was predetermined to be the completely ineffectual and lackluster “champion of conservatism", in strolled a populist/nationalist with absolutely zero political experience and basically walked up to the biggest baddest nagger (the media), punched it right in the mouth, and declared loudly that anyone who didn’t like it could “Eat shit, niglet.” In an age when Republicans were cucking for “compassionate conservatism", Donald Trump advocated building an actual border wall between the US and Mexico. And stopping trigger-happy Muslims from coming to our shores. And ending birthright citizenship. He advocated putting America First, and he did so without falling into any of the retarded cuckservative traps of yore, like the unconventional conservatism of talking about GDP growth while your nation transformed into a morass of rootless muds right before your very eyes. Incredible and inconceivable.
To condense a long story that you all know very well, here we find ourselves on the eve of the 2016 Election, with that very same madman in the final showdown versus the old shitdawg herself. This thread is an excellent compendium of all the many twists and turns that we took together getting here, from the early TRiUMPhs in the primaries to the weekly Wikileaks drops. He energized an entire generation of Americans into openly realtalking, into asking why our leaders were such incompetent and malevolent clowns. He destroyed the GOP, a feat for which he will always be owed an insane debt of gratitude, and forced many a (((values))) conservative to out themselves as just another side of the globalist coin. He instilled primal fear in our enemies, flipping the tables on them for once, and caused them to go mad, embracing everything from neo-McCarthyism (“The Russians hacked the FBI!”) to overt demographic dispossession (“Can’t wait ‘til all you whites die out!”). He revealed shiftless and violent muds to be exactly what everyone knew them to be, a far cry from the cuckservative’s Natural Conservative™ label. He did this and so much more, becoming the lone champion of the American People against a tidal wave of character assassinations and snarky takedowns.
I want Donald J. Trump to be my president more than anything I’ve perhaps ever wanted. He is one of history’s Great Men, flawed though he may be. His mere existence is the essence of hope.
Will Trump win? God, I hope so. I know in my heart that he can win, that there are certainly worlds that exist after this Tuesday where President Trump is a reality. The odds are likely no better or worse than a coin toss, which is in and of itself one of the most inspirational stories of our time. I believe that Trump will win in the same way I believed that he would win the primaries even when things looked grim after Iowa. I trust the analysis of WWP, and of the thousands of shitlords who have dedicated their 2016 to analyzing Trump’s chances of being president. Make no mistake: I do not think it will be a Trump landslide. It’s going to be close, and we’ll all be incredibly lucky if Trump eeks it out with a few Electoral Votes to spare. But also make no mistake: it can be done. Trump can win.
If the forces of evil prevail once again and we awake Wednesday to Hillary’s MADAME BUTTERTHGHS, I am going to be fucked up, full stop. Pman et al. have advised that Trump is likely the opening salvo in a long realignment away from failed shitlib Current Year policies and I believe him, but the thought of Trump not clinching it is almost too much to bear at this late hour. I love Donald Trump and he seems so unique and the odds are so high that it is nigh on impossible for me to imagine there will ever be anyone like him again. I certainly believe that Trump is the last chance to right the USS Western Civilization by completely democratic means; we are in for a rough next five years no matter who wins, but doubly so if it isn’t Trump.
I also just really, really want Trump to win. I love Trump’s hate of shitlibs, and he’s brought us so far.
In closing, the only vote I’ve ever cast before for president was begrudgingly for John McCain in 2008, God forgive me. To contrast, right now as I type this, I am decked out in Trump gear, have written a small novel about my love for Trump, have donated a respectable amount of money to the Trump campaign, and am completely energized to vote for Trump. Trump has made me believe in America again, that maybe things aren’t completely fucked after all. When I think back to my first days on MPC and compare them to now, I cannot believe how far we’ve come, and we owe nearly all of that to this one man, Donald Trump.
I want to live under a President Trump more than I can really rightly describe. It seems almost surreal that such a wish could very well be a reality in short order. Trump truly is an exceptional man on every level, and the only one I trust to Make America Great Again!
Preaching to the choir here, but please don’t forget to vote, friends. Trump has done so very much for us, and it is now time for us to repay him in kind. God be with us and The Donald now. Trump winning the presidency was always an impossible dream, and yet here we are. Let’s finish the job.
Posted Skylark: Time-Travelling Homophobe From 1983 on 24 July 2016 - 01:59 AM
Posted Mohel's Midnight Snack on 03 May 2016 - 09:24 PM
And now bindis are promising not to come here if he wins? Looks like Christmas is coming in November this year!
Posted Babadook on 12 June 2017 - 01:04 PM
See, this is part of Trump's true genius and ability to think long term. I've known who he was my whole life. He's a big dumb goofy billionaire doing Pizza Hut commercials and cameos in Home Alone 2.
He built into his whole identity a sense of self-ridicule, but for DECADES has trained people to underestimate him. How in the world do you convince the world your a big dumb goofball while at the same time erecting golden towers with your name on them all over the world? That's like having a .650 batting average and then trying to convince the world you're a shitty baseball player, but he did it.
He knows exactly when and how to let people ridicule him. He let comedy central roast him in 2011, he's been shrugging off and participating in jokes about every matter of his appearance for years. Trying to goof on his appearance is like trying to goof on Mel Brooks for being Jewish or Milo for being gay. He has essentially disarmed anyone from making fun of his appearance in any way. When they do it just gets swallowed up in the sea of other people making the same jokes.
By being in commercials and reality TV and especially professional wrestling (so interesting how many parallels with 'rasslin have come up on this forum alone...), he is sort of owning the label of 'dumb' and 'goofy'. Its not dignified to be in a stuffed crust pizza commercial, which is why he was brilliant to do it. If your MO is to be DIGNIFIED AT ALL TIMES, you are fated to be the hapless straight man to anyone ridiculing you. You're the substitute teacher demanding total obedience. You're setting yourself up for the fall and have everyone waiting for the class clowns to make you blow a gasket.
So now, they are impotent in making fun of his looks -AND- his intelligence.
He does low class things like eat fast food and call people names. They were very stupid to attack him for that, because the average person does those things and can relate to those things. Who among us, if we were suddenly a powerful billionaire, wouldn't take some joy in calling your detractors losers and trolling them? He tweets to a rich and powerful prince to call him "dopey" and millions of people see it and like it. TRUMP EATS FRIED CHICKEN AND TACO BOWLS?! Well we do to you dumb elitist niggers. TRUMP CALLS WOMEN PIGS! Well that woman is a fukkin pig, my eyes work, smartguy.
So then their next plan of attack, after his looks and his intelligence, his behavior, is thus rendered useless.
Its fucking brilliant when you look at it all. Like the final scene in The Usual Suspects, as the coffee cup breaks. You can sit and slowly realize that he's been setting up dominoes since before I was even born, 34 years ago.
When they occasionally come by the realization that their attacks on any of those three things are useless, they just turn around and attack his supporters instead. We all saw how well that went. Coughing fit, pants of shit...
Posted John Rocker on 25 May 2017 - 06:28 PM
What is Globalism 2.0? For now, it's a nascent hodgepodge of buzzwords, broad policy ideas, and inklings. It's taking shape as we speak in Silicon Valley, on the quad at Berkeley, at DC think tanks, in office break rooms at startups, over bottles of Soylent chilled to an optimal 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Ezra Klein readers stroke what passes for their chins. Small-souled bugmen, listening to Coldplay on the elliptical, catch themselves daydreaming of something more. Something better. Something efficient. Something that “works”.
Then it happens. As if breathed into existence from the collective ennui of millennial urbanites, the Jew figurehead arrives with his “fresh ideas”. On cue, the revolutionary Jewish spirit asserts itself, sensing a fracture in society that could be exploited to remake the goyim in its image.
Mark Zuckerberg throws his yid lid into the ring. He enters the grand contest. The wunderkind, the apotheosis of rootlessness, the progenitor of the coming Kike-Gook technocratic overclass, stands in the eye of the storm of poz, Harvard University, and with the great weight of that august institution behind him musters the chutzpah to outline the skeleton of a new political program. A program that works.
The seasoned shitlord will scoff at this high-flown drivel. It reads like the sham language of Barry Soetoro. “Is this the best you could muster, ye Hebrews?” you wonder to yourself. But then you read on.
In those two sentences, the left may have begun rebuilding itself. The Jew's incantations certainly cast a spell. They are potent. They speak to man's dissatisfaction with modernity. Zuckerberg presents universal welfare not as a pushy moral obligation, as recompense for past 'injustice', or with fiery and accusatory language. He asserts that it's efficient. It lets people “try new ideas”. It “works”.
Never mind that such a political program, implemented with open borders, would completely destroy any chance of having a “meaningful role” in society. Never mind the myriad contradictions behind it. Never mind the rampaging niggers burning through their free inflationary cash. Never mind the ruddy little Aztecs using your tax dollars to spit out nine kids per barrio breeding sow. Never mind the rootless, hopeless, itinerant dystopia these kikes hope to foist on an unsuspecting public. The only relevant question is, “Could the great mass of bugmen and independents respond to this rhetoric?” I believe they could. And they likely will if we drop the ball.
The alt-right, the new right, nationalism, populism – whatever you want to call This Thing That's Been Happening – was never destined for a showdown with screeching campus communists. Many joined the fight in hopes of facing down 80-IQ niggers and aposematic catladies. But they were the pawns on the chessboard. And, as with our NEETsoc and Adolf Skywalker-inspired pawns, they're easily destroyed by a competent opponent.
The board has been cleared of distractions. The realignment, much ballyhooed by Pleasureman, is almost complete. And though this was only a preliminary speech from Zuckerberg, it suggests a far more worthy nemesis is over the horizon: a perverse fusion of entrepreneurs, strivers, neoconservatives, entrenched corporate interests, bugmen, goons, deracinated consumers, worshipers of systems and scientism, niggers, spics, and shady internationalist Jews.
And while Zuckerberg's personal soullessness and public snafus may prevent him from truly taking a run at power, an alternative left is forming. It will, by necessity, dispense with the overt appeals to white genocide. It will, by necessity, cleverly poke holes in Conservatism™ and its inability to respond to atomization and despair. It will offer a bribe to the bugman, to the atomized and lost white soul. It will be a Faustian bargain: comfort, consumer goods, and “efficiency” in exchange for identity, tradition, aesthetics, and civilizational survival.
One way or another, the Jew is determined to deracinate and neuter the West forevermore. If he must pay the goyim a stipend and pretend he cares in the meantime, he is more than willing to do so.
It is up to us, the Trump coalition, to leave enough of an imprint on the political right to ensure that never happens. Only we can inform our brothers and sisters of what would be lost in the bargain. The battle of shitlords versus snowflakes has peaked. The battle of SCALE versus SANITY has only just begun.
This thread is an open forum to prepare for the coming technocratic brand of leftism, shorn of overt nigger rabble rousing and infused with TED TALKing points. Poast your thoughts on how to build awareness and immunity to SO WE LOOKED AT THE DATA charlatans. How do we keep them from Trojan-horsing their nation wrecking behind a facade of Silicon Valley bullshit?
Posted Hazmat Harry on 12 March 2017 - 01:15 PM
I don't think the video was disingenuous. It appears to have been made by true believers, because the leadership of the company really does seem to truly believe in the "emerging global economy" narrative. But how could they see that?
When I look at the world today, I see an order that is founded on the military triumph of Anglo-American civilization over the rest of the world. The British Empire spread certain norms, institutions, and activities across the world before WW2, and the Americans spread them further and put our own spin on them afterward. In concrete terms, there are Chinese LLCs because the British won the Opium Wars. Honda sells high-quality cars across the world because Jimmy Doolittle firebombed Tokyo. Without ten American supercarriers keeping shipping lanes open, the iPhone as we know it would not exist.
Another fundamental piece of global American hegemony is the imposition of Westphalian states on the entire globe. This is a pretty unnatural state of affairs in Africa and the Middle East, but it's how we decided the world ought to be organized, and we had the military and economic power to back it up. Thus we can see as American power is retreating in the Middle East and Africa, its imposed states are crumbling.
How are liberals and globalists not able to see this?
I think a big part of it comes down to our own moral psychology. Americans don't like to think of ourselves as a global hegemony, and Europeans definitely don't like to think of themselves as dominated by Americans. Throw in some of the 1960s cultural revolution, and we all silently agree that it's best to pretend that the bloody wars of the 20th century and the massive amount of force America projects all over the planet has nothing to do with why my Mastercard works in Guatemala. The idea of our current order being the result of America taking over the empires of the prewar era and rejiggering them to fit into more democratic, nationalist ideals (the UN was established to protect the rights of nations to exist, not the right of governments to manage the GDP of arbitrary territories) at the point of a Minuteman III isn't something a lot of people are comfortable with.
By subtracting violence and military power from the equation, globalists have built for themselves an alternative, end-of-history narrative. Furthermore, Jewish academics and historians successfully associated nationalism with Nazism, so the nationalist dimension of the postwar liberal order started getting scrubbed after 1965. So you've got this order that's built on nation-states and American might, but you're not allowed to think about either of those things because they're icky. That's why we've got this absurd story of a new, global, common humanity just naturally "emerging" out of the darkness and violence of the past, complete with a shiny new global economy where everyone wears jeans, eats cheeseburgers, and plays team sports because those are just things that common global humans naturally do.
That narrative is collapsing firstly because American global power doesn't make sense any more. For one thing, compared to the rest of the world, trade is a shockingly small portion of our GDP (45% of global GDP, 21% of American GDP), and most of our trade is with Canada and Mexico. Without a Cold War to fight, we've got these massive supercarriers cruising around the world basically to ensure that China, India, Africa, and the EU can trade safely with each other. It's becoming increasingly obvious that yes, American military power is actually the #1 reason anyone can get so much as a drop of oil out of the inbred nomads of the Arabian desert. So when we spend $2 trillion to build a new Iraq...and 2/3 of the new Iraq's trade goes to India and China...it's not a sensible deal for us. We are effectively fighting trade wars for other countries now.
The second reason this is collapsing because as we retreat from directly imposing our will on the Third World, their ability to maintain nation-states is also collapsing. The Middle East is stubbornly refusing to emerge into the future; they're instead breaking up into tribal networks and Islamic theocracies that are entirely disinterested in becoming a common humanity. Foreign policy-oriented rags are surprised every year by how China is once again not becoming a democracy or embracing sodomy, and no one wants to talk too much about how it's building an old-fashioned prewar empire in Africa, because that's not the sort of thing anyone does in the 21st century, and it's not like we could stop them anyway.
The third and final reason is that the EU is trying to assert itself as a rival superpower to Washington. Of course they're going to fail, and Islamifying the continent is a curiously stupid way to try and out-America Americans, but the fact is that they're doing it all the while still expecting that we'll foot the bill to protect them from Russia's inevitable conflicts with them. As Americans drowsily wake up and start paying attention to world affairs, the first thing we notice is just how little these sassy, arrogant Europeans are paying for their own defense...and we start wondering what would happen if we really did let them go it alone.
The globalist narrative is falling; even the most weak-minded of liberals can sense it. And that's why they truly don't know what could possibly be after Trump. Because we sure can't go back to 1998.
Posted Bonobo Mindset on 11 January 2017 - 01:53 PM
you Orwellian scumbags started the fake news meme because you thought you could repress us with it and now you're butthurt because it's turned against you, lie some more and let's see what makes you cry next
Suddenly, the horn-rimmed left has a big problem with the transvaluation of all values.
You were supposed to deconstruct the church, the family, and the nation, not MY pieties!
No, that's not the way it works buddy. You suckled the teat of Foucault: now your moral systems will be corroded by nihilism from within, just as bacteria devoured the late French philosopher's GRIDS-ravaged brain.
What Chris doesn't seem to understand is that what he and his cohorts call the "free press" is simply a tool of neoliberal domination. He's acting as a mouthpiece of institutional power, serving his global financial masters in their effort to enforce memetic hegemony. He can't bear to to admit he occupies a position of privilege (Media Fragility, anyone?), which he and his predecessors gained by exploiting and repressing the basic social norms of working and middle-class people for decades. Oh, now you want us to observe "decorum" and "precedent"? And why should we respect the trappings of your power structures?
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 12 November 2016 - 01:04 PM
Posted Cinco Jotas on 13 October 2016 - 07:42 PM
Since February of 2014, when I first laid out my idea for a populist electoral platform, I've found myself in the unusual position of having been right about a few things.
Today, it occurred to me that something I'd predicted in July of 2015 was coming true in spades. To wit, Trump has entered the "populist golden zone, where every media attack, especially the petty ones, strengthen his electoral position."
Nothing like that will stick to Trump. There will be plenty of really grotesque things come out about Trump -- bribery of officials, adultery, Marla Maples, payoffs to thuggish NY union goons-- but none of it will stick, and it will drive the media elites insane, just insane, because every time they drop a bomb, Trump will get stronger.
That's what a populist campaign does, it flips everything upside down. [...]
No one, especially not the bien pensant j-school fuckwits, has ever seen anything like a true populist campaign. In 1980, Reagan got a little of that populist magic, and was teflon-coated because of it. Trump has the potential to enter Huey Long territory, where even evidence of massive, grasping corruption can be spun into electoral gold.
Earlier this afternoon, NPR's All Things Considered opened the show with a clip of an angry Trump denouncing Hillary, the New York Times, big media, the Dems, and the whole rotten establishment as colluding to keep him down. The NPR fag described Trump's language as "apocalyptic". Obviously, they thought the clip would damage Trump, showing him as unhinged. They were wrong. By ramping up the rhetoric to DEFCON LEVEL MINUS 1 (MISSILES IN AIR!) and by coming out of the gate so fast last night with his legal threats, Trump has completely jujitsu-ed the narrative.
You might have gone to bed thinking that the top story today would be GROPE-GATE, but it's not. The actual top story today is Trump, in the strongest language, alleging a grand conspiracy of everyone important against him and the American people. So, when I heard that lead-off clip, it struck me that Trump has not just entered the populist golden zone, he's begun to transcend it.
Just as the end of the election arrives, Donald Trump is transitioning into his final form: Trump is achieving populist apotheosis: He is becoming The People's Champion
The new narrative that's breaking into the national consciousness is One Honest Man Against Washington. From here on out, the coordinated nature of the attacks is more important than the content. Every establishment, big media attack validates Trump's righteousness. They're proof that he's the underdog, fighting a virtuous battle. Even the cooked polls help him, after all, an underdog has to be down in the final quarter of the big game for the victory to really matter.
Here's something else: everyone is underestimating the importance of the first ten minutes of the second debate. Consider this: Trump never, ever, never apologizes. Even Granny Just-Words said he never apologizes. But there he was on Sunday night, apologizing. Not just apologizing, but abashed, nervous looking and subdued. This wasn't a histrionic televangelist apology, but evidence of a man experiencing genuine contrition.
Even better, here's the key section of the written apology:
That's Trump's metamorphosis; the final act turn of the Hero's Journey. Prince Hal has put away Falstaff and donned the crown of a good king. Trump has repented his sinful ways and been transformed into a righteous warrior.
If we believe his written apology, and I do, Trump has been chosen and transformed by ordinary Americans into their worthy champion. Donald Trump is no longer fighting to increase his wealth, he's fighting against terrible odds to save us from an evil cabal. Want proof he's forsaken wealth? From the misshapen mouth of an odious bumblefuck...
From an electoral standpoint, practicing Christians, especially evangelicals, are the people most likely to see Trump's apology and contrition as evidence of change. However, I'm convinced that this transformation registers on the subliminal level for everyone. We all saw Trump stumble through his apology, and we all see his recent actions and can compare them to how we've regarded him in the past. He IS a different man.
The fight right now is for Dems to say he hasn't changed, but they can't actually prove that. Remember in 2000 when the October surprise was that George W. got a DUI in Maine in 1976? Evangelicals stuck with W. because they knew he had repented, changed his boozing ways, and was forgiven. Evidence of old drinking and drugging couldn't hurt him with Christians as long as he stayed sober, because they understood how apologies work. God forgives you your old sins, and if your behavior remains consistent with contrition humans should forgive you, too. Trump the womanizer is priced into last weekend's apology, so the groping Trump is not actually new news. The problem is that Trump's change was not as public or as far in the past as W's. But it's not bad, and can be cited as evidence. (If you're talking to skeptical Christians, work only on a) Trump's apology was genuine. He's a different man. God has forgiven him, as he forgave David/Solomon/Other Important Sinner, so why are you so hardhearted toward a contrite man? or b) Hillary will be objectively worse for Christians and unborn babies. Moral theory says you have to vote for Trump to stop this predicted gross evil from happening. Trump is contrite. Hillary & Bill have never apologized.)
Right now, the new narrative of Plain Spoken Trump Against Everyone Rotten is in place. There's nothing the MSM or Dems can do to change it. They can't claim they're even-handed or objective, because they've said they're against him a million times in million different ways. They've failed in their effort to portray Trump as being not plain spoken. They've attacked Trump with bogus "fact checkers" for a year, and all that's happened is that the public judges Trump ahead of Hillary in truthfulness with media fact checkers coming in a distant third. They've destroyed their own credibility attacking Trump's.
So, Trump is the truth-telling champion of the people, an underdog fighting a corrupt establishment, risking his reputation and wealth to save America. We Trumpians have seen this Trump coming for months, but now the final populist apotheosis of Donald Trump is taking place in full view of the American public, and the panicked press and Dems are building the narrative with every shitty attack, every slanted poll.
Trump is our avenging Golden Pepe. The evidence is how hard the establishment is fighting him. The harder they fight, the more sure we can be that he is the chosen one. And that, my friends, is a populist wave election.
The dramatic arc points to only one conclusion: complete victory. Epic landslide.
* I've obviously changed my mind about Mitt Romney. He's a corrupt, cuckservative piece of shit.
Posted Marketing Guru on 04 March 2016 - 04:21 PM
PART ONE: LYING TED
This first post will be about Ted Cruz, and why he's completely untrustworthy. I actually used to be pro-Cruz, for all the usual reasons. While I left his camp faster than most, I'm familiar with all the arguments in his favor and what the nature of his base is. If I had to express the gestalt of the Cruz campaign in a single tweet, I'd use this one:
This guy has been tweeting angrily at me for something like the past hour (and counting) when he learned I went from Cruz to Trump. I asked him to perhaps take a break from the Trump attacks and explain the appeal of Cruz. That produced the response above.
Now, let me share some relevant links to CTH articles, and then I'll summarize:
Video – Ted Cruz Dirty Tricks Explained With Evidence…
Who is The Real Ted Cruz?
“The Most Consistent Conservative”? Ted Cruz 2011 -vs- 2015 on Birthright Citizenship
Senator Ted Cruz Has an Unstable Glenn Beck Problem – The Beck, Barton and Mercer Connections…
Ted Cruz Campaign Head Credits Psychological Operations As Primary Source of Voter Support…
Ted Cruz Launches Internet Data-Mining “Stazi” APP To Identify Friends and Phone Contacts of Cruz Supporters…
Most Importantly: A Republic If We Can Keep It – A Message To Ted Cruz Supporters…
You can find the details on everything I'm about to say in these URL's. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have, but I don't have the time or inclination to properly footnote everything. So here it goes, from the hip.
My own tl;dr on Cruz is that he's right wing Obama. Some like to describe Rubio that way, but Rubio is far too much a product of the establishment for that to apply. Rubio is the GOPe doing what it always does: trying to win today's battles by being a pale () imitation of liberals from 10 years ago. On the other hand, major aspects of the Cruz campaign seem to come straight out of the Obama playbook.
Like Obama, Cruz is a freshman senator with no executive experience who is now seeking the highest office in the land, and relying upon the support of a carefully targeted and cultivated demographic that he hopes will catapult him to victory in a quasi-religious fervor, playing heavily on a faux-outsider status that has more to do with a deficit of interpersonal skills than anything of real policy significance (he's bankrolled by Goldman Sachs, his wife worked for a group that wanted a united CA-US-MX, etc.).
Also like Obama, Cruz relies heavily on analytics and targeting to identify the most loyal potential supporters and whip them into a frenzy. In fact, Cruz's entire campaign is largely masterminded (quietly) by hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. (Mercer, incidentally, owes the IRS billions in back taxes. You think that might have something to do with Cruz's strange "abolish the IRS" mantra?) Mercer also owns a company called Cambridge Analytica, which uses big data analysis to determine who to target and how.
In addition, Mercer is a principal financial stakeholder in Breitbart.com. If you voted in any of those BB polls earlier in this primary cycle, you might have found yourself with a surprise fundraising letter from Cruz. That's because Mercer's algorithm's determined that you were a useful mark. (Good luck unsubscribing.) And if you ever thought BB was pushing some bizarre angles in defense of Cruz, now you know why. My own suspicion is that Mercer has quietly gotten his tendrils into a ton of different places. Also, he's the reason Glenn Beck was brought on board -- the algorithms indicated that Beck's supporters were just the right kind of crazy for the Cruz campaign.
It's worth noting that Trump is, in many regards, the anti-Cruz. Trump relies on his instincts, and though he improvises (and, as a result, flubs details all the time, like in last night's debate), he has a consistent big-picture perspective stretching all the way back to his first book. We all know that we're voting for Trump because beaner wall and CHEYYNA. The plan is to get Trump in the WH so he can get the right people on the job to handle these issues.
Cruz could not be more different. Every single detail is planned and rehearsed, and he strives to be a messianic political figure with all the answers, always. Nothing is improvised or left to chance. And what's his big picture vision? If you look through the years, it's not clear that it's anything other than his own political career. This is why the Cruz camp obsesses so much about the small picture and little details -- the "muh constitution" spergery -- because there isn't any big picture to be had. Trump stumbles on his words when talking about how exactly he wants to protect american jobs, but the fact that he wants to do that has a 30 year track record. Cruz just bases everything on talmudic Constitution wonkery -- that's the entirety of his big picture, and it means he can be on any side of any issue and, so long as he words everything carefully enough, he never technically was "wrong" or changed his mind.
Take the "natural born citizen" requirement. Prior to his candidacy, you could be forgiven for thinking, based on Cruz's speaking, that he had a position which disqualified himself from running. Except, of course, for when you fast forward to today. Thing is, if you listen very carefully, with a lawyer's ears... it's suddenly not so clear that he's contradicting himself, is it? That's the entirety of Cruz's game: speak out of both sides of his mouth so that he can take whatever position is politically expedient at the moment, while never actually technically contradicting himself. He's a constitutional Pharisee, basically.
This brings us to immigration and trade, the biggies. I don't have much to say except that Cruz did here what he always does. He took a very careful, measured, eloquent stand, which, if you pay close attention, actually lets him argue he was on whichever side happened to win. I encourage you to look at the available video with an open mind and decide for yourself. The initial position Cruz staked out on these issues would allow him to later say he was for or against Gof8 or TPA/TPP, depending on which way the political winds blew. (Of all places, Slate has a couple of good articles on this, see here and here.)
So like Obama, nothing about Cruz is really genuine, save for his own political aspirations. The chief difference is that while the faggot from Hawaii decided to adopt a Magical Negro identity to sell to his base, Cruz (who met his wife working on GWB's campaign) adopted a Texan Crusader identity to sell to his. It's a long con, and it's been working so far, so why shouldn't he shoot for the moon?
There's one little snag. The GOPe saw what Obama did to the Dems and decided they didn't want that to happen to them. And they took measures to ensure it. Specific measures, taken by specific actors, intended to lock out specific players. In particular: McConnell and Ryan worked to ensure that the GOP nomination process was structured, and the field of candidates stacked, in such a way that Cruz would be entirely unelectable. This was the entire GOP nomination strategy: block Cruz, coronate Jeb. (I'll talk about this in later, and suffice it to say that Trump blew all of this up).
Expect more deranged hysteria from Cruz and his camp as the reality of this sets in. But you cannot persuade the true believers in the #CruzCrew. These are people who gave Glenn Beck the ovation of his life when said that both the Bible and the constitution are sacred scripture. The Jim Jones effect is strong, and you have to wait from them to come to the light on their own, if at all possible. (As I wrap up this ramble, the guy from the picture above is still angrily tweeting at me, 2+ hours later.)
Finally, let the full weight of the Sessions endorsement sink in. Arguably, nobody worked closer with Cruz in the senate than Sessions, particularly on the two most important issues: immigration and trade. For Sessions to endorse Trump -- his first presidential candidate endorsement ever -- says more about Cruz than all the 888 I've ever written in this thread could.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 19 November 2015 - 01:38 PM
This is hardly an exaggeration:
In one of the most controversial recommendations, it even calls for an end to so-called “windows of life” – small rooms built into the walls of convents where desperate mothers can leave unwanted children.
The document alternates between banal recommendations (e.g. improving dental care) and lurid fantasies about increasing the rate of abortion and mandated multiculturalism. The droning encouragement of "LGBT rights" is written in the same farcically officious language as its warning to Poland not to exceed the word limit on its next report:
A satirist could hardly invent a more cutting example of weird bureaucratic excess.
Among other things the UN committee calls for greater tolerance of gypsies and Muslims, and greater efforts to combat child sex trafficking; the comedy grows darker and darker as it progresses. As a whole it gives a glimpse into the interestingly systematic quality of the culture of death.
The document then calls for Poland to "review and strengthen its measures to prevent and eliminate stereotypes, intolerance and discrimination among the general public as well as national and local authorities." More or less a call to eliminate higher brain functions. Implicit in all this is a war on democracy; ideally, the electorate of any nation is free to choose a Party figurehead, but all actual political decisions are to be screened for appropriateness by a globalist bureaucracy, and a coalition of political, media, and business elites will determine actual policy.
As James Burnham observed, democracy keeps managerialism viable as a system because it provides a safety valve against centralized error. Without the safety valve, both internal contradictions and popular opposition will escalate (seen in erratic economic conditions and the rise of nationalist parties), destroying the effectiveness of managerialism and leading to its exhaustion.
These are the political facts of our situation. But what is the culture of death and why is it connected to economic and political globalism?
The culture of death is a combination of nihilism and hedonism which spreads throughout a society in response to social despair--a state of spiritual isolation arising from inadequate social bonds. Because social bonds provide an important emotional bulwark against negative experiences, and are also a regular source of pleasure, those suffering from social despair are hypersensitive to stressors and lead a relatively joyless existence. In this state they develop a dependence on sensory stimulation and emphatic reinforcement of self-image. This reaction further stunts the ability to form organic social bonds--their activities revolve entirely around selfish experiences.
We've discussed in the past the rise of transactional societies and the concomitant erosion of personality through the weakening of social relationships. These are the macro symptoms of the culture of death, the absence of a spiritual life not only in individuals but in the culture as well. In transactionalism there is no emotional meaning to interactions. When daily activity loses emotional, i.e. social, resonance, the self paradoxically disappears. One's actions take on a mechanical, empty quality (an experience felt by depressives). Intimacy with social meaning (a mother kissing her child, a husband his wife) is entirely different from physical gratification without social meaning.
This process does not take place in isolation; as the population shifts toward selfish materialism, the economic and cultural production of a society shifts likewise. Once a tipping point is reached and purveyors of materialism become dominant, they use their influence to transform the environment further in their favor. Moral prohibitions are thwarted via legal attacks, obstacles to consolidation are removed, and tools of community self-regulation are destroyed.
As the culture of death progresses to its last stages, it evinces another telling quality: its rage. I've mentioned the personality-dissolving aspect of materialism. The only emotion that remains in such a state is hatred. Social disconnectedness increases vulnerability (partly through suppressing emotional maturity) and reduces empathy/sympathy, which leads to an intensified hatred of perceived enemies. This explains why, even as hedonistic liberalism becomes dominant, it demonstrates ever more venomous anger. This late stage psychosis of hedonism is the ultimate product of the culture of death.
Sources: http://www.breitbart...itional-family/, http://tbinternet.oh.../CO/3-4&Lang=en
Posted Ruprecht The Scoundrel on 27 January 2014 - 07:09 PM
By the end of it I couldn't help but notice the faces of the people sitting near me in the bar I was at.
- E! Online (@eonline) January 27, 2014
- Chantal Herrera (@Chanteeezzy) January 27, 2014
By this point I didn't think this shit could get any gayer. Surely we had reached the pinnacle of this mockery of God. In fact the only thing that could possibly make it any gayer would be if they performed mass gay wedding ceremony commissioned by Queen Latifah right in the middle of this three ring circus. Yeah...I'm fucking serious.
The landmark nuptuals took place during a medley of the rap duo's breakout hit "Same Love" — an anthem for same sex marriage advocates — as Latifah stage to officiate the simultaneous wedding of couples of varying ages and sexual orientations. The ceremony continued as Madonna took the stage and performed her own classic "Open Your Heart.
Here are some of the lyrics from the song performed by Hollywood's new bottom boy Macklemore during the ceremony.
The right-wing conservatives think it's a decision
And you can be cured with some treatment and religion
Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition, playing God
If I was gay I would think hip-hop hates me
Have you read the YouTube comments lately?
"Man, that's gay" gets dropped on the daily
We've become so numb to what we're saying
Our culture founded from oppression
Yet we don't have acceptance for 'em
Call each other faggots
Behind the keys of a message board
A word rooted in hate
Yet our genre still ignores it
"Gay" is synonymous with the lesser
It's the same hate that's caused wars from religion
Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment
The same fight that led people to walk-outs and sit-ins
It's human rights for everybody, there is no difference
Live on! And be yourself!
Of course Madonna showed up sporting a gold grill with her pet nigger fashion accessory in tow.
Who you might ask is responsible for creating this big shit sandwich?
Grammy Executive Producer Ken Ehrlich
CBS CEO Leslie Moonves
CBS President Nina Tassler
CBS majority owner and crypt keeper Sumner Murray Rothstein
Welp the Jews have really outdone themselves this year.
Posted BTH: Conceived At NPI on 18 February 2016 - 11:23 AM
If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.
The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story - he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Fuccboi Cryalot and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.
For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.
Easily and brazenly dismisses Pope Faggot and calls him a pawn of the global elites. I would vote for this man everyday until the end of days.
Posted Chicano Studies Major on 07 February 2016 - 06:39 PM
In the broadest possible terms, the Frankfurt School (named after the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt's Goethe University, where the movement more or less originated) was a loose association of Marxists who, like Marx, believed in the general desirability of overcoming capitalism and establishing a society liberated from its more harmful iniquities, but unlike Marx, did not believe this development to be historically inevitable. To the contrary, they asserted that capitalism had infected the cultural sphere to such an extent that its self-perpetuating memes would essentially guarantee its survival ad infinitum, and that its structures of oppression would have to be discovered and deconstructed in critical social discourses for positive change to become an option. That's why their ideology is also referred to as "cultural Marxism".
It's easy to recognize from this description how contemporary peddlers of poz are massively influenced by the Frankfurt School's methodology, but you can't blame the testator for the actions of his heirs. SJWs are as revolutionary as manufacturers of Che t-shirts; they have made peace with the system at large and are using the rhetoric of fundamental opposition as cheat codes to unlock sinecures for themselves, which makes them and their politics so utterly despicable.
Nonetheless, as the struggle for the displacement of Europeans all over the world continues apace and as "scientific" criticism of whiteness leads to the emergence of formal and informal structures of oppression against European man in particular, the original writings of the Frankfurt School become strangely relevant to our cause. They did, after all, develop critical discourses to dismantle existing power structures, and it's fairly obvious that the streams of power in the age of poz are not exactly flowing in our direction.
I'd like to illustrate this contention with a few examples, starting with Herbert Marcuse and his concept of repressive desublimation, which he explains in his book One-Dimensional Man:
Man today can do more than the culture heros and half-gods; he has solved many insoluble problems. But he has also betrayed the hope and destroyed the truth which were preserved in the sublimations of higher culture. [...]
Today's novel feature is the flattening out of the antagonism between culture and social reality through the obliteration of the oppositional, alien, and transcendent elements in the higher culture by virtue of which it constituted another dimension of reality. This liquidation of two-dimensional culture takes place not through the denial and rejection of the "cultural values," but through their wholesale incorporation into the established order, through their reproduction and display on a massive scale.
Marcuse's claim here is that in pre-modern times, certain elements of cultural life existed out of reach of the system from which they originated. They were sublime. He's thinking about art and literature in particular. Artists could create fictional elements that, through their sheer existence, invalidated the oppressive logic of the system that spawned them; they were not integrated, existed outside the bounds of acceptable discourse and hence provided an inspiration for a world that might become, a world not tainted by the shortcomings of social reality. This is quite a culture-of-critique-y take on literature, but we'll run with it.
To be sure, these characters have not disappeared from the literature of advanced industrial society, but they survive essentially transformed. The vamp, the national hero, the beatnik, the neurotic housewife, the gangster, the star, the charismatic tycoon perform a function very different from and even contrary to that of their cultural predecessors. They are no longer images of another way of life but rather freaks or types of the same life, serving as an affirmation rather than negation of the established order.
Nowadays, the culture industry still produces anti-heroes, but they all exist within the bounds of the larger social consensus. Marcuse's examples are quite 1960-ish, so let's use a more recent type: the ghetto banger, a favorite trope of rappers the world over. Yes, he breaks the law, but in a pursuit of material satisfaction that couldn't be more kosher as a goal. The utopia of a banger is filled with expensive status symbols. Despite all the talk about rap music being the artistic vehicle of the disenfranchised, there’s nothing oppositional or subversive about it. It is desublimated and perpetuates the narrative of the powers that be, albeit with a different window dressing.
This observation extends to much of the cultural liberation the left has so proudly fought for in the last decades:
The Pleasure Principle absorbs the Reality Principle; sexuality is liberated (or rather liberalized) in socially constructive forms. This notion implies that there are repressive modes of desublimation, compared with which the sublimated drives and objectives contain more deviation, more freedom, and more refusal to heed the social taboos. It appears that such repressive desublimation is indeed operative in the sexual sphere, and here, as in the desublimation of higher culture, it operates as the by-product of the social controls of technological reality, which extend liberty while intensifying domination. [...]
Institutionalized desublimation thus appears to be an aspect of the "conquest of transcendence" achieved by the one-dimensional society. Just as this society tends to reduce, and even absorb opposition (the qualitative difference!) in the realm of politics and higher culture, so it does in the instinctual sphere. The result is the atrophy of the mental organs for grasping the contradictions and the alternatives and, in the one remaining dimension of technological rationality, the Happy Consciousness comes to prevail.
To a dissident rightist, these insights are important in two ways. The seemingly unstoppable march of poz we've been witnessing in recent years was certainly catalyzed by self-interested pressure groups, but there's also a systemic logic behind it that, in Marxist terms, made its rise almost inevitable.
The slut walker, the gender freak, the pride marcher - they're all participating in a discourse of individual autonomy that is about as safe and mainstream as it gets, and the managerial class is happy to integrate their masturbatory concerns into the larger social consensus. Their success was hindered by vestiges of moral paradigms that predate our modern logic, but in hindsight those battles had always been fought from a losing position. Piety had been losing ground to desublimated self-actualization for a long time, with gay marriage's and autogynephilia's mainstreaming being a question of when and not if.
Thus, when we condemn cuckservatives for being cucks, we're not just passing an aesthetic judgment. We're facing the reality that a community-oriented mode of social organization cannot survive as a quaint relic in an otherwise uprooted universe and that those who claim otherwise out of greed or cowardice are in denial of this reality, have "false consciousness", and will ultimately lose their heritage to forces which they believe to control, but which are actually controlling them and their fate. Even without a black bull at hand, they're being existentially cucked and should be made aware of it.
A second consideration is more pertinent to our own cause. LARPing is repressive desublimation. Esoteric Hitlerism and techno-aristocracy are consumer brands meant to channel our righteous frustration into lifestyle products. If, at the end of the day, your edginess only serves to satisfy your own vanity, you're like "the beatnik, the neurotic housewife, the gangster, the star" - manufactured opposition with a commodified identity. Do not fall into this trap. The loyal husband or faithful wife who genuinely believe in something that transcends quarterly earnings and raise a family in this humble spirit are greater foes to the forces of destruction than a loud and self-absorbed caricature.
So much for our rather abstract relationship with Marcuse. More concrete proof of Frankfurt School crimethink comes from Theodor Adorno (center right in the above picture). Adorno, in his 1951 opus Minima Moralia, actually foresaw both the totalitarian nature of racial egalitarianism and the profit motive that stood behind it. This supposed communist would have gotten a double Richwine treatment if he'd published his insights in our time:
This is exactly the dynamic we're seeing today. Blacks do worse than whites in segregated schools? We must integrate. They still do worse? We must take affirmative action. Still not working? We must educate about structural racism. Still nothing? Then whites must be carrying an invisible knapsack of privilege that gives them unfair advantages. Now any measure to rectify this situation seems appropriate. Failure to achieve equality just means we have to try again and harder this time.
Of course, what Adorno as a generic anti-totalitarian couldn't predict was the consciously anti-white bent this egalitarianism would take. Nowadays, factual differences are marks of shame if they apply to white people, but praiseworthy heritage if they can be attributed to any other group.
Yes, you read that right: a Frankfurt School patriarch stopping just short of calling for "separate but equal" because he's a little concerned about the "equal" part.
His second statement is even more important and describes a fundamental problem of our contemporary left wing: instead of worrying about these synthetic conceptions of equality, why don't they pick the low-hanging fruit and agitate against the ridiculously oppressive axis of propaganda, arms and capital? Our foremost left-wing scholars are so busy deconstructing white privilege that they've completely stopped caring about the injustices of neoconservative foreign policy, especially since the promotion of gay rights has become part of that policy deal.
Preach it, brother. Preach it to the diversity consultants who are making a fortune out of obscuring this exploitative relationship.
Even though we've collected enough problematic ideas to flood several safe spaces with, we'll take one more. The Frankfurt School also had a problem with SCIENCE! and the blind trust that accumulating knowledge without any kind of overarching spiritual framework would lead us ever closer to utopia simply by virtue of being progress. This was the domain of Max Horkheimer (center left in the above picture). John Abromeit has aptly summarized Horkheimer's thought in his book Max Horkheimer and the Foundations of the Frankfurt School:
The positivists believed they could dispense with abstract universals and self-reflexivity because they were convinced that scientific rationality and its concrete application would lead not only to ever-increasing control of nature, but also to constant improvement of the conditions of human life. They believed, as one of the early defenders of modern positivism, Saint-Simon, put it, "the state of affairs which is most favorable to industry is ... the most favorable to society," and that, therefore, science should be primarily the "science of production."
This is more or less still the view of those who have replaced religion with a metaphysical belief in science: that value-free scientific inquiry into material improvement is the best and only guide to continuous social progress, and that an unspoken utilitarianism behind this scientific effort is the rational mode of organizing society.
It is, in a way, an ultra-conservative view that would like to freeze existing power structures and just add a few more gadgets as time goes on. In the 19th century, that would've meant obscene wealth for a few and crushing poverty for the masses, sweetened by the occasional mass-produced invention. Today, it means secular liberalism, open borders and bowling alone, sweetened by the occasional mass-produced invention.
Since this state of affairs is clearly a raw deal for the majority, a similar situation unfolded in both the distant and recent past:
In what can certainly be seen as an anticipation of one of the central arguments from Dialectic of Enlightenment, Horkheimer demonstrates how the positivist hypostatization of a truncated version of Enlightenment reason terminated in the recrudescence of metaphysics and myth.
Once again, scientific work is being interlaced with unfounded ideology to a point where the two are hardly separable. This is where purple-haired assistant professors writing papers about the insecure masculinity of quantum physics come into play. Science itself facilitates, but cannot justify the atomized liberalism of our time, so it needs help from intellectual bullies who will do that, just like 19th century science needed help from bourgeois philosophers to justify the existing social order.
A "recrudescence of metaphysics and myth" is when the college-aged children of black millionaires evoke their African ancestors and sing chants about black bodies to justify whatever it is they think they deserve. The current state of the academy promotes this kind of behavior because science as a social category is increasingly reliant on extra-rational behavior to justify its oversized position within society. If the masses don't perceive science as an engine of material progress anymore (if only because a skewed distribution of wealth is leaving them poorer by the day), then they must at least see it as an engine of political progress, even if that leaves science ill-equipped to deal with actual scientific problems.
And that is why, according to Horkheimer, science doesn't exist outside the social relations it examines and why the worship of scientific neutrality is ultimately pointless. That is why SCIENCE! acolytes have no choice but to become increasingly pozzed to the point of scientific absurdity and why questions of social organization cannot be answered by merely "looking at the data".
In conclusion, we discovered that the patron saints of the left considered sexual liberalism a pacification strategy for the masses, racial equality a ghoulish form of totalitarianism, diversity a nauseating invention of the oligarchy and science worship a self-defeating exercise in circular reasoning.
What of the left's grand edifice is still standing after the scathing critique of cultural Marxism has blown over it? Ruins, if they're lucky, and it didn't take a single shitlord to do it. Just a bunch of innocuous Jewish intellectuals. Oy vey!
Posted Bumbling American on 04 June 2017 - 08:15 AM