- My Posting Career
- → 100 Most Popular Posts
100 Most Popular Posts
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 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 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 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 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 Ralph Trollinger 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 Jung Man on 02 July 2017 - 05:10 PM
Donald Trump is a 139 IQ certified triple alpha Apex Chad, born with a nearly perfect anti-autism genome which was then steeled through a lifetime spent in the cutthroat world of high-end ManFUCKINGhatten real estate, which is basically the Olympics of bare, no holds barred Jewry. He is at the top of the Chad food chain, imbued with not only the quotidian Chad qualities of athleticism and insouciance, but also rarer, top-level Chad qualities like completely effortless trolling and unshakable detachment. When you see Trump - the President of the United States of America, lest we forget - retweeting a meme of (real, actual) himself delivering a WWE Raw smackdown to the bugman hive that is CNN, you're watching a completely autonomic response; trolling comes as easy to President Trump as breathing comes to the rest of us, and he puts the same amount of thought into it as you or I just put into our last breath. Unlike his bugman opponents, The Chad does not expend valuable energy hand-wringing over what the latest (((models))) may show; The Chad simply does. Whether he's a plucky, new-to-the-scene NYC realtor having his associate "John Miller" call up some sleazeball tabloid yid to call him a faggot, or a 2016 Republican presidential candidate bragging about his dick size to 80 million prime-time viewers, or the President of the United States of America retweeting a silly meme showing him giving CNN a stunner, The Chad is acting on 100% instinct at all time; this makes him an absolutely fatal opponent for the bugman, whose modus operandi is by nature spergy, data/consensus-driven, and highly fragile. Many here have spoken at length of Trump's anti-fragility in the vein of Taleb; I propose that Trump exists outside of the fragility continuum altogether, a being wholly inoculated against any traditional understanding of vulnerability. Imagine the popular "it all runs off like water down a duck's back" copypasta we are so fond of poasting; now imagine that there is no "... but call him a Jew" clause. That is Donald Trump, The Chad. He has no natural weakness, at least not insofar as the postmodern, atomized, bugman Acela class is concerned.
Exactly how Chad is Donald Trump? We're talking about a man who had the stones to write a very Chadily-composed tell all paperback some 30 years ago that - and this is really amazing stuff, folks - literally takes the reader on a point by point dissection of his understanding of life, the gambits he runs, how he views success and how he wins so often. His entire playbook, laid bare for any literate man, woman, or child to peruse at their leisure, millions of which did. But because Donald Trump understands the nerd/bugman on a fundamental level - far better than the bugman knows even himself - he knows that even with his entire strategic gameplan free for the taking, there is no danger of the enemy catching on. Trump's Chad instincts are so finely tuned that he knows even if he shows the crowd how the magic trick is done, if he does it with his trademark flair, they'll keep falling for it every time. Whether consciously or not (likely not, as we're talking about hardwired, base-level instincts at this point), Trump realizes the bugman will never catch on, as the bugman considers Trump a buffoon, a charlatan, an idiot and a fraud, just as the nerd sees the garden-variety Chad. Simply speaking, bugpeople simply have no idea what they're dealing with when encountering Trump; watching them squirm reminds me of the Strugatsky brothers' Roadside Picnic, wherein mankind spends an inordinate amount of time trying to comprehend alien actions that were, to the aliens, simply a picnic stop. Not only does the bugman foolishly consider himself smarter than Trump, he simply does not understand him at all. To them, his very existence is incomprehensible, a problem to be run through endless datasheets and algorithms and editorial columns; to Trump, that the bugman exists doesn't even register.
When you're watching Trump troll, you're not merely watching a maestro at work; no, you're seeing the very essence of trolling given human form. Trump himself is aware of his incredible, Chadly prowess, as he mocks his opponents' appeals to staid (and laughable) ARE PRESIDENTIAL DIGNITY by announcing that he is not presidential, but modern presidential, a one-off tweet that illustrates Trump has a far deeper understanding of his paradigm-shattering position than he normally lets on. He knows exactly what he is doing, folks. His Twitter finger is a veritable Seal Team Six of bullycide, able to (((ethnically))) cleanse entire newsrooms with the tap of a pinky. Trump is essentially delivering public, extrasensory wedgies and swirlies over the air to millions of bugmen at any given moment; to be quite honest, this is a level of Chadism that I thought was theoretically impossible. No one man should be able to bullycide like ARE president, and yet there he is, delivering a precision-guided tweetbomb holocaust right to the frontostriatal pathway of millions of shitlibs at 2:05am in the morning. This is simply preternatural.
To borrow one of my favorite CJ quotes (over a year old now, how time flies in Trumpville ):
This is a fantastic metaphor, but I think in light of recent events it could use some minor tweaks. Not only is Trump completely immune to the bugman's stings and their postmodern false idols of snark and sarcasm and feigned outrage, he absolutely thrives on their suffering. I see Donald Trump as more of a blue whale (the most yuge animal), happily gliding along with a smug look on his face, mouth lazily opened, all the while swallowing hundreds of plankton at any given moment. Journalists, shitlibs, and assorted anti-Trump faggots are in this simile the plankton, just complete non-entities to the yuge Trump juggernaut, completely inconsequential in every way, unable to do much of anything in the face of the oncoming titan. Their suffering and eventual destruction fuel Trump for even more trolling and bullyciding; where in the past, conservative sadsacks would wither and die in the face of sustained shitlib onslaught, President Trump uses their angst to propel himself forward, not really even aware that any one given shitlib-plankton exists. Trump is an extinction level event for the bugpeople, who are quickly discovering their snarky takedowns and affected, outraged attitudes are akin to when the Poles trotted out the cavalry against the blitzkrieg. When you see the Trump CNN tweet you are effectively witnessing shitlibs using 20th century tactics coming up against a 21st century president; just a complete and total slaughter, the Charge of the Blight Brigade.
I never thought in my life we'd see such a spectacle, and yet here we are, existing in a universe where it's not completely implausible that POTUS Trump will have John Cena deliver a Five Knucle Shuffle to some nebbishy trickle down media whore during one of his upcoming press conferences. I only wish David Foster Wallace could have lived to see this day; who would have thought that the harbinger of New Sincerity would be a reality TV billionaire who starred in a Pizza Hut commercial? ARE president is such a Chad that he is murdering postmodernism right before our very eyes, using nothing more than a free Twitter account. Infinite jest indeed.
Posted Bumbling American on 30 June 2017 - 06:07 AM
To build on that a bit I'm going to riff on a friend's idea, so just call me SLYTHERIN
Shitlibs, but SWPLs in particular, have turned Harry Potter into their defining political metaphor because it's a perfect expression of one of their core ideas: The elite is somebody else. Harry Potter et al have magical powers from birth, they go to school where they learn secrets nobody in our world does, they run an insular and invisible society that more or less determines that fate of everybody else's, and their world is more interesting, informed and prosperous than ours without any of the hard work we have to do to make our society livable (dragons rotting in the fields).
And yet...they're not the elite. Right? Harry et al have this power and position but they're quick to say that the real power lies with somebody else, some guy with robes and a weird face. Likewise SWPLs and shitlibs have their hands on the machinery of culture and politics, they are wealthy and insulated enough to tell half the country and all of Europe to eat cake on an existential issue like mass immigration...yet they're not the elite. Just ask them. It's somebody else, somebody in a boardroom, like John Forsyth.
Granted, there's a difference between a well-off effete symbol manipulator in Williamsburg and George Soros and Alan Greenspan, or whoever. And in wizard-land, there's a difference between the underdog person and the big bad guy with the weird face. But they're all products of the same isolated culture and expectations. Of course there's something special about us. Of course we deserve to have wonderful things the rest of the world doesn't; we understand things they don't, don't you see this magical diploma? Of course everybody else should live and die by our say-so (this group of wizards likes humans, so they can go about their business; this group doesn't, so humans need to be enslaved), lol at the idea that we would ever listen to what they have to say about anything, though.
In this scenario you can see why Trump is so dangerous. The evil wizard gives the other members of the elite a chance to signal their virtue by fighting him, then they all go back to living exactly the same life of secret power. IRL the perfect hate figure is somebody like GWB, a product of inherited power and wealth and elite training if there ever were one: Protest him, vote him out, but be assured that under his watch the power structure is not going to change.
With Trump we finally have somebody with the potential to wreck the whole setup. In Harry Potter terms, he would be a villain figure who wouldn't try to rule the regular world, he would threaten to shut down the wizard world. He's somebody who doesn't particularly care about the structure they've built up or their status within it. And that is a why he's a real threat: On some level, SWPLs and shitlibs know the power they really have, and they're afraid of losing it. THE BOY WHO LIVED, THE DRUNK WHO PERSISTED
Posted RexLex on 17 June 2017 - 10:36 PM
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 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 Harry Dexter Whyte on 16 August 2017 - 03:42 PM
At Appomattox, Grant met his counterpart generals as equals, allowed the officers to keep their sidearms, and the men to keep their horses and mules - stating "the Rebels were our countrymen again". Soon after, the US government granted almost all Confederate soldiers a general amnesty. And within three years, all (including high ranking officials and generals) had been granted the same. The only Confederate who came close to being tried for treason was Jefferson Davis, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case - largely because nobody was certain of the outcome. That secession = treason would not be established until well after the Civil War. Former Confederates went on to serve as US congressman and as soldiers in the US army, they ran railroads and newspapers, they became celebrated novelists and intellectuals, they signed a pact of loyalty to the United States (unlike actual Communist traitors in the 1950s, who refused to) and kept to it.
Three decades later, the former Union soldier President William McKinley officially declared that Confederate soldiers were US veterans under federal law (and eligible for pensions by extension), stating:
Five decades after that Eisenhower hung a portrait of Robert E. Lee in his office, after having commanded the grandchildren of Confederates, many of whom wore Confederate battle flag patches on their uniforms, in battle against the Axis (Patton's grandfather, for instance, was a Confederate Colonel). And when some "dentist" from New York badgered him about it he sternly rebuked him, confident in an opinion that was shared by most Americans of the day. In the 1970s Lynyrd Skynyrd could fly the Rebel flag in front of a crowd of hippies in California. In the 1990s, Ken Burns could make a documentary on the Civil War that didn't demonize Southerners and Gettysburg could be released to generally positive reviews (even if Gene Siskel called it "bloated Southern propaganda") and become a box office hit...
...but now, in the year 2017, the children of Communists who fled from Russia in the 1990s insist on their verified twitter accounts that the Confederates were EVIL TRAITORS whose memory must be permanently erased. It is not enough to take down the flag, or statues of Lee and Jackson - tributes to the average soldier (such as the one in Durham) must be torn down too. Hell, it isn't enough to destroy history - these people have to actively pervert it. I mean they insist that those good old boys jumping off pontoons at Normandy were fighting WHITE SUPREMACY and would have been absolutely appalled at DRUMPF condemning Communists and banning trannies from the military. WW2 is the last socially acceptable outlet for American and Western pride (you can make a film like Dunkirk without too much of a stink) and now these shitlibs are trying to ruin that too. These fucking people who have never had a family member in the US military going back generations, who hate actual US soldiers (not the ones with their dicks chopped off), who scoff at patriotic displays when those dumb fucking hicks do it, have the nerve to take your symbols, to take your history, to take your ancestors and your culture, and turn them into avatars for poz.
It's absolutely disgusting, but at the same time the fact that Trump actually called them out on this shit is incredibly pleasing. He called it, he fucking called it. These people aren't going to stop at Confederates, because their same logic can be used to tear down every facet of historical pride we have this country. He called it! And they savage him for it, they savage him as a myopic idiot for having a level of farsightedness, levelheadedness, and sense of duty to present and past that is unparalleled in recent history.
DRUMF IS A DUM DUM the shitlib tweets, as he fulfills Trump's prophesies.
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 pecunia strigis on 19 July 2017 - 08:17 PM
In late 200,4 my now ex-wife, found a lump in her breast. She had separated (Honorably Discharged) from the military, a year before I was medically retired, and we were both attending an Arizona University. We were coasting by on Bridge Health Insurance purchased though the University, even though we were both eligible for tier one (preferred status) medical care via our local Veteran's Administration Hospital. It was shit and getting an employee on the phone to make an appointment was near impossible.
My ex-wife attempted to make an appointment and received one after 3 hours of being put on hold. They informed her to call back in 30 days for a "priority" appointment, for a lump in her breast. A call to the VA Patient Advocate resulted in an actual appointment in 30 days.
I then called the office of John McCain, gave my information and problem to an aide, and was subsequently ignored for the next 5 months.
I then called the office of Jon Kyl. After the aide took my information and began listening to my situation, Senator Kyl came onto the line to speak with me personally. 20 minutes later I had a call from the VA with an appointment in 3 days and 25 minutes later I had a return call from Senator Kyl to confirm the appointment and thanked us for our service.
5 months later I received a personalized invitation from the office of John McCain to attend the premier of "Faith of My Father" with Senator McCain as one of his special guests.
The breast lump ended up being benign, but it was an actual lump the size of my thumb, and was eventually absorbed back into breast tissue. Those three days were hell for us before the appointment, the following 3 days for the results were just as excruciating.
Brain cancer is what this Manchurian War Hawk Songbird deserves, I hope he has some breast cancer for good measure. Rest is Piss as we MAGA.
Posted KingGoy on 26 July 2017 - 07:10 AM
Trannies BTFO recovery status: uncertain
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 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 full-court lugenpresse on 04 July 2017 - 09:17 PM
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 07 July 2015 - 11:23 AM
That’s because Trump’s dismissive comments about how the United States has become a “dumping ground” for castaways from Mexico sound like something you’d hear bandied about at a Guadalajara country club or a fancy banquet in Mexico City.
After all, Mexico—like the rest of Latin America—is not exactly a model of social equality. There is prejudice and discrimination, pecking orders to which one must adhere. And those who leave the country are often ignored and forgotten
The writer doesn't want to real talk, he just wants to whine about how unfair Mexico's society is, without understanding that the main reason it's unfair is that it's filled with low IQ Aztecs.
The Donald's trolling is high level and we look to reap massive dividends on our high investment in him. Outlook: hard to clearly read the signals at this point due to the shrieks of shitlibs.
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 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 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 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 Mein Covfefe on 13 August 2017 - 11:05 AM
First recognize the world we live in. It looks something like this:
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Society is spinning out of coherence ("Turning and turning in the widening gyre"). Atomized people are tumbling into greater and greater numbers of self-selecting echo chambers ("The falcon cannot hear the falconer"). Factions are the new center of political life ("Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold). And so anarchy is being loosed upon the world. This describes the excited minority that pushed Trump into power. This explains our dizzying new varieties of political and social identities. This explains what happened today in Charlottesville. I've heard a dozen different theories today: "neo-nazis," "Soros false flag," "antifa's fault," "cucked police," "stupid Spencer," "fake news," "white nationalists," "Trump's responsibility," "James Fields Did Nothing Wrong". None of them quite explains the sheer anarchy of it all. We are no longer one whole society, and this is breaking out everywhere.
This has great implications for how we conduct our politics. We need to organize in this fractured world if we want to build a political movement outside Trump. Surely organizing rightists in public spaces is not a worthless endeavor -- in another universe "Unite the Right" could have been a decent peaceful protest. In another universe. Anyone could have seen that the news, antifa, and the city cops would all be against it. The failure of the Charlottesville rally's organizers to plan effectively goes a long way to answering "what went wrong". If we want to succeed we need to avoid these mistakes.
At this point then I'd like to consider what the right should have done. Victories don't just happen; they take planning. For every successful Civil Rights march there were thousands of hours of workshops and organizing. Instead of just showing up and winging it, here are some better ideas:
* Control your image. This is probably the most important issue. If you're giving speeches, you need respectable faces. Pick speakers who will not scare the Fox News audience if you're wanted for an interview. If you're marching, hand out American flags in advance. Spread a dress code if you have to. ("Rule one: No swastikas. Rule two: NO SWASTIKAS.") It doesn't matter if everyone obeys if you get good-looking normal people in front of the cameras.
* NO SWASTIKAS!
* Contact the press in advance. Contact the press in advance! You will need a friendly audience. Don't expect to show up and find Shepard Smith presenting himself. Identify friendly reporters and gift-wrap them a story with everything you want to say -- they love copying you work and calling it theirs. Tell them where the cameraman should set up. If you give them something to work with they will write a positive story even if you don't loan out your rentboy. This is important so that, if something goes wrong, you already have friendly press contacts to help shape your story.
* Contact the city in advance. Talk with them and make sure they are on board so you don't eat teargas surprise later. This is one of Trump's prerequisites in "Art of the Deal" for getting buildings built ahead of schedule. He get everything settled with the city before concrete is poured and it's too late to make changes. The minute Spencer got his permit approved he should have sat down with the city to make sure they understood. "Antifa will be there and we need your help to keep this peaceful." If the city suddenly decides they don't like your freedom of speech, you've lined up a decent legal case without having to do any more work.
* Contact some local politicians. Think about this for a moment: rightists planned a political march in Virginia and didn't get one politician. There are some politicians who will play footsie with us in Virginia, get the guy who used 'cuckservative' or the state senator running against the tranny. Not only is it good for your image (people will take you seriously), politicians love hearing that all they have to do is show up and lecture the voters. It's a win-win.
* Have a backup. If the city won't give you Freedom Square, ask for Liberty Circle. If the parade route is blocked, take another path (you already scouted one, right?). If you get somewhere and have no microphones you better have a megaphone or a rooftop. What are you going to do if it rains?
* Guns: yes or no? If you want to look stoic next to antifa, tell your people not to carry. Tell the police too. If you want proper self-defense, advertise well in advance that your march is pro-2nd Amendment.
* Coach your people. Spread some chants and slogans early enough so that you don't get embarrassed with whatever people start screaming on the day of. Give them the itinerary. Have a core of support who will help you lead the mob. The more clearly you communicate the less likely things will go off the rails.
This may all sound pretty obvious, but remember that even Basketball American community activists follow these guidelines our glorious master race can't figure out. So please chime in with your "well, duh" lessons so that when some knucklehead still wants to do it all over again, you can link them here.
The most successful Nazi rally ever held was the one Anglin didn't hold in Minnesota. For the cost of a few internet shitposts he forced Soros to pay to bus people in the middle of nowhere. You'd think he or weev would have realized that this tactic is all upside, no downside and repeated it in Alaska, the Everglades, or somewhere just as far away from civilization and miserable, but nope. He's sticking with the meth-raddled Nazis welfare class.
These people aren't even working class and they're still allowed to show up at your rally? I thought fascists had standards?
Rallies are fragile because the benefits have a very low upper limit and unlimited downside. You should never have a rally for that reason alone, nevermind the optics, or that you're carpetbagging and pissing off the locals.
Your list is retarded. The idea of a rally is retarded.
If antifa were afraid of Nazis, would they have shown up? Nope. Where are all the antifa at MPC? Do they read this site like they read TRS? Fuck no, because they're afraid that reading MPC will actually make sense and their people will switch sides.
If Anglin had more sense he'd have fake rallies every month and then he'd have a real rally once antifa stopped showing up. Be like Trump, mix so much misdirection in with your truth that the enemy can't predict what you'll do next. Telegraphing your moves months in advance is a sign of at best a second rate intellect. Even then the rally should only be held to keep the media taking the bait, not because you want a "show of force" or some other gay shit. Why would you even show off your strength, you're fundraising for antifa?
The goal of anything you do should not be obvious. The goal of a rally shouldn't be the rally, but the second and third order effects of having one. We should have antifa running ragged all over the goddamn country, spending money, getting parking tickets and speeding tickets, getting pissed off and frustrated. We don't want to meet them at the time of their choosing, we don't want to meet them at all. We're fighting a political insurgency, why you are showing up for 2D battles in a 5D political landscape? Did the minute men show up in formation to fight the British? Did those Boers fight the British head on? No, they didn't; because they're not morons!
Kermit I am begging you to start talking explicitly about tactics and strategy because until you do no one else will. I hurts my soul to watch failures compound themselves like this.
Posted John Rocker on 05 July 2017 - 08:41 PM
Other rants to the same effect percolate from catlady cauldrons daily. We're beginning to get at something essential here.
They rigged the institutions. They set behavioral and verbal boundaries within polite society. They shoved the dissidents further and further to the fringes, but the embers of freedom still burned. And just as before, like we always do, we found a way. We are too clever for them. We always were, and they'll always resent our genius and sheer bloody-mindedness.
The internet is ours. It's the platform for our revolution. There are no draconian affirmative action programs here. Justice is blind, and we needn't even show our faces. Cream rises to the top. Just look at this forum. Just read the threads, whisper the words to yourself as you browse, hear the music of freedom. Delight in the fact that they will never keep us from singing it.
It took aliases hidden behind fiber optic cable. Look at my absurd avatar. I'm pretending to be a major league pitcher, for Chrissakes, and still our side wins because we haven't based our lives upon lies.
One day I'll freely admit who I am, and I can't wait for it. But between now and then, let us pile up the skulls of those who would take this last vestige of freedom from us. Never forget what their designs were when they were closing in on full control. Never show an ounce of mercy.
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 Hazmat Harry on 03 June 2017 - 08:24 PM
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 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 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 Bixxy Noodles: Phenotype Inspector on 11 July 2017 - 05:12 PM
Posted Bumbling American on 02 July 2017 - 12:56 PM
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 PLEASUREMAN on 13 August 2017 - 10:44 AM
KNOWING that the media would be against you, KNOWING that the city was unhappy with your presence, KNOWING your rank and file are stupid pigs, and KNOWING that your "leaders" can't organize anything more complicated than trolling Shia Laboeuf...YOU WENT AND DID IT ANYWAY. Abject retards.
"We can't control everyone who decides to show up"--no shit, and not helping matters is that notable figures in charge have drug/drinking problems, are vain gloryhounds, and were more interested in possible side pussy they could get than in disciplining anyone on their side (probably a hopeless task anyway). All of which is an excellent reason NOT TO DO THIS SHIT. You suck at it, and it's very obvious you're not going to get better.
Fools yesterday were trying to downplay this--"oh it'll blow over"--which perfectly encapsulates the "What, me worry?" imbecility that pervades the right. Never do homework and hope for the best. Just figure it will all work out. "We shifted the Overton window!" gurgles some midwit Internet addict. Yes, you did--the wrong way, retard!
You helped antifa recover from humiliating defeats earlier in the year. You handed the media negative PR on the entire right on a silver platter. You derailed a fantastic opportunity to go after Google et al over illegal hiring practices and brazenly anti-conservative policies.
YOU FUCKED UP AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR YOUR BEATING. DON'T EVEN THINK OF MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOURSELVES. YOU ARE COMPLETE FUCKUPS AND I NEVER WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN. THERE ARE NO OTHER LESSONS.
Posted Harry Dexter Whyte on 02 August 2017 - 07:25 PM
All the posturing about "she overcame", and glass ceilings, and yass slay independent and strong queen must be seen in this light. She did what women who managed to gain any degree of prominence in human history typically did - married the right man. And there's nothing wrong with this, it's just how woman navigate their way into the corridors of power. But don't for one fucking second pretend she's some exception, some revolutionary, the first of her kind.
She was handed her fame and fortune on a silver platter, but her incompetence, narcissism, and general inhumanity led her to fail where many other women would and already have succeeded.
Posted Babadook on 14 July 2017 - 04:57 PM
His response was amazing. Truly amazing. He said I was a "pussy who scurried off to the hinterlands". He was literally chiding me for daring to want to live in a peaceful, quiet, polite and crime free area. Like, I'm a pussy for wanting those things. Imagine, imaaaaagine how that sort of thing would play to a normie. HAHA What's the matter, maaaaan? All the riots and chimpouts and carjackings and people shitting on the street and robbing you in the BART train a little too much for you, pussy? Oh big man can't handle $2,000 a month for a one bedroom apartment in a building full of loud violent nigs on welfare, so you gotta tuck your tail and beat feet back to your precious whitopia with no crime and diversity?
He's so far up his own ass (and also atheist and childless) that he thinks thats some sort of sick burn.
2018 and 2020 are going to be a fucking bloodbath.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 04 July 2017 - 11:23 PM
It's understandable even if that's not the case
if he actually is 15 that CNN Jew is in big trouble (not the first time someone has said that I'll wager)
Posted Prime Minister Mark Latham (PBUH) AKA ENJ on 26 June 2017 - 11:33 PM
It's terrible how much fucking money gets dumped into conservative think tanks and lobby groups which basically do nothing when people like James O'Keefe who actually influence elections work on a shoestring. Imagine how many stings you could set up if you funded ten people like him with half a million every year? You could have every rentboy in DC working for you on the side with that kind of money.
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 PLEASUREMAN on 03 August 2017 - 10:51 PM
What I'm asking for is a whitepill.
Well, this may not be a whitepill, but...
The issue isn't Republicans vs. Democrats. It's the establishment desperate to protect its plans to turn the middle class into serfs who eat junk food and spend what little money they have buying disposable crap, largely at the behest of billionaire plutocrats. This is the form modern aristocracy takes. It turns out it isn't foppish intellectuals in crushed velvet waistcoats like neoreaction tards thought.
Removing Comey was necessary--we know this now beyond any doubt--but it was sure to escalate the conflict between the people and the establishment.
Is it shocking that some of the people root for the aristocrats? It shouldn't be, there has always been loyalist scum, since the days of the revolution, who take a special, weird glee from knowing they are just far enough above the bottom to shit on someone below them while licking the boots of the elite class.
But this is all impotent flailing. Trump won't be removed from office by leaks (these appear to date back to January) or by the risible Russian investigation. The media has largely discredited itself and you don't need to be L. Brent Bozell to find clear evidence of bias in every article about Trump it puts out. Trump's supporters are hanging with him through thick and thin because he forged an almost indestructible bond with them during the campaign. Now is when that bond protects him.
Look at who we have on our side. The police, the military (aside from high ranking ladder climbers), the white middle class, and a growing number of intellectuals who can easily see the bogus nature of establishment attacks on Trump. This is a fight worth having and we're going to win it.
Posted Prime Minister Mark Latham (PBUH) AKA ENJ on 03 August 2017 - 04:27 PM
Posted Harry Dexter Whyte on 07 July 2017 - 07:02 PM
This is the typical, boilerplate cuckservative conception of the West. It was born out of the horrors of the camps at Auschwitz, and is itself merely a globalist construct - the EU, NATO, and the IMF. Indeed, the "values" it espouses are utterly and entirely self-referential to those globalist structures, namely the open flow of capital (both human and financial). Furthermore, they are universal - that is, lacking any human or cultural component. Therefore these "values" are open to the entire world, and indeed will be forced on the rest of the world (this makes his line about "conquest" fundamentally absurd and dishonest) should it not comply. This is why Russia, too, must force its children to take hormone blockers or forever be regarded as a threat to ARE civilization.
In short, for someone like McCain the West is Goldman Sachs manipulating your currency while funding the poz pushers ruining your nation.
Compare that to Trump:
Ostensibly his attitude is similar, but there are a few clear differences which make Beinart and his ilk so hysterical. From the start, Trump addresses Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe as the "West". He is not addressing the world, but a specific group of nations who share a bond which makes them the "West". And what is that bond? This is the crucial point. Whereas Mccain sees the bond as simply a NATO treaty put in place a few decades ago, Trump sees that bond as one of culture, faith and tradition. That is, not only does the West refer to a specific group of nations and peoples - but that they are Western is not the result of a political construct imposed 70 years ago, but of who they are as cultures.
Finally, while both Trump and McCain acknowledge that the West is under threat they differ as to what exactly that threat is. For McCain, the danger is any force that challenges the globalist scheme (the "West" in his conception) and the society dissolving effects that accompany it. For Trump, the danger is globalism. So what Trump has done is completely redefined, or rather returned to an older definition of, what Western Civilization is. This represents an existential threat to people like Beinart and McCain.
I'll end with Trump's own words, which drive a stake through the cuckservative heart:
This is the most radical thing any American politician has said in the last 60 years. If as a Conservative you aren't 100% behind Trump at this point you are either a shill, an imbecile, or a traitor.
Posted Harry Dexter Whyte on 21 June 2017 - 05:19 PM
I mean it's become one of the iron laws of shitlibbery - they always cry out in pain as they strike you. Every single time. As they ruin your schools and neighborhoods, as they brainwash your children, as the denigrate your ancestors and everything they built...they play the victim. How dare you fight back they say, you are waging war on us! Take your "extreme social conservatism" (views that would have been normal a decade ago) and shove it up your ass bigot! By the way, how come you don't shove things up your ass dude, are you insecure or something? It's totally normal now...
...and on and on and on. These fucking people never let up. And they think you are stupid. They really, truly think you are an imbecile. They think they can trick you. They think they can just put up some robotic bug man, some carpetbagger ("oh but I was raised in Georgia, I'm a Southerner just like you!", the man insists in perfect American Standard English), some modern day Leo Frank, some millennial suit fresh out of school, and people will vote for him. He's one of you! He's handsome! He's very polished and boy did he test well with our focus groups. He says all the right things, and he's a "moderate". Those dumb fucking hicks down there in good old boy land will surely fall for it.
And they better fall for it, because we spent a lot of money on that race. And we need him to win because it fits our #TheResistance narrative. What's that, you didn't vote for him? You didn't fall for it? Well then I'll just write this op-ed about how stupid and backwards and hateful you are. How do you like that? I can't wait until you flyover rubes are finally replaced for good...
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just when I think these journos have hit rock bottom they find another canyon and hurl themselves right off it.
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 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 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 mhm sure alright on 10 July 2017 - 06:10 AM
Posted Protolols of Zion on 21 June 2017 - 12:04 AM
Posted Quads: Louise Mensch's Nuclear Codes 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 Dr. Hasslein on 11 November 2016 - 09:21 AM
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 Quads: Louise Mensch's Nuclear Codes on 23 July 2017 - 08:50 PM
> Kid Rock won't file his candidacy
> Kid Rock won't release his tax returns
> Kid Rock won't win the primary
> Kid Rock won't outpoll Debbie Stabenow
> Kid Rock won't beat Debbie Stabenow
> Kid Rock's Saginaw Milkers sex tape will end his campaign
> Kid Rock won't be inaugurated
> Senator Rock's hit collaboration with Dr. President Trump won't go platinum
> Senator Rock's Detroit Lions will never pacify Lower Michigan
YOU ARE HERE NOW
> Senator Rock will never annex the Niagara Peninsula
> Senator Rock will never revive the auto industry
Posted Method Autism on 20 June 2017 - 11:15 PM
That's right, even this kike faggot got in a solid dick kick. DNC, ur done here.
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 Bumbling American on 04 June 2017 - 08:15 AM
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 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 Hazmat Harry on 17 August 2017 - 04:53 AM
My ideal political system is the one where Donald Trump succeeds in his MAGA agenda and wins reelection in 2020.
Armchair Chad is right; ideology is a trap. Ideology pushes you to follow bad leaders who are going nowhere. Ideology teaches you to join failing organizations and dedicate your lives to lost causes. Is the Libertarian Party any closer to winning an election? Are anarcho-capitalists any closer to abolishing the government? Is David French any closer to winning the respect and admiration of liberals? Do you actually believe, really, deep in your heart, that Adolf Skywalker will create a pan-global white pagan super-imperium?
The fact is that most of us aren't very important. Whatever we think doesn't really matter. Even important people's ideals never really get implemented (how much of Dwight Eisenhower's ideal society came to pass?). A few years ago, I was pretty confident I had really proved that fiat money was a bad idea. But hey, it turns out, I don't matter. The Federal Reserve is still around. If you're one of the 99.9999% of people who don't matter, probably the most important political decision you can make is which leader to follow. And as I see it, there's only one real choice.
The American right already a charismatic leader who unites us.
We have a message we've settled on.
We have rallies where we outnumber antifa 500 to 1.
We have marches where nobody gets killed.
We have a flag that makes people feel patriotic instead of angry.
It's true that on Team MAGA, you won't agree with everyone on everything. But that's what winning teams have to do. Winning means finding something 63,000,000 people can agree on. But unlike those failed leaders who never seem to get any higher than 7th place in a 7 man contest, we're actually getting things. We're getting a wall with Mexico. We're scuzzing shitlibs in the media. We're bringing jobs back to America. We're putting Antifa thugs in prison. We have political meetings near you where we figure out how to Make Local Politics Great Again, too.
At this point, if you're not on board with MAGA, you're not on board with winning. Frankly, I had my fill of losing for the last decade and a half. The fact is you only have two options: MAGA or GTFO. If you want to join David French and Nick Gillespie over there on the bleachers of Team GTFO, whining that you never get your ideal society because nobody listens to you, that's your choice. There are a dozen different versions of that on the right, and they're full of angry losers who don't win anything and don't have hot chicks at their rallies.
If you want things to be even marginally better in a decade than they are right now, MAGA's the only choice. All other choices are Very Fake News. They're really just different masks on GTFO.
Posted Kebab saving robot on 02 July 2017 - 12:51 PM
Posted Habakkuk Mucklewrath: Autism Has No Gender on 08 June 2017 - 12:21 PM
Posted Bumbling American on 20 November 2016 - 09:56 PM
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 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 GF: Dunning-Krugerrand speculator on 07 July 2017 - 04:45 PM
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 02 July 2017 - 11:35 PM
sorry, fuckheads, it's the current year and by now we all know that the newsreaders are obnoxious prima donnas who spend more time working on elocution and managing their Q rating and getting their thinning hair groomed than they do engaging in even the most basic form of high school newspaper journalism...we know they are such airheads that they frequently need to be coached through their earpieces about what to say, because 90% of their mental faculties are occupied with their own presentation and sound bite retorts
we know that the producers behind the camera are careerist whores who will do anything that pushes them an inch up the ladder, and whose cynicism regarding the public is completely obscene, and who are more concerned with peer approval and pivoting into their next promotion than they are with the truth content of anything they program
there is, to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens on the Clintons, no one left to deceive here...we all know, so the eye-rolling (and badly acted) outrage posturing looks as ridiculously fake as a late night talk show drop-in wherein some famous actor walks onto the set, as if he hadn't been fifteen minutes in makeup, as if reps on both sides hadn't engaged in a flurry of discussions as to how and when, as if the host didn't have the pre-interview prep notes on a card right in front of him, as if every audience burst of applause or laughter isn't coached before the show by audience wranglers who cue not just when to applaud or laugh but at what volume and for how long...the amount of fakery is incredible and if any of these stupid whores were out of earshot of the public they hate they'd happily admit it (if only to present as someone wise to all the artifice)
no one buys it...but they never got the memo, so they helplessly act as if everyone buys it, which is not so much insulting as it is an embarrassing display of out-of-touchness
Posted Mel Gibson on 29 June 2017 - 07:10 AM
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 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: No Foreskin in the Game 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 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 Bumbling American on 10 July 2017 - 02:21 PM
Reminder also that these firstfruits of globalism pool money with endless relatives to buy businesses without the debt you start with, and only employ their co-ethnics if not relatives exclusively
Finally reminder that the world will keep turning without nail salons, convenience stores and slavery rings, even the occasional app company or whatever it is NPR trots out for this kind of story
Posted Hazmat Harry on 06 July 2017 - 06:27 PM
There is absolutely nothing more Western, liberal, or enlightened than sending an army out to massacre Muslim invaders.
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 PLEASUREMAN on 28 August 2015 - 11:45 AM
It would be a perfectly fine argument if the discussion was about the 1st amendment. But it's usually about "freedom of speech", which encompasses more than the 1st amendment. I feel like the left understood this when they didn't control the relevant institutions but now that they do, their idea of freedom of speech has become exclusively legalistic, as if it's a technicality that is meaningless outside of a narrow constitutional framework.
I don't think they ever "understood" it in the strict sense. Gwerks (of all people) brought up in chat the ACLU defending neo-Nazis. This was one of her sterling examples of Jewish lawyers being a priceless gift to America, because Jews invented free speech and defend it in a lonely vigil. She was referring to a famous case which was actually an extreme outlier mostly intended to get attention for the ACLU. Gwerks argued narrowly, even autistically, that supporting neo-Nazis laid down case law that enshrined protection of even the most obnoxious speech. My perspective was different, and gets into a dualistic approach which directly concerns the shitlib argument we're talking about.
For starters, people here are mostly aware that speech is anything but free, that's why they choose to divulge very little information about themselves on the Internet. Discussions in this forum are modern day samizdat in the sense that they are an effort to practice free speech in an environment in which you can be anonymously reported and attacked by people you have never met. Anyone anywhere can exercise editorial control--that's a perverse conception of freedom. In this version of 1984, Big Brother doesn't monitor you because it doesn't need to--instead there is an extra-governmental layer of manipulation in which the state is never involved or invoked. (The concept of "the state" itself is outdated; elsewhere I've referred to a "borderless empire" which is the rather more intangible sociopolitical entity that determines how you live.)
Speech has always involved consequences, but in the past these consequences were primarily local and involved direct social relationships. SCALE changed everything, and meant that any organized group anywhere could target and harass speakers it didn't like. At the same time a new media-generated consensus evolved and was managed by a group of elites who effectively controlled mainstream political speech. If you control what people hear you control what they think and therefore control what they will say.
Control of speech was in effect privatized, so that, beyond control of the range of views that you could hear without bouncing through seven proxies, there is now aggressive private control of speech through campus speech codes, targeted boycotts of advertisers, control of marketable goods, and organized campaigns to punish private citizens. Again, the noteworthy thing about much of this is that control of your speech comes from people who have nothing to do with you--you can't vote against them, move away, or return the favor. You have no actual relationship to them, so there are no social rules moderating this interaction. (This is what can be termed social anarchy.)
(As a sidenote, the two forms of control--control of mass media consensus and punishment/elimination of speech--aren't necessarily in strict conformance. But because media control is uniformly left-liberal, and because the most aggressive private attacks on speech come from left-wing progressives, they pretty much always conform.)
At the same time as this private control developed, organizations like the ACLU were attacking government regulation of speech. The Gwerks formulation is that these are totally unrelated things, but in fact the one strategy serves the other. Limiting government crucially neutralizes democratic countermeasures to consolidated control of speech. This was particularly important during the earlier stages of the evolution of consolidated private control--preventing local communities from doing things like enforcing laws against obscenity, communicating shared religious values, and preferencing local over outside values. The ACLU and the neo-Nazis weren't strange bedfellows, rather the ACLU was cynically using neo-Nazis to attack local and populist control of communities.
Again, the one strategy serves the other. Moreover, the "protection" conferred by the latter strategy--formally limiting government--is illusory. GLAAD (via its media relationships) exercises a level of control over your speech that Stalin would have envied--so what difference does it make to you that they are extra-governmental (although increasingly this is a thin distinction)? And what does it mean to say that you have free speech but that people to whom you have no connection can attempt to harm you for this speech?
There are two casualities here: the development of strongly shared values within communities, and vital, open debate. Both of these were reasons for incorporating the first amendment into the United States Constitution, therefore it is perverse to argue that one can be in accordance with this amendment while actively and aggressively thwarting the ends it sought to achieve. To be for free speech means to protect the right to debate the best form of society, or else it means nothing at all. Debate of course does not involve forms of coercion such as economic sanction, loss of job, or legal harassment.
But while liberal hypocrisy about speech is glaring, and while liberals maintain control of media institutions, anti-speech arises from such a bleak and mentally tormented outlook that its control is always unstable. It is in its nature to provoke dissent by narrowing constraints at the same time as it makes people too unhappy to live within them; the most familiar relief from unhappiness is humor, which is the most difficult form of speech to suppress.
The vulnerability of mass media is its massness--it must make billions of dollars or die, so it is reliant on a large customer base (it has in fact acquired an obsession with international scope to protect itself). This vulnerability has not yet been fully exploited, although we've seen hints of how it might work.
While completely removing this cloud over democracy relies on changing fundamental characteristics of the environment, counter-attacking liberal attacks on speech is possible. More than possible, it is gaining strength, advantage, and effectiveness. Society in whatever form is an ecosystem--imbalances of power will always provoke actions that restore balance.
Posted PLEASUREMAN on 13 June 2012 - 03:12 PM
One of the reasons pair bonding is such a deeply embedded instinct is that our offspring require massive resources in order to survive and mature properly. Whether because it is intrinsically advantageous or is contingent upon certain conditions, our psychological development is most balanced with male and female parents, a concept we've formalized with marriage. It's true you can find various primitive societies that do not have formal marriage, but they are incredibly rare, lack robustness, and remain stuck at a primitive, almost animal level of social organization.
When you are a loose band of nomads, individual deviation from the healthiest norms has very localized effects, namely your offspring are more likely to die before reproducing, group cohesion is weaker, the ability to manage large threats is reduced. But as societies grow larger and larger, these effects do not stay so localized--deviations from pair bonding contribute to social disorder, and the larger the society the more disorder they create. Family chaos creates more illegitimacy, crime, substance abuse, domestic violence, promiscuity, on and on--and these risk devouring public resources, not just government resources. You have to pay more for your auto insurance, you have to buy a more expensive house to stay in a good school system (i.e. to avoid dysgenic filth), you are physically less secure, etc.
We've been watching it in real time for the past 50 years with illegitimacy rates. We've watched lower class blacks collapse into nearly feral behavior, and without draconian incarceration of black males the problem would be a hundred times worse. We see similar problems with Mexicans and to a lesser (but still measurable) degree with whites. It isn't someone else's problem, it is devouring resources and energy at a massive rate.
So when you see pair bonding decrease or become less stable, if you are at all awake you see a huge problem. The effects won't be local, they will spread and will carry over into subsequent generations. And as it happens, homosexual couples all have higher rates of social dysfunction, remarkably like the products of illegitimacy. They have higher rates of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness (besides being sexually deviant), promiscuity, and I believe if statistics could be accurately collected they would have higher rates of criminal behavior when controlled for race. Anecdotally, homosexuals appear to be overrepresented in radical political groups of the right and left. Their hedonism is off the charts. With gay marriage it is safe to predict that homosexual "partnerships" will be shorter, non-monogamous, and more disordered.
As such homosexuals are a net cost to society, leaving out whether their sexual practices should be ignored by a "consenting adults" standard (the lowest standard of public morality you can have). Completely apart from that they are a net cost. A glance at gay subculture tells you this, and the statistics back it up. That said, politically I think arguing that homosexuality is harmful is a loser, because there are too few homosexuals and because other groups grossly overshadow them in proportional harm. Also because conservatives are inordinately bad at arguing harm.
More important than the social disorder they directly contribute to, homosexuality is a symptom of hyperliberalization. I repeat, the main problem is what homosexuality is a symptom of, not what harm it causes. To a liberal, at least one who doesn't read much, hyperliberalization might sound great--finally, real progressivism! Like they talk about on Current TV! But in reality hyperliberalization is a very bad thing. It's a sign of anomie, a state of normlessness and disillusionment which results in ramped up materialism and relaxed morality and cohesion. The main thing hyperliberalization is good for is creating lots of disorder. That's what it did back in the 1920s. This period saw a sharp increase in deviance from social norms in the Western world, which, depending on how you look at it, either fed an atmosophere of greed and materialism or was fed by it (probably both). Reactions such as Prohibition were either ineffective or stimulated even more disorder and crime.
The end result, according to social scientists like Robert Paxton, was turmoil and fascism. Generally these are not in progressive interests, even if you're an angry Journolist member and would like to kick some people through plate glass windows (metaphorically speaking of course). Usually turmoil is really bad for liberals and results in the opposite of the society they want to live in, even when the new government calls itself "the people's party".
Conservatives usually argue that homosexuality is "just wrong" (sometimes they can't even go that far). They can't say why or articulate the harmful effects or defend the benefit of shared morality (much less state why morality is more than harm and fairness). They're hopeless. That is why they have no rejoinder to the naive liberal assertion that gay marriage is about love and holding hands and being yourself. In defense of conservatives, liberals are profoundly obtuse on this subject--their thinking is inbred, they ignore their own data, and they hide behind mindless emotional catchphrases. As stupid as conservatives are, they're simply not smart enough to be as hysterically dumb as a liberal with a slogan. (Conservatives will always be second rate when it comes to idiocy, as in so many things.)
I think you can point to additional factors that indict homosexuality as abnormal on the level of sociopathy or pedophilia. Physical development--gay face, finger length, brain morphology--is just clearly abnormal. For strictly eugenic reasons it is appropriate to study it as an abnormality and come up with forms of treatment, or if need be to change the environment that is producing it. Emotional development mirrors the physical--neoteny, hedonism, lack of self-control--homosexuals seem a lot like hypersexualized children. It's no wonder then that in an age that exposes children to sexuality far before their brains have matured in crucial ways, homosexuality has far greater acceptance, as does most other sexual deviance.
Liberals are free to continue being stupid--no one can stop them. Fortunately they are only 20% of the public, and they seem fine with shooting themselves in the foot. I think most everyone else (at least those who have reached full maturity) can be convinced that continuing to sanction homosexuality, much less gay marriage, is a terrible idea.
Posted AIDS Kills Fags Dead on 10 November 2016 - 10:02 PM
Anyone willing to admit they voted for Hillary there is in for a hell of a day.
Funny story from last Thanksgiving:
Before last Thanksgiving her dad and I hadn't really gotten to know each other yet and got along just okay.
After we ate someone turned on TV to watch football and some rapper was on for halftime.
Her dad started bullyciding the TV, saying "look at the way this jigaboo is dancing, yo yo yo!, making up joke raps about fried chicken and watermelon, etc"
My fiancé's sisters tried telling him to stop, he was being mean, blah blah blah while I was laughing the whole time.
He turned to me, looked me in the eye with a serious face and asked "Are you prejudiced against blacks."
I paused for a second, looked him dead in the eye and said "I don't know, but I am racist against niggers."
Going hunting together next weekend.
Posted Prime Minister Mark Latham (PBUH) AKA ENJ on 06 July 2017 - 06:01 AM
NEVER BACK DOWN!
This is easily the most provocative speech he has ever given, especially the last five minutes, unlike certain MPC posters I've always refrained from sensation and hyperbole when it comes to Trump but the enemies of the people are going to have a fucking stroke when they wake up in a couple of hours, this is likely to be 2017's defining moment.