Jump to content

Welcome, Guest!
As per the Internet Bill of Rights, you have access to most of the forums here, but MPC is a BLM-designated white privilege zone and you must become white to have a voice. Once you respond to the registration email, someone--no one knows who--must approve your new account. You will then become "white" and your privilege will be instantly assaulted.
Support the Official Forum of Donald J. Trump's Presidency
Getting a PHAT tax refund this year? Spare your loved ones the grief of wondering how it will be divided among them. Endorse that refund check over to your favorite Internet forum, the only family you need and the only family you truly have.

Bitcoins? Gift cards? Money orders? We take them! Click here for more details. Your contributions allow us to fund botnet armies that will downvote the African-American Panther movie while review aggregation site IT staff cry in frustration. MPC is the forum that will never be taken in by wall-eyed Vice reporters promising favorable coverage.



100 Most Popular Posts


#376095 Free Speech Absolutism

  • 151

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 20 August 2017 - 12:04 PM

This is a long overdue wake-up call to the right, which has traditionally been concerned with religious expression, the right to bear arms, and the consequences of federalization of government power.  Those are indeed worthy concerns (although one might dispute the right's effectiveness at addressing them), but speech is the right from which all other rights flow.  Without speech we cannot voice grievances, we cannot assemble, we cannot sue for our other rights.  Without speech we cannot lift the veil on propaganda and untruth, we cannot question or examine or even reason.  Attacking the right of speech is not merely an act of silencing but an act of stupefying--to render stupid.

Anglin's forced silencing is shocking, the moreso because it came via corporate power, not government, and therefore showed at once how totally our first amendment rights have been nullified.  In blatant contravention of Marsh v. Alabama, which concerned the right to speech on privately owned sidewalks in a company town, the corporations that control key segments of the Internet--domain registration and hosting--have determined what cannot be said in public.  Google et al own the sidewalks, and have decided this gives them the right to suppress speech at will--which puts them in direct violation of the United States Constitution.

Among other things we can do is to educate the public--our friends, family, community--of the very strong arguments against these anti-speech moves.  Here, for example, is what I posted to Face***k:

Quote

For those concerned by recent attacks on speech, read Marsh v. Alabama, a Supreme Court decision which held that a private organization cannot suppress public speech simply because it owns the public thoroughfares and meeting places in which public speech must take place. So too does this apply to the corporations which own important parts of the Internet's infrastructure. It is not their right to suppress speech, even or especially on their private networks.
https://en.wikipedia...arsh_v._Alabama

The hackneyed phrase in circulation among anti-speech liberals is "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", which like most hackneyed phrases is a lie in service to an injustice.  As a matter of fact, freedom of speech means nothing if it does not come with freedom from consequences.  The only acceptable response to argument is counter-argument.  It is never violence, it is never expulsion from society, it is never imprisonment or fines, it is never economic punishment--for if any of these things is allowed, then open debate is infringed.  And if open debate is infringed, then our democracy itself is controlled by those with the power to sanction speech.  Because men benefit from sanctioning criticism of their misdeeds, this inevitably means the ruin of democracy itself.

As a reminder of a point made in a previous discussion, right of speech and assembly are essential to maintaining social equality within a community--without it, concentrated power is free to enslave those beneath it.  In the past, objection to speech (counter-argument or social influence) occurred within a tangible network of balanced and direct social relationships.  Today the difference is that community social life is diluted and community boundaries have dissolved, and as they have dissolved we are brought into larger, more intangible networks where there is frequently no coherence to the connections, and a severe imbalance in power relationships.

For example, someone a thousand miles away, whom you have never met, and to whom you have no meaningful social relationship, can attack you for your speech.  Here I am drawing a distinction between arguing against you, which is permissible, and attacking your speech rights themselves, either by direct or indirect suppression.  In this we have a one-way exercise of power and its only point is to prevent your speech rights from being exercised.  This is as much in violation of the right to free speech as is a government agent fining or jailing you for criticism.

Important in this distinction is the element of balance.  If two people wish to disassociate from each other over a difference of views, that is permissible and natural.  If a group hears the speech of one person and chooses to ignore him, that is permissible and natural.  But when groups of people choose to punish a speaker, or large corporations choose to take away his voice in public venues, then there is an imbalance that is plainly evil.  The right not to hear speech is easily exercised, but it cannot extend to the right to force others not to hear it, or it becomes tyrannical.

Such soft tyranny has grown as public life has shrunk and weakened, in part because this change to public life removes crucial emotional supports and thus generates hostility and insecurity between groups and individuals.  Previously, such insecurity was evident at the height of the Red Scare, and predictably accompanying it were egregious attacks on speech--via McCarthyism, blacklists, investigation of associates, etc.  Ironically, it is those who once preached against the blacklists who are now full-heartedly promoting this new assault on speech, and it is the organizations most indebted to free speech rights--the press--who are encouraging or defending the assault.  Such is the way ideologies have become ugly mutations of themselves in our society.

The final element to note is that this assault on speech is not merely the product of suspicion and corporate power, it is in every respect a moral panic--an intense, irrational fear of some evil which threatens all of society.  This is easy to demonstrate by numbers alone--the numbers of people who purportedly antagonize the mob's moral sensibilities are small, and more significantly they are powerless against the mob, let alone the corporations collectively worth trillions of dollars, or the politicians who control nearly every important office.  Here the imbalance of power reaches ridiculous proportions and gives the lie to the moral panic.

All of which is to say, that when speech is under irrational, overbearing, and evil assault, it must be irrationally and tenaciously defended.  Defend it as though it is your last right to defend.  Speak and assemble--defend your right with your right.

Love of freedom is irresistible.

#324458 Obamaism in the rear view mirror

  • 143

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 20 January 2017 - 05:42 PM

In the end it was Obama who was the celebrity president:  hollow, arrogant, bored, and easily controlled by the Washington apparatus, clutching a token peace prize while involving himself in more violent conflicts than his predecessors.  Not much different than you'd expect of a junior senator who lucked into the job because he ran against bewildered stuffed shirts (and pantsuits) and looked the part.  A celeb for all seasons.

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?

#272993 One Year Later

  • 135

Posted Terrence Rhine on 16 June 2016 - 09:25 PM

"You're going to redeem the Republican Party," the ratfaced man said to Jeb. "With the $100 million war chest we have given you you will easily defeat the dangerous alternatives Rand Paul and Ted Cruz without having to pander to the base. You will save us from the racists and bring the natural conservatives into the party once and for all. And then we will finally achieve the great goals of spreading freedom and entitlement reform."

Quote

Jeb Bush Announces White House Bid, Saying ‘America Deserves Better’

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."

Quote



***

"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."

Quote

Even Assad’s supporters are baulking now

Hassan Hassan

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!"

Quote

World leaders accused of shameful failure over refugee crisis

Kareem Shaheen in Beirut

Monday 15 June 2015


***

"No one can stop us now!"

TRIGGER WARNING

#179599 Public School and Diversity

  • 134

Posted Stiles on 25 July 2014 - 09:48 AM

I just completed my first year of teaching.  Most of what I'll say in this post won't really surprise any of you racist pieces of s**t here on MPC, but it might be helpful if you're considering homeschooling.

I taught 6th graders at a school district that was, until a few years ago, very small and very white.  It was the kind of town where the school staff probably went to church with most of the parents of their students.  It was known in the immediate area as the place to go for good schools.  Like every district I've worked for, the superintendent is a corrupt shitbag surrounded by a small army of ass kissing sycophants.  A few years ago they had a bit of a budget problem, so to make some money fast they opened the school district.  Before this, they kept the schools white by having staff that drove around and verified addresses; this kept DeShaun's mom from lying about his address to get him in.  They removed that requirement in order to get more students and thus more funding.  Since the district is fairly close to Dallas, all of those good boys and girls who don't do nuffin but get kicked out of school anyway were able to flood into the district.  This was, of course catastrophic.

Immediately the district's test scores dropped.  Previously, this district was full of schools that were always Exemplary or Recognized, which means a high percentage of students passing the STAAR test, which is the Texas standardized test.  Even the schools that were on the poor side of town did pretty well.  With the influx of vibrant diversity, the scores dropped and everybody started panicking.  Don't let anybody fool you, either.  Those test scores are the ONLY metric anybody cares about.  

So when I started teaching, the district was still struggling to handle their newly vibrant student population.  We had a discipline system that was created to address the typical problems of a white, small town.  I have no doubt it was a terrific system when it was created, but it just cannot handle typical black behavior.  I think Pleasureman was the first person I ever heard talk about how whites are inherently high order, while blacks are inherently low order.  I knew what he meant, but given control over classes of whites, blacks, and Mexican kids, it's painfully clear.  

Most black students, simply put, are not fit for classrooms designed for white children.  The white classroom, the white teacher, and the white students all want some order.  They want quiet when they try to work.  Chaos isn't enjoyable for them.  That isn't to say white kids don't like cutting up and cutting loose, but if they are expected to learn, they want to do it in an organized fashion.  Black students, on the other hand, cannot understand why they can't talk over each other.  They don't get why they can't talk over their teacher.  They don't understand why they're getting in trouble for yelling in class.  They're upset that they can't sing, or dance, or listen to music loudly.  Sitting there, being quiet, is nearly impossible for a lot of my black students.  Part of this was their age, but the majority of my white and Mexican students were able to control themselves, even when they were bursting with energy.  Blacks just think you're a weirdo for not wanting them to rap a little in the middle of a lesson.

To kind of give you an idea, here is what a typical class might look like.  I had to monitor the hallways in between classes (more on this in a bit), so I had to start each class outside of my room.  I give students a small assignment to work on before the lesson starts.  When I walk in, out of 30 students, maybe 20 have completed the assignment and are talking quietly with their friends, or are working on it.  The remaining students are usually the black students.  They're doing a variety of things.  Most common is yelling at each other in conversation.  They yell over each other, they yell at each other, they yell across the room.  They sit in small groups, yelling at each other, usually with one repeating something over and over at the top of her lungs, something like "OH MY GAH!  OH MY GAH!".  Some of them are up and chasing each other around.  A lot of times they'd be dancing or singing.  I'd get them under control and start handing out discipline, to a chorus of "What?  I didn't even do anything!  I was just talking!"

So I'd start the lesson.  During the lesson, the black students are shouting out.  I found that there is no real way to stop them from shouting out answers or opinions.  If you get a lesson they really enjoy, they'll only shout enthusiastic answers, but they will shout out.(Tip : If you can relate your lesson to a recent horror movie in any way, black kids will like your lesson)  You can write them up all day every day for it, but they just can't help themselves.  If you do get them to raise their hands, they can't do it without going "Ooooooo oooo ooo ooooooo!" while they wave their hands and stand up.  Usually, though, they'll just start having a loud conversation that interrupts everybody else.  When you call them on it, they argue that they weren't doing anything but talking.  To a black kid, talking loudly during a lesson isn't anything bad.  The chaos and noise of these conversations is normal for them.  If you've ever been around groups of black people, you know what I'm talking about.  That conversational order, that process of listening and talking, is mostly foreign to them.  They want to talk, at the same time, getting louder and louder.  

This wasn't just my low scoring kids, either.  I had black girls and boys who were meticulous with their work, high scorers, good readers and writers.  Intelligent kids.  They still did this, though, all of the time.  It's a cultural thing, and it is completely incompatible with classrooms that you or I would learn in.  The lack of future time orientation is another big problem.  More than once, I would address a black student directly.  "If you do that one more time today, I'm going to call your parents."  A lot of black parents are fond of belt discipline, and their kids would tell me that.  So I'd give them a few chances, then tell them I'd call their parents.  They'd still do whatever I'd told them not to.  I'd tell them I'd call their parents, and they'd start crying, hysterically, knowing they were going to get "a whuppin."  I'd ask them why they continued acting up after I'd told them I'd call their parents, and they'd always answer "I don't know.".  And they didn't know.  This would happen to the same kids, over and over, and they'd never learn to stop before it got to that point.  It was mind boggling.  I had white and Mexican kids that I'd had to threaten to call parents once all year.  After that, when they got close to that point, they'd shut up and sit down quietly for the rest of class.  

Another fundamental difference between black students and white and Mexican students is the way you have to talk to them.  I learned that with white kids, you can be gently firm.  Mostly they'll correct their behavior.  If you get too sharp with them too fast, it gets them really upset.  If you get harsh with them, they assume they made a huge mistake.  Black kids, on the other hand, are used to being talked to in a loud, commanding voice.  You try gentle firmness with a black kid, and he or she will assume you're weak and unfit to lead them.  I had one girl tell me she wasn't afraid of any man that wasn't black.  I found that if you get a little loud, a little harsh, they tend to listen.  We had a great black female teacher who was aces at getting black kids to listen to her.  You could hear her yelling from down the hall.  So sometimes I would be a little louder and tolerate less nonsense from the black kids, because that's what they responded to.  My principal pulled me aside and told me I was being too harsh, despite the fact that I wasn't even close to as loud and demanding as the black teacher.  It was my job to let the black kids run roughshod over me, I guess, in the interest of acting like a good, neutered white.

I want to point out that most of the behavior of the black kids wasn't malicious or mean-spirited.  I had a lot of smart and sweet black kids who acted like this, but again it's a cultural thing.  I liked a bunch of these kids, and recognized them as decent, but they were wholly incapable of existing within the framework of what I consider a normal classroom.  Not to be a corny, backpedaling f****t, but I also had several quiet, smart, well-behaved black kids.  They got a lot of s**t from their peers, though.  The black kids would sneer "Oh, she never get in trouble" or "she always good" to the really good black students.  They'd try like hell to get the good kids to act foolish, and ridicule them for not joining in.  Again, not to be a corny f****t, but it takes some kind of guts for an 11 year old to reject that kind of peer pressure.

Our hallways were also a mess.  All of the black kids would group up and essentially block the hallways, yelling at each other, dancing, chasing each other, or just standing there rapping or singing.  They made it mandatory for teachers to go into the hallways and break up these groups, which would break up and immediately reform down the hallway.  Again, calling out the students and applying discipline resulted in screeching "I didn't do nothing!  You gonna write me up for TALKING!?" (Answer : yes).  The students were supposed to have a two minute passing period, but another holdover from the white days was no late bell.  So you'd have black kids saunter in ten or fifteen minutes after they were supposed to be in class.  Of course, when they walk in late, all of their friends yell out "Ohhhh you late!" and they argue back and forth, and once again I'm wasting class time calming everybody down because there was some minor distraction that turned into a full scale yelling conversation about who was late, who was in the bathroom, and was she taking a boo-boo?  Oh my gah, she was takin a boo-boo!  When these kids started up, you could see the rest of the class just hang their heads and slump in their chairs.  They hated the bullshit as much as I did.

Our administration was caught in limbo.  Almost all of the repeat offenders who were getting detentions, in-school suspension, and going to alternative school were black, many were Mexican, and few were white.  In an equality-focused and diverse school system, this presents a problem on paper.  We normally had a ten step process to wind up in alternative school.  With problem minorities, this was often ignored until they had racked up 15 or more.  I was told, off the record, that this was to make sure that when the parents came in screaming racism, they could show them that their students had been given far more chances than they should have been.  This lead to situations where a student would get three or four office referrals in a day, and the administration would group them together and talk to the student, deciding to make the referrals not count as discipline infractions.  Meanwhile, one of my students, a white girl, got into a shoving match with a boy.  First big infraction, immediately sent to alternative school.  Admin was eager to get some whites in there to bolster the numbers so we didn't look racist.  One black kid, who was a notorious troublemaker, only had to serve three days of his 30 day stint in alternative because his mom complained and everybody backed down.  The kid was immediately in trouble again, but never got sent back to alternative school.  School administration wants nothing more than to avoid rocking the boat.

So, to boil down this gigantic post, a handful of vibrantly diverse students can essentially hold a school hostage.  If you have gutless administration and education geared towards a white standard, a lot of black students will be unable to handle it.  This is bad for the white kids and the black kids.  When I worked in majority black schools, the staff was able to work better in the chaotic environment.  They were allowed to do things that we couldn't, like play music.  Playing music seems to help a lot for whatever reason.  I thought it was insane to see teachers playing R&B while they tried to teach.  I get it now.  Black kids don't do very well in quiet, orderly classrooms.

#213288 Cuckservatism: the megathread

  • 127

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 28 July 2015 - 12:06 AM

Our corner of the Internet has been aflutter lately about the term "cuckservative" and the discovery that the alt right uses it to describe pseudo-cons eager to endorse whatever the latest Twitter-fueled liberal craze is.  Tranny Bruce Jenner?  "Leave him alone!" demands Grover Norquist, because he's "good on taxes".  Gay marriage?  "We should insist on it," avers David Brooks, whose wildly cuckservative piece on Ta Coates' childish new book deserves its own thread and possibly its own forum.  (Brooks' review is such thinly disguised sadomasochism--Coates' words sear him, slap him, then fill his ears--that it reads like a coded classified ad from the 50s.)

Pieces in The New Republic and now BuzzFeed ogle and stroke their chins about this surprising, titillating new term in avant-garde political discourse.  The cuckservative right joins in via The Daily Caller, advancing the typically cuckservative idea that the word is actually all about sordid Mandingo fantasies (well they would think that, wouldn't they).

No one seems sure who coined the term--a search of MPC's database shows the earliest reference to it came from someone quoting the Twitter account @Cuckservative on April 4th.  But it immediately captured everyone's imagination as a fitting label for establishment conservatives who, when confronted with barely coherent liberal jabber, are spineless at best and eagerly servile at worst.  The word was perhaps inspired into being by Donald Trump's candidacy, which itself provoked a cuck chorus of shocked and offended Republicans who had been responsible for crushing genuine conservatism and replacing it with a deformed cuckoo of endless war, corporate oligarchy, and whatever moral boundary liberals stopped just short of ten years minutes ago.

Establishment conservatives are in fact sinecured opportunists who are either too venal or too idiotic (or, most likely, both) to recognize that political conservatism no longer has any meaning.  This conservatism cannot say that it conserves anything because it is in favor of a chaotically destructive free market and its social habits are nothing if not depraved.  The emblematic establishment con is someone who talks his ex-girlfriend's daughter into aborting their love child, or who cucks his own son and then denies it after his daughter-in-law kills herself.  On no issue do these people have the slightest credibility, and as to character they are like understudies to lead-poisoned Roman emperors.  Or else are simpering, childish, figuratively and literally crippled nullities.

But although all this attention to the word "cuckservative" is entertaining, the only one we really care about is BuzzFeed's because it mentions us.

Right away Joseph Bernstein rolls into the racial angle--well, it's right there in the clickbait, SEO friendly headline:

Behind The Racist Hashtag Some Donald Trump Fans Love

A little sidebar here, but the reason we love Trump is precisely because he's the ultimate joke on a thoroughly corrupt and inane political system.  I think I speak for most in saying that our dearest hope is that Trump utterly destroys the Republican party, which has become so clownish that it's beyond salvation.  And do we need any more evidence for that than this:

:republican:

We don't actually believe that Fuhrer Trumpenkrieg is about to institute an American Reich, kick out all the Mexicans, and make sodomy a criminal offense.  We just know with a certainty beyond liberal imagining that a system that produces Hillary Clinton and ¡Jabe! Bush as leading candidates for president is on the verge of collapse.  It is not just corrupt and stupid, it is totally devoid of sanity.  We're ahead of liberals in that we realize this--we're not looking to test Jeb into mouthing a few platitudes that make us feel better, we just want to watch the Bush dynasty burn.

Getting back to Bernstein:

Quote

The explosion of the movement, which is in many cases explicitly racist, has prompted tortured meditations from some libertarian bloggers and commentators about the place of intolerance in their politics:

It seems like the only place where anyone cares what libertarians have to say is on the Internet.

Quote

The precedent here is #GamerGate, a movement that similarly combined retrograde cultural politics and anonymous harassment with the bleeding-edge visual grammar of the meme internet, and impelled a similar round of self-examination among mainstream game writers.

"Anonymous harassment", also known as raping your Twitter mentions, to which I would add:



Still, we at MPC do pride ourselves on our bleeding-edge visual grammar--thanks, Joe!  We figured out long before Jews like Bernstein that the soft underbelly of the liberalism of social justice and microaggressions and wanting people thrown in prison for saying "black fella" was its extreme vulnerability to mockery.  The one cure for the misery of modern life is laughter at its absurdity, and once you begin laughing you'll never want to go back to the dour, joyless MiniTruisms of modern liberalism, which actually asks you to believe that Bruce Jenner is now a woman because Bruce Jenner got fake tits.

The absurdity is that this liberalism thinks it's on the right side of history--thinks there is a right side of history, as opposed to an endlessly refracting moral prism which shows a version of the gazer.  Liberalism's arrogant assumptions are comical and this is regularly demonstrated, as when in social surveys they consistently fail to accurately describe what other groups think about themselves.  They have been graded (by themselves) on a Ta Coates-like curve all their lives and are now certain that their self-indulgent intellectualism will sort everything out--as if we've never seen mistakes on a grand scale in human history.

Bernstein himself amply demonstrates the fatuity of this liberalism in his writing:

Quote

Like GamerGate, and like much of the major harassment on the internet in 2015, “cuckservative” finds its roots in the intersection of web nerd culture and the politics of cultural hate. And just like #GamerGate, even many of the prominent anti- “cuckservatives” — the people who use the term — aren’t quite sure where exactly that is.

Strangely, liberals love to toss around the word "hate" as they strain against their leashes.  Frankly, no one hates as unreservedly and viciously as a liberal, who is all bitchiness and politics-of-personal-destruction over impossibly trivial matters.  And no one hates like a Jew, a race that has its own Orwellian hate organizations like the ADL and SPLC.  I'm almost at a loss when I see liberals unhinge themselves about everything from calling Asian people "Orientals" to tweeting "#AllLivesMatter", and then call anyone else "haters".

But here's the money shot that I've been leading up to:

Quote

MPC and TRS are, respectively, My Posting Career, a kind of 8chan-meets-far-far-right-politics forum, and The Right Stuff, a white supremacist blog dedicated to “Reinvigorating dialogue among a disparate and edgy right-wing” and “Inflaming anuses among the childish and regressive left-wing.” The Right Stuff, which has an incredibly active commenter community, has clearly played a role in popularizing the movement. But it’s deep within a subfourm of My Posting Career where an earlier reference to the term “cuckservative” appears, beneath a copied tweet by the conservative activist Grover Norquist.

Posted Image

We like The Right Stuff guys, and we even like the juvenile nihilism of 8chan (it's not like we haven't stolen memes from them before).  If it somehow f**ks up the liberal establishment, we're for it.  Because this is an establishment that is knowingly destroying the world it lords over while arrogantly refusing to be argued with.  These are people who believe in fining you six figures for not baking a cake to celebrate the mock wedding of two fags who will soon be getting drilled by random Grindr users.  Cakes are that f**king critical.

Quote

That’s right: These aren’t garden variety conservatives, for whom reflexive support of Israel has become a core value. Indeed, supporting Israeli foreign policy to the detriment of white Christians is one of the hallmark traits of the “cuckservative”; Enkisson’s Twitter is particularly, though not uniquely, anti-Semitic for a member of the movement.

Anti-Semitic?  Whoa, sounds most uncool, Joseph Bernstein.  How could anyone dislike (self-serving, hypocritical, sexually neurotic, nepotistic, histrionic) Jews?

Quote

(Enkisson is also a proto-GamerGater who was tweeting antagonistically at GamerGate villain Anita Sarkeesian as far back as 2011).

Tweeting antagonistically.  Very troubling.

Quote

That “cuckservative” comes from the place where forum trolls, white supremacy, and GamerGate meet shouldn’t come as a surprise. As I wrote earlier this month, mobile services like Kik have enabled a new group of young white supremacists who are totally fluent in the art of internet persuasion, for whom irony poses no contradiction to the intensities of race hate.

"White supremacist" is the penis-stroking slur of preference for the new liberalism.  It's meaningless, liberally handed out (none other than Ta Coates, a f**king Tracy Morgan-style retard, called Mitt Romney a "white supremacist"), and completely used up.  We don't f**king care anymore, airhead.  Call us racist, white-supremacist, neo-Nazis, or anything you think will stick.  We're still the ones laughing, and you're still the humorless nags holding show trials about words.  We'll win, you'll lose.

#428988 Pitbull Genocide Megathread

  • 123

Posted KG: Womp Nationalist on 05 May 2018 - 04:54 PM

Kicked out of 109 PetSmarts. It's never their fault?

#392783 Deep State in Deep s**t

  • 123

Posted Pozferatu on 26 October 2017 - 05:34 PM

View PostDr. Necessiter, on 26 October 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

"Well, Hillary, it's like this...you can spend your remaining years in prison, or you can run for president every four years and lose every time...until you die."

I'm cool with either.

In the 73rd Millennium, historians will debate the origins of the holiday known as the election, in which every four years an exopantsuit containing a skeleton shambles up to the imperial palace holding a placard reading "ITS MY TURN" before being shown a red map of ancient america and scurrying away.

#210937 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 117

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 07 July 2015 - 11:23 AM

An otherwise useless Daily Beast spic writes:

Quote

Of the many different reactions to Donald Trump’s inaccurate and insulting comments about how Mexican migrants to the United States come from the bottom of the barrel, one of the most interesting has been that of wealthy and powerful Mexican elites who are suddenly long on indignation and outrage but short on memory and self-awareness.

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
http://www.thedailyb...with-trump.html

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.

#19257 GHOST SITE

  • 116

Posted Saya on 27 January 2011 - 08:00 PM

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

#297060 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 113

Posted I Mildly Touched Richard Dawkins on 03 October 2016 - 10:57 AM

This got long, and rambling.  Perhaps worst of all for MPC, this got sincere. Real as f**k, yo. But hell with it:

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, f**k it.  Lets get mushy. Lets get real.

Theres no reason in HELL to do this.  For all the s**tlib 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 f**king 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 vagina 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 f**king 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 f**king cowards we call fellow citizens is our due.

But by the grace of God-the no s**t, 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 s**t, 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.

#435759 The Psychosis of the Liberal Female Mind

  • 111

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 09 June 2018 - 01:40 PM

"Men and women use and abuse each other, there's nothing wrong with it," observes Claudette sagely in The Room.  But moreso these days.

The Internet, long a mere trough for the autism waste product of nerds, became something else with the rise of social (sic) media:  a completely unhinged battle royale, a kind of role-playing game for enraged shut-ins in which characters level up by posting snark and reaction gifs and requesting bans.  Twitter is the perfect platform for expressing mutual hostility because it is inherently self-focused--it has no group mechanism.  Unlike Facebook, group interactions are not an intended function of the software, and as we know real social belonging tends to contain aggression.  Therefore it is predictable that where social belonging is removed, hostility will increase.

This then suggests an interesting reason why one group in particular is having problems with its hostility.  A PRRI survey showed that Democratic-affiliated women were far more likely than any other group to block their own friends because of differences in political views.  In support of this, liberal-leaning Internet venues seem dominated both by women and by the volume of hostile snark, and the trend in liberal thought away from free speech seems driven by the increased outspokenness of liberal women.  In fact the major rift on the left is between liberal women and liberal men.  A Politico piece about a DNC rule change is instructive for the comments attached to it, in which the Hillaryites and Bernie bros go at each other like a couple of hairdressers, furiously bitching about the 2016 election as if it happened yesterday.

Why blame women, or at least liberal women?  The PRRI survey provides a big clue:

Posted Image

Conservative men and women, and even liberal men, are not very aggressive on social networks.  They may argue but they ultimately value a venue for discussion, which offers the hope of mediating conflicts, more than a protective cocoon in which conflicts and inequities absorb the entirety of their attention.  But the difference between these groups and liberal women is profound--about three times as many liberal women as conservative men or women engage in aggressive exclusionary behavior.

This accords with the communication style of liberal women online, which is more hostile, more insulting, and more self-pitying.  This suggests that liberal women as a group are unusually socially deprived or are unusually affected by social erosion.  This is supported by statistics showing that liberals are less likely to be married than conservatives by about 20 points.

Posted Image
https://ifstudies.or...ide-in-marriage

(This also tells us something about the pathologies inherent to the far right.)

It's a stereotype, but a convincing one, that women have higher social needs and place more importance on being securely placed within a community.  The stereotype for men is of them being more willing to go it alone and pursue high risk strategies which are at odds with social conformity.  Therefore a hypothesis suggests itself, that women are more acutely affected by modern social erosion and display more hostility and threat behavior as a result (which are also connected to conforming behavior).  The forces that make men more withdrawn and passive produce the opposite effect in women--men retreat and women scream.  This also explains the equally marked difference between conservative women and liberal women in their tolerance of differences.  Conservative women enjoy greater security of social belonging.

Political discourse displays this pattern of sexual behavior.  Liberal women seem just as angry at liberal men as at conservatives, which is emphatically demonstrated when liberal men suggest breaking from the hostile behavior that is typical of liberal female discourse.  The surest way to arouse the anger of liberal women is to suggest they empathize with others or look at things from a different point of view.  The reaction of liberal women to this implies feelings of betrayal, unfairness, and assault, and their lack of empathy matches their inclination to exclude others from their social circles.

Posted Image

This social deprivation and attendant hostility appears to be why we are seeing a rise in addiction in women, and a perverse embrace of alcoholic behavior among liberal women.  This has reached the point of cultural cliche:  the aggressive substance dependence of the wine guzzling urban female, who does it to humblebrag about her stress.

Naturally, there is a self-serving justification:

Quote

"Wine. Immediately." The depressing reason so many women drink.

The reason of course is that the liberal woman's life is made impossible, mostly by men, and therefore she must medicate with booze--substance dependence as an excuse for these female blues.

Quote

I’m newly sober and I’m wearing unwise (but cute, so cute) shoes at the farmers market. It’s a beautiful summer day. I trip, cracking my phone, blood-staining the knees of my favorite jeans, and scraping both my palms.

Naturally, as soon as I’ve dusted myself off, I post about it on Facebook. Three women who don’t know I’ve quit drinking comment quickly:

"Wine. Immediately."

"Do they sell wine there?"

"Definitely wine. And maybe new shoes."

This is addiction as the career woman's badge of honor.  The writer immediately femme-splains that feeding her alcoholism because she tripped and fell while staggering around in a glorified grocery store is made essential because no one accepts her femaleness.

Quote

Have I mentioned that it’s morning when this happens? On a weekday? This isn’t one of those nightclub farmers markets. And the women aren’t the kind of beleaguered, downtrodden creatures you imagine drinking to get through the day. They’re pretty cool chicks, the kind people ridicule for having First World problems. Why do they need to drink?

Well, maybe because even cool chicks are still women. And there’s no easy way to be a woman, because, as you may have noticed, there’s no acceptable way to be a woman. And if there’s no acceptable way to be the thing you are, then maybe you drink a little. Or a lot.

Let's dismiss the idea that this foolish twat is sober, or that she quit drinking but somehow forgot to mention it one thousand times to her friends on Facebook.  She spends the entire article justifying and glamorizing female drunks.  She was "newly sober" on August 21, 2016, and still milking it on August 25, 2017.  She seems incapable of writing or thinking about anything else as her book of blog posts sits in the remainder bin.  (In fact much of the Vox article is cribbed, word for word, from a previous Medium post.)

You might well ask what scraping your knees because you were stumbling in a drunken stupor has to do with being "accepted" as a woman.  The increase in drinking and alcoholism has nothing to do with men, who seem to have steadily existed for the last few decades, and everything to do with the society liberal women chose to live in:  one with few social supports and many hedonistic pursuits tailored to the narcissistic urbanite.  Whether they are popping Adderall, smoking weed, or binging on alcohol, they are all self-medicated and blaming it on someone else, or else glibly exhibiting it as a form of life hacking.

Quote

This isn’t a new idea — just ask the The Horseface Chronicles girls (or the flappers). A woman with a single-malt scotch is bold and discerning and might fire you from her life if you f**k with her. A woman with a PBR is a Cool Girl who will not be shamed for belching. A woman drinking MommyJuice wine is saying she’s more than the unpaid labor she gave birth to.

Kids, whaddayagonna do?  *tilts giant novelty wine glass down throat*

"Unpaid labor" is more than a snarky reference to children, it's a reminder that this woman, who has been drunk most of her adult life, is completely alienated from her own biological purpose.  Why not whine that you aren't paid to breathe?

In this case the writer is a childless hag, but when women like her have children, they raise them as addicts, which is to say they force on their children the traumatic experience of helping Mommy to bed, dealing with Mommy's mood swings, hiding from Mommy's boyfriends, and accepting Mommy's domestic disorder as normal.  Today they are doing this with few if any options to acquire healthy social development elsewhere, so that the dysfunctional cycle increases in intensity.

We've seen (and gloated) about the liberal female's reaction to Trump's victory, but it's just a continuation of their breakdown in the face of a society that has given them everything they want:  overpaid jobs, freedom from responsibility, childlessness, affirmative action, media coddling, social media safe spaces, and endless drugs to take the edge off the cliff they're throwing themselves from.  But you can't fill the maw created by social erosion, you can only watch it consume you completely.

#338158 Wapo shamelessly lies about My Posting Career

  • 111

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 27 March 2017 - 03:40 PM

Quote

For advertisers, algorithms can lead to unexpected exposure on sites spewing hate

"Spewing hate" is the preferred Mrs. Grundy term for questioning any aspect of establishment liberalism, a brain-dead and increasingly prissy ideology of constant verbal wincing.

Quote

As the owner of a small business in liberal Massachusetts, John Ellis was a natural sympathizer of the nationwide call for advertisers to boycott Breitbart News, with its hard-edge conservative politics and close ties to President Trump. But it made Ellis wonder about other, more extreme right-wing sites: Who is placing ads on them?

Yes, a busybody s**tlib would wonder about it, wouldn't he?  Half the country being allowed to participate in national discussion?  Seems a little high to me, Ellis muses.

Quote

What Ellis had stumbled on was a little-known facet of the booming world of Internet advertising. Businesses using the latest in online advertising technology offered by Google, Yahoo and major competitors are also increasingly finding their ads placed alongside politically extreme and derogatory content.

Of course Wapo doesn't mean "extreme" as in Slate, Salon, Black Lives Matter, PETA, HuffPo, or any other whacked out venue where liberals fume and rant about conspiracy theories and talk openly of killing the president or hoping the military stages a coup.  They mean "extreme" as in people who notice that blacks are violent, that diversity doesn't work, that Jews react hysterically to criticism, and that a reckoning is coming for Western civilization and for the entire globalist project owing to its hubristic greed.  Although, yes, we're sexually extreme in that we believe every boy should have two post-op mothers.  Touché, Wapo.

Quote

In a sign of growing frustration, AT&T, Verizon and other leading companies this week pulled their business from Google’s AdSense network in response to news reports that ads had appeared with propaganda from the Islamic State and violent groups.

:lol:

Quote

Some of these sites, the Post found, featured hateful and derogatory content throughout. In others, it was confined to comment sections, where users went far beyond the language used by the sites’ writers, whose expressed views fell closer to the political mainstream.

Finally, the mainstreaming of SCALE is really happening.  No help from the f**king Nazis I keep banning!

Quote

Google’s AdSense, for example, last month ran ads for several companies alongside comments using a slur for African Americans, saying “hang them all.” Other Google-displayed ads, for Macy’s and the genetics company 23andMe, appeared on the website My Posting Career, which describes itself as a “white privilege zone,” next to a notice saying the site would offer a referral bonus for each member related to Adolf Hitler.

:lolnig:

Wapo don't link, but it's worth it for just this one humorless paragraph that aggressively doesn't get the joke.

Quote

“No business wants to be associated with sites like that,” said Andy Kill, spokesman for genetic testing company 23andMe. “If you’re trusting an ad algorithm to do this, this is what can happen,” he said. “It’s frustrating.”

Sure, you say that, Andy Kill, but then why does 23andMe have a HitlerMeter™?

Quote

My Posting Career did not reply to an email seeking comment.

Lie, lie, lie.  I was never sent an email from Wapo.  I checked every email address I've ever used, including the one this website is registered to.  Lazy reporters made no attempt to email me then covered for it by claiming I didn't respond.  Well, what do you expect?  It's a marvel when these glorified bloggers avoid obvious plagiarism.

Quote

The technology companies behind ad networks have slowly begun to address the issue, but warn it won’t be easy to solve. They say their algorithms struggle to distinguish between content that is truly offensive and language that is not offensive in context. For example, it can be hard for computers to determine the difference between the use of a racial slur on a white-supremacy site and a website about history.

Offensiveness, of course, is purely subjective, and culturally-determined--there's no objective standard for it, and for multiculturalism to have any coherence it cannot assume a standard (particularly one that is purely WEIRD in expression).  But liberals liberally paint anything that confuses or bothers them with a "hate" brush, which they assume requires no explanation.  It's the perfect, unbeatable way to protect yourself from other ideas.

We've talking about the liberal attitude to free speech in the past, and this touches on another dimension of it.  To declare that there is an "offensive" exception for political speech (which is what MPC plainly is, where it is not autism-confounding humor) is to denude the entire concept of free speech.  Moreover, to selectively target such political speech for boycott campaigns is to negate the goal that free speech in the modern age is meant to achieve:  to ensure robust debate and argument consistent with the needs of a liberal democracy, and particularly of minority ideologies within it.

But these Bezos wage slaves will have none of this intellectual sophistication, as the dunning, overwrought clickbait article shows.  If we have nothing else, we at MPC have the dignity of not being journalists.

And, incidentally, these cheap Jeff Bezos (f****t Dr. Evil) surrogates are one more BIG reason why you should donate to our cause.  (Do not wait for the PLEASUREJIZYA, brothers.)

Quote

Several said they had requested that networks blacklist those pages, which is easy to do for individual sites but not for entire categories of sites. Automated filters typically miss certain kinds of derogatory speech, and tech companies traditionally have not hired the massive number of people necessary to carefully monitor content on billions of Web pages.

Indeed, one of the perversities of this richly inane political age is that newspapers which hide beyond first amendment law openly support actual blacklists, and only lament that curating them by hand takes so much work!  Careful, liberals, your "What Would Big Brother Do?" wristbands are getting itchy.  This is the declension that "free speech" inevitably sinks to in a mass society--you can say whatever you want, but if you violate the taboos of establishment liberalism, which are largely determined by corporate pigs like Bezos (thanks for the Amazon referral money!), no soup for you.

Quote

Advertisers generally have little choice but to depend on ad networks. The major ones have policies prohibiting advertising on sites featuring discriminatory or hateful speech, but The Post found dozens of apparent violations. Many of the sites where The Post found violations are considered hate sites by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an advocacy group that tracks hate speech.

The SPLC is little more than a group of left-wing Jews putting out their own form of clickbait in order to raise money from senile co-ethnics.  As a scam it's an evergreen, and liberal (usually Jewish) media whores can always count on them to fill out their otherwise spare blog entries.

Quote

Last month, an ad for insurance company Allstate appeared on Alternative-Right.BlogSpot.com, whose comments section praised “Hitler and his National Socialists as a visionary.”

Note the effort to move the goal post to "someone in the comments"--HEY, WHACHA POSTIN, RABBI?  It's worth wondering how many Internet Nazis are mobying Jews (it can't be just bomb threats they're into), as opposed to real-life pizza-delivering intellectuals like Salo's Thomas777.

Quote

Ads for Macy’s, Amazon.com, and even Planned Parenthood, appeared on the racially inflammatory website My Posting Career. Ads to shop on Amazon.com appeared on a site with an article headlined “Yes, I am a Nazi,” and a comments sections peppered with profanity and racial slurs.

:lol: We know about the incongruities of ads here at MPC.  The Wapo paragraph appears to be written in an effort to conflate MPC's erudite SCALE-ism with pro-Nazi views--typical Jew cherry-picking and mendacity.  (Note to media whores reading this:  we hate the Jews only because we love the Jews.)

Quote

Amazon, which also runs an ad network, declined to comment. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Post).

Well that's one way of avoiding the word filter.

Quote

“[Tech companies] are struggling to adjust to a reality where the same tools that enabled them to connect the world are now being used to drive it apart,” entrepreneur and venture capitalist Noah Lichtenstein said. “This is the crisis of our time: How do you balance the desire to have the Web be open and connected with a rising tide of institutionalized hate and the protection of those who are being attacked?”

Forces driving the world apart?  Sorry, from the window seat of this hate zeppelin it looks more like liberalism--which is fomenting wars in MENA countries, creating refugee crises, supporting massive population movement, and doing it all from antitrust-defying megacorps that farm manufacturing to Asian slave pits--is doing a lot more to "drive the world apart" (typical hackneyed libspeak) than a little old Internet forum that just wants to get straight answers on Sandra Bullock's real gender.

Quote

Emails to contact information listed for Alternative-Right.blogspot.com received no reply. Breitbart News also did not return emails seeking comment about the advertising boycott directed against the site.

I somehow doubt that emails were sent to anyone.

Source: https://www.washingt...f7cf_story.html

#342979 Kyle Chapman and His Crew of Lunatics May Have Just Saved Western Civilization

  • 110

Posted Cinco Jotas on 20 April 2017 - 09:51 PM

Posted Image

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, f**k 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 f**king 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.

Posted Image

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.

#274597 How Brexit helps Trump

  • 107

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 24 June 2016 - 09:22 AM

The results of Brexit are overdetermined, but precisely because, leave or remain, the future was foreordained.  The proof of it is that the toppling of this single domino has immediately set several others in motion.  We were only waiting for the first one to fall.

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.

#357461 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 106

Posted John Rocker on 17 June 2017 - 02:57 AM

In the chaos of day-to-day outrages, one loses sight of the full impact of Trumpism.

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 f**king 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.

#210248 Conflict, Aggression, and Humiliation in Modern Politics

  • 104

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 28 June 2015 - 02:02 AM

When gay activist Hampton Catlin got Brendan Eich forced out of Firefox as CEO, he wrote a blog post about it in the "more in sorrow than anger" vein of gloating:

Quote

People think we were upset about his past vote. Instead we were more upset with his current and continued unwillingness to discuss the issue with empathy. Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO.
http://www.teamrareb...3/a-sad-victory

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.

#337133 Boomer encounters

  • 103

Posted R. Jammington III on 21 March 2017 - 05:54 PM

As per protocol I just met with my academic adviser for the spring. For some reason each semester I have advising sessions with 3 people at 3 different levels where they read a print out of the same database that I've been accessing online to plan out my classes for graduation. Each time it's twenty minutes explaining stuff I already know, and have known for months. This time I actually cut him short and said I'm more concerned with what I'm going to do after graduation; perhaps graduate education, maybe law school. I then qualified "law school" with my reservations regarding the dim prospects I've read for alumni, but ran into a boomerwall since he responded glibly that "the lawyers I know are all doing well" and that with my GPA and a good LSAT I'd have no problem "getting accepted by a law school". I told him that it's not admissions I'd be worried about so much as my likely debt-to-income ratio, to which he responded:

Quote

If I were a lawyer I'd be one of those public defender guys, just helping people out. I wouldn't be a cut throat lawyer working for some corporation, I'd rather work for free doing something good. But that's my passion. You should follow your passion.

I thanked him for his time and left

#308156 The New Colossus: Trump Bestrides the World

  • 103

Posted Cinco Jotas on 12 November 2016 - 09:19 PM

This is the year that converted me into a believer in Carlyle's great man theory of history. Twenty-one months ago I was posting tweets like this...

Posted Image

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, f****ts 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 s**t 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 s**t. 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 s**t.


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.

#424669 What’s up PewdiePie?

  • 101

Posted Harry Dexter Whyte on 11 April 2018 - 05:53 PM

"What’s up PewdiePie? The troubling content of YouTube’s biggest star," the Guardian's Paul MacInnes titles a recent column. What is up PewdiePie? It's a question everyone's asking. From his old fans, who want to know why his content has changed, to his new fans, who are shocked at how much his content has improved, to media whores, who despair at his recent turn to the dark side, to Youtube, which is wondering what has happened to its largest cash cow.

This 29 year old Swedish man with the largest individual platform on the internet (aside, perhaps, from President Donald J. Trump) is an enigma. And it is the purpose of this thread to trace his development as a public figure, from a young, innocent Lets Player to a serious, effective, and, more than anything else, positive cultural commentator.  

So, anyways, what's up with our guy PewdiePie? Paul MacInnes wants to know. You see recently, PewdiePie started a book club and, well, his recommendations are more than a bit troubling:

Quote

Once a month, the Youtuber sits in his box room studio, bathed in soft pink light, and critiques a set of texts for his audience. The choices so far have tended towards sci-fi – I Am Legend, Brave New World – but also included The Picture of Dorian Gray and American Psycho. “For me to discover how much joy you can get through reading”, the 28-year-old Swede said, “It’s been so much fun.” This month, he wants his viewers to join him in ploughing through Moby Dick...the final item on last month’s edition was Jordan B Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life. Kjellberg gave it a rave review. “I really enjoyed this book,” he said, “it made me understand people around me better.”

The author is left (proverbially) speechless, not even commenting on what he's just quoted. It is self-evidently shocking, after all, that someone like PewdiePie would be recommending the work of a well known Fascist demagogue like Jordan B Peterson to his 61 million subscribers. How did we get to this point?

And it is surprising. PiediePie began his Youtube career more than half a decade ago as a Lets Player (someone who plays video games, usually with their face in the corner so people can see their reactions and vicariously live through them). He quickly attracted a large, young audience thanks to his good looks, his loud and obnoxious reactions, and his funny accent. In fact, he became so popular that within a few years he had more subscribers than anyone else on Youtube. He was the "The Face of Youtube" .

Which had its benefits. He was earning millions a year. He was appearing on big American talk shows like The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. He had his own television show. It was all looking up for PewdiePie...

...and then something happened. On September 8th, 2016 he snapped:


Youtube, you see, had started demonetizing videos without warning, for no apparent reason, and without telling their creators. Many videos had been made about this, with creator after creator speaking out against what seemed to them to be an unfair and arbitrary policy. But PewdiePie wasn't just any old Youtuber. He was the face of Youtube! Their star child! Their money maker! He had the most to lose and the least to gain from speaking out against their draconian new rules, so surely he'd keep his mouth shut, right? And yet, he didn't. He spoke out.

PewdiePie, it seemed, had changed. He started growing out his beard, and using a weird new graffiti laden backdrop. He stopped playing video games, and started focusing on commentary and skits. He wouldn't do his patented intro, and his longtime viewers started to ask - what's up, PewdiePie? What happened to that innocent Swedish video gamer we knew and loved? He faced a lot of backlash, not only from his fans, but also from his corporate sponsors as well as Youtube itself:

Quote

“We’ve decided to cancel the release of Scare PewdiePie season 2 and we’re removing the PewdiePie channel from Google Preferred,” a YouTube spokesperson said in a statement. PewdiePie being removed from Google Preferred, an advertisement platform reserved for more notable content creators means he will lose some of its financial backing from Google, YouTube parent’s company.

Disney-owned Maker Studios, which PewdiePie, whose real name is Felix Kjellberg, was contracted under announced last night it was cutting its ties with the Youtuber after the Wall Street Journal catalogued a series of anti-Semitic videos dating back to August of last year.

Both Youtube and Disney cancelled their contracts with him (only months after his video on demonetization) ostensibly due to the infamous Wall Street Journal article accusing him of being anti-semetic. And what was the accusation based on? Well:

Quote

Mr. Kjellberg’s use of Nazi material dates back to at least Aug. 7, when he began a video with a swastika and other Nazi imagery. Wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat from President Donald Trump’s campaign, Mr. Kjellberg used a photo of Hitler as a segue between clips.

Mr. Kjellberg says the material is portrayed in jest. He showed a clip from a Hitler speech in a Sept. 24 video criticizing a YouTube policy, posted swastikas drawn by his fans on Oct. 15 and watched a Hitler video in a brown military uniform to conclude a Dec. 8 video. He also played the Nazi Party anthem before bowing to a swastika in a mock resurrection ritual on Jan. 14, and included a very brief Nazi salute with a Hitler voice-over saying “Sieg Heil” and the text “Nazi Confirmed” near the beginning of a Feb. 5 video.

In the Jan. 11 video, in which the two men are unfurling the “Death to All Jews” sign, Mr. Kjellberg paid people to do bizarre things via the website Fiverr, which helps freelancers secure part-time work. After he shows himself hiring the men to make the sign, he watches them unfurling the sign while they laugh and dance.

Very disturbing stuff indeed. PewdiePie, professional internet comedian, made jokes which included Nazi imagery (interestingly he lives in the UK, so this is probably a crime now, as the Count Dankula trial demonstrates). And of course, this leads the author to tie him to the Alt-Right, and causes him to directly pressure Disney to cut off ties with PewdiePie (which it did). The ADL's assistant director chimes in with his concerns, and the Daily Stormer's satirical pro-PewdiePie headlines receive an honorable mention. And that's a wrap! Sponsors gone, Youtuber silenced, and WSJ reaping in the clicks. All seemed good.

And yet, something was different here. Much of the entire internet, and certainly almost the entire Youtube creator community, sprang to his defense. Here's one typical example with more than 3 million views. It turned out that people didn't buy the clearly deliberate humorlessness of the WSJ article, and didn't take kindly to its brutish attempts at shutting down creators by targeting their revenue. In fact, this struck people the wrong way. And instead of backing down, PewdiePie defended himself, and more than that, he attacked the WSJ and the entire media outrage complex that was in the process of trying to slander his name and ruin his career:


"Keep doing it...it's hilarious," PewdiePie taunts as he systematically dismantles the numerous hit pieces from journalistic giants like Vanity Fair and Vox. With nearly 10 million views and nearly 1 million likes (to a few thousand dislikes), he imparted an important lesson to a sympathetic audience: never trust mainstream news.

Which brings us back to the beginning, and to the significance of someone like PewdiePie. I should note that he is not what some retard on TRS or 8chan would call "our guy". He does not ramble on about inane conspiracy theories. He is certainly not an actual anti-semite. He's not overtly nationalist, and he doesn't go on long diatribes against cultural marxism. In short, he is not Paul Neylen. He's simply an entertainer.

And this is precisely what makes him so persuasive and influential. PewdiePie does not have an overtly political message. His goal, first and foremost, is to entertain - not to preach. So for instance, he debunks the gender wage gap in the middle of a video that is ostensibly making fun of a sexist Polish politician (but is really taking the journalists covering the story to task for their factual inaccuracies). Contrast this with someone like Sargon of Akkad who drones on for thirty minutes epicly BTFOing the evil feminists for his much smaller, and much more autistic audience. Who's approach is more effective?

Some people might wonder, though, whether PewdiePie is really any better than a radical centrist like Sargon of Akkad. Or, indeed, a "conservative" like Ben Shapiro. But here's the key difference: PewdiePie does not present himself as a conservative, or, in fact, as political in any way. His words are those of a wise-cracking comedian sharing some common sense wisdom. Nothing radical, nothing extreme, nothing crazy. Just laughing at some silly journalists and pointing out some innocuous facts. That is how you move the Overton window. Shapiro, on the other hand, acts as if he is the far end of the acceptable political sphere - and in this way works to trap his young audience in the cuckservative part of the political spectrum while simultaneously curtailing acceptable conservative thought within his neo-con perimeters.

PewdiePie serves as a gateway into, rather than a blockade against, the sort of thinking advocated for here on MPC. By taking the mainstream media to task, by questioning the logics of clown world, and even just by making "offensive" jokes without apology, he is engaged in some real yeoman's work. He doesn't lecture his viewers. He doesn't lure them into his sanitized political ideology (Crowder I'm looking at you). He's simply providing his audience with the means to think critically about the nefarious socio-corporate monoliths that govern acceptable thought, speech, and behavior. He is not "our guy", whatever that means, but he is doing a great service by exposing a large number of people who wouldn't otherwise question the circumstances in which they receive information to the realities of platform governance, information distribution, and censorship. In doing so, he puts to shame many of the e-celebs who've taken up "the fight" in the name of "the movement."

Indeed, in his personal life PewdiePie sets an example for his viewers. He has a long time girlfriend, who's been with him since he just started Youtube. He doesn't show off his wealth, and in fact makes fun of those who do. He has sponsors, but is upfront with his fans and self-conscious about it. He engages regularly with his community, and perhaps most importantly of all he can take a joke (so many internet personalities are incapable of this). In other words, he's a decent, upstanding guy who makes funny videos. And so when he does pepper in the political commentary his followers are inclined to listen. This stands in stark contrast to those radicals who espouse family values while having sex with their step-mothers.

Anyways, I've left some stuff out. PewdiePie got in trouble for saying a bad word (which has no meaning or significance in his native Sweden) while live-streaming. And Youtube is becoming stricter and stricter with its rules both for content generally, and for monetized content specifically (they've become more PG than network television, weirdly enough). But despite it all PewdiePie is still making videos, still attracting an audience (by far the largest on Youtube), and still making fun of shithead journos.

So what is up with PewdiePie? I don't really know, but hopefully this thread can serve as a place to discuss this interesting transformation of his, and maybe finally answer that question. Paul MacInnes ends his article with this warning:

Quote

To call him an alt-right agitator would perhaps be unfair as he has never publicly identified with the proto-fascist movement. But he shares much of their culture and amplifies it across the world. People should pay PewdiePie more attention.

I think he's exactly right.

#407244 Yes, your country is in fact a shithole

  • 101

Posted John Rocker on 11 January 2018 - 06:07 PM

Whether he orchestrated this or not, Trump has once again put his enemies in an unwinnable situation. Every American should take studious notes. The blueprint for victory is on display.

We are the Party of Honesty. We can make basic observations about reality. This gives us a clear edge over our adversaries, whose hands are tied by their own ideology.

It's been obvious for so long, but our leaders were too cowardly to hit them where it hurts. The s**tlib coalition is filled with undesirables, aggrieved black fellas, soulless managers, barren cat ladies, and Hebrews. Make them own all their dysfunction. Make them defend the indefensible.

The NFL flag kerfuffle was a similar flash point. Trump made a few basic, undeniable observations. His enemies were then forced to pretend that multi-millionaire roidniggers were patriotic citizens fighting injustice. They were forced to own their black fellas. You want their votes? Great. You get to explain away their monkeyshines until the end of time. Have fun with that.

We need to make shitlibs own the third world. They are the party of the third world. They clearly favor the interests of rape-happy savages to people like you and me. They should own them.

Our enemies must explain why cross-dressing men are real women. They must explain, with byzantine Voxsplainer pieces, why Haiti "um, actually isn't a shithole". Each time, they become more cartoonish in the eyes of intellectually honest American citizens.

All we have to do is pick our battles wisely and call it like we see it.


#299506 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 101

Posted RV (RIP) on 13 October 2016 - 03:53 PM

Reposted from my facegook:

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 vagina, 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.

#387585 Introducing: the studycunt

  • 100

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 04 October 2017 - 10:21 PM

Anyone else getting sick to f**king death of female "sports journalists" acting like their striver careers are so challenging due to sexism?  Eye-rolling and obnoxious...a bunch of them got bent out of shape because some nig at a press conference remarked on hearing sports slang from a woman (time to get triggered).





DO I BELONG? :kagan:

No, in fact you don't, now that you mention it.  Men actually like spaces to talk with each other and bond in ways that women usually interfere with, and they're not the bathhouses your numale/Jewish/beardo/f****t friends prefer.  Get it?  You're unwanted here.  Take the hint.

Posted Image

Posted Image

What is a studycunt?  Glad you asked.  A studycunt is a woman who makes a big fuss about becoming an expert on some subject mainly enjoyed (genuinely) by men, and insists that she always be treated like a man would be (then complains when this actually happens and she gets the slightest bit of s**t about anything).  The most obnoxious, entitled, cunty version of modern women there is.  Thinks she deserves a prize for studycunting her way to a level of knowledge that men acquire naturally through their own interest, and takes every opportunity to let everyone know her current level.

What is the difference between a studycunt and a woman who has a natural interest in the same subject (usually because she's a lesbian whose dad f**ked her up)?  Good question.  The tell is usually that, unlike a studycunt, a woman with a natural interest in something is naturally interesting to talk to about it, and doesn't try to cram in jargon and references to prove she mastered all the vocab terms for today's quiz.  She accepts that this is a subject of mainly male interest and does not get uptight about demonstrations of this.  She will even defer to male opinion without acting like it's a form of rape to do so.  (Also, you might want to f**k the woman.  The charmless studycunt you cannot get far enough away from.)

#167164 Why one relationship is better than many

  • 100

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 02 February 2014 - 12:51 AM

There was a post I was going to make at some point but I never got around to it, to the effect that one of the things that shortens life the most is relationship-hopping aka serial monogamy.  The Brave New Feminism thread reminded me of it again.

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.

#413875 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 99

Posted AIDS Kills Fags Dead on 13 February 2018 - 06:24 AM

As a former Foodstamp-American I whole-heartedly endorse this plan.

Food stamps, having to beg and scrounge at food banks, and the occasional USDA jar of peanut butter, box of evaporated milk and sometimes canned chicken were an endless source of shame and embarrassment for my mom.

My first hints of racial awakening probably happened when I was in high school and my mom and I loaded up in our family's barely-running 1980 Subaru and went to the grocery store with our meager monthly allowance of food stamps.

As we were checking out an overweight Mexican woman and her 4 overweight beanlets, all speaking Spanish and clearly here illegally, were in front of us checking out, cart piled high with junk food, steaks, etc. She pulled out the biggest wad of food stamps I'd ever seen to pay for it all, laughing, smiling, without a hint of shame...and then threw a small fit when she had to pay for a couple 2L sodas with cash.

My mom barely had enough to cover groceries for the week. All healthy, nutritious food.

Out in the parking lot, while we were struggling to get our car started, I watched them load up in an almost-new SUV and drive off.

As I've grown older and have seen the EBT system become more common, with EBT signs popping up in convenience stores, pizza places, etc. I've always been reminded of that trip to the grocery store.

My mom would have been thrilled to be receiving boxes of healthy food without having to suffer the indignity of using public assistance in the checkout line.

Let them eat broccoli indeed.




#299830 The Kenneth Bone Zone

  • 98

Posted Hyperion on 15 October 2016 - 12:55 AM

Posted Image

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.

Washington Post:

America needed a hero. Kenneth Bone answered the call.

Esquire:

Rather than make this man some meme to be twisted by the dark scum of the web, let's recognize him for being the one person not sucking our collective will to live.

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.

CNN:

Today, the pundits will argue over who won the presidential debate. But we think we can safely deliver the verdict:

Ken Bone...

...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:

Election hero Ken Bone likes politics, but also hockey

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:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Worst of all was the post where he thinks the shooting of Trayvon Martin was justified:

Posted Image

What followed was the aptly described 'media fuckery'.

Gizmodo:

Ken Bone Forgot to Delete His Reddit Porn Comments, Said Trayvon Martin Killing Was 'Justified'

CBS News:

The internet's calling out Ken Bone over his Reddit history

CNN Money:

Ken Bone's charm may now be a thing of the past.

The Daily Beast:

Ken Bone’s Disturbing Reddit History Shows He’s Not Nearly as Adorable as We Thought

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:

Most damaging of all, he suggested the killing of Trayvon Martin was “legally justified”—however we should note that Bone did go on to add that George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in the killing of the unarmed teenager on the basis of Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law, was a “big ole s**t bird.”

Quartz:

He also suggested George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin. ... Are these incredibly informed opinions? No, of course not. In fact, many of the comments I’ve seen so far are unequivocally offensive.

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 is an obituary for a fictional persona: Ken Bone, America’s Red-Breasted Hero.

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.

#428987 Pitbull Genocide Megathread

  • 97

Posted Hate Speech Survivor on 05 May 2018 - 04:46 PM

It's common knowledge that pitbulls are infernal creatures that maul children to death without provocation. A fun game is to take anything shitlibs say about "assault weapons", apply it to pitbulls and notice how it immediately becomes 100% true fact.

Pitbulls are owned by knockout game americans, bipolar "pitmommies" and other damaged individuals.

The Pitbull Question(PQ) is a microcosm of racial politics, with all the well-meaning notions of race equalism skimmed off. Pitbull advocates are violently insane and will defend their hellhounds after any and every scenario of pitbull violence.

In the wake of this series of canine catastrophes, a hero emerged in the man of WildGoose:

Posted Image

We've had a few "trucks of peace" in Europe, but this is a true peace truck bringing a humanitarian message of public safety, animal rights and evidence-based policy.

Since human rights advocates have a tendency to repeatedly get banned from twitter, here's a screencap of some of the responses (his entire timeline is full of these, it's great :lol:)
TRIGGER WARNING

What makes antipit activism so great is the way it trolls a particularly delusional brand of libs into making obviously inane statements that drive fissues into the even bigger lie of human biology-denial, while simultaneously appealing to moderates who understand the obvious appeal of not having murderdogs running around.

#427011 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 97

Posted proper prole on 25 April 2018 - 04:24 AM

View PostUnshaven: Nouveau World Order, on 25 April 2018 - 02:12 AM, said:

Powerful foreign women continue to abandon all pretense of restraint in the presence of the Alpha Chad.

Posted Image

Posted Image


Quote

You just reach over and grab them right by the shovel. They just let you do it.

#309183 Steve Bannon is a desperate, ruined drunk

  • 97

Posted Ethnical Mistake on 15 November 2016 - 08:25 PM

A Buzzfeed tell-all reveals his power level:

Quote

The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that’s a very big part of the conservative movement — whether it’s the UKIP movement in England, it’s many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

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?”

:allears: :allears: :allears:

Quote

The central thing that binds that all together is a center-right populist movement of really the middle class, the working men and women in the world who are just tired of being dictated to by what we call the party of Davos. A group of kind of — we’re not conspiracy-theory guys, but there’s certainly — and I could see this when I worked at Goldman Sachs — there are people in New York that feel closer to people in London and in Berlin than they do to people in Kansas and in Colorado, and they have more of this elite mentality that they’re going to dictate to everybody how the world’s going to be run.

Like an echo chamber in a parenthesis factory, by the end you could almost hang a Jew on every other word.

Quote

In addition, I think you really need to go back and make banks do what they do: Commercial banks lend money, and investment banks invest in entrepreneurs and to get away from this trading — you know, the hedge fund securitization, which they’ve all become basically trading operations and securitizations and not put capital back and really grow businesses and to grow the economy.

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.

#355030 Trump: high risk, anti-fragile

  • 96

Posted Terrence Rhine on 08 June 2017 - 12:26 PM

View PostHabakkuk Mucklewrath: Autism Has No Gender, on 08 June 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Incidentally, who/what is Gwerks?

now that's how you f**king neg

#281375 Jay Nordlinger Explains "How Trump Folk Talk"

  • 96

Posted Terrence Rhine on 24 July 2016 - 09:20 PM

I never wanted to make a thread for Jay Nordlinger because he’s not worth one, he’s just fine over in Tales of “Conservatism” and Cuckservatism Megathread, but I’ll bend the rules for the sake of length here because I took some interest in a recent article of his where he attempts to grapple with the lexicon of the Trump movement. This is the way he promoted the article in a separate blog:

Quote

One of the great complaints of Trump supporters is that no one listens to them — a complaint with some merit, I think. Well, I have listened to them. “I hear America singing, the varied carols I hear.” Someone wrote that a while ago. I have heard the carols of the Trumpites.

…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, :allears: ) 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:

Cuck

Quote

The alts believe that the conservatives let dark-skinned people come in and rape their women and take over the country. Hence, they are “cucks.”

So we writers at National Review, for example, would be “cuckservatives,” led by “William F. Cuckley.” :lol: 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:

Globalist

Quote

I think the most prominent word, from Trumpites, is “globalist.” That is their epithet of choice. It seems to have replaced “cosmopolitan,” or “rootless cosmopolitan,” a once-common slur against Jews.

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.”

Quote

It is one of those nonsense words of the populist Right.

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?

Open Borders

Quote

They will always charge that you are for “open borders” — even if you have been arguing for a restrictionist immigration policy your entire career. And at some cost to yourself.

“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.” :lol: 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.

Quote

The alt-Rightists often say “neocohen.” Get it? Get it? Good one, huh?

:lol: yeah it is

Quote

not that these Trumpers have the slightest idea what a neocon is. They have a vague sense that it means warmongering globalist.

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.

Establishment

Quote

I once wrote an essay on the use and abuse of the word “establishment,” and I won’t recapitulate it here. Suffice it to say that I think people should make arguments for or against various policies without recourse to bogey words such as “establishment.”

well of course that’s what someone in the establishment would say

RINO

Quote

In any event, my critics can spare me the “RINO” charge because I left the Republican party when Donald Trump cinched the Republican nomination

haha no let’s still call him a RINO

Donor class / cocktail parties / Elites

Quote

Someone said to me recently, “You’re working for your donor-class overlords.” This is kind of funny, when the initial shock wears off.

when the shock wears off :lol:

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:

Quote

One of the reasons I rejected the Left, many years ago, is that they spoke constantly of “class.” No one could be an individual; everyone had to be shoved into a class. I now hear the same kind of language — ideological language, extremist language — from the Right.

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

Quote

they often tell me. I want to reply, “I had a time? Who knew? I wish someone had told me! I might have enjoyed ‘my time’ …”

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)

True Conservatives

Quote

They say that George Will is not a conservative. Will is, of course, a classic conservative.

George Will, classic conservative.

Quote

They tell Mona Charen that she is not a conservative. She worked in the Reagan White House. She has been on the frontlines for decades.

Mona Charen, you’re not a conservative.

Quote

If they want to call themselves nationalists and populists and protectionists and Buchananites and nativists and identitarians and Trumpites, that’s fine with me. But they insist (some of them) that they are conservatives. And that all others are heretics.

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.

Threats

Quote

Ever and always, there is the threat — explicit or implicit — that things will be very bad for anti-Trump conservatives, once The Donald wins…Their candidate’s style is belligerent, and so is theirs.

lol f**k 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.


#413006 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 95

Posted Hyperion on 07 February 2018 - 11:31 PM

How many more times am I going to have to scroll past that f**king picture

#397677 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 95

Posted Stiles on 17 November 2017 - 10:40 PM

Off topic anecdote :

Today, a student I've known for a couple of years was looking upset, and so I asked her what was wrong.  She gave me a big hug, and told me she was upset because she was moving back to Mexico over the Thanksgiving break.  I asked her why they had suddenly decided to move. She told me that her mom and sister had been living in Mexico, and the plan had always been for her dad to make some money, get a big enough house or apartment, and bring them here.  Dad could afford one kid, so they brought her over for school.  She said that now her mom and sister couldn't get papers, so the family was reuniting in Mexico.  This is a smart girl; really the poster child for ARE PRECIOUS DIVERSIFYING IMMIGRANTS.  On a personal level, I'm sad to see her go.  She was a great student, and I genuinely liked her.  

Despite that, this is the first time I've seen the good Trump and his policies are doing firsthand.  Mexicans are not able to just show up and move in.  Instead of gaining a family of four, we lost two that were here.  Like a lot of Mexican families, the girl was bilingual but the dad never bothered to learn any English.  He works only with other Mexicans.  We live in Texas, so our government will gladly communicate with him only in Spanish.  I can't imagine the rest of the family coming over and learning English, either.  Maybe the sister, but now the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for her ELL classes.  

Things are looking up.

#361984 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 95

Posted Jung Man on 02 July 2017 - 05:10 PM

Upon witnesing President Trump's CNN smackdown tweet today, I was left making much the same facial expression Laurence Fishburn makes at the end of The Matrix when he realizes Neo truly is The One. Long has MPC and the greater alt-right waxed rhapsodic over Trump's many paradigm-shifting qualities, but today was the first day I truly saw him for what he is: Trump is not just a Chad, he is The Chad, in much the same way top-level Taoists claim to become the Tao. This is the key to understanding his behavior and why he appears to so effortlessly triumph over legions of incredibly well-financed yet morally-bereft, insidious bugpeople. If you were to combine every star high school quarterback and Ray-Ban clad summer lifeguard into one, you still would not be scratching the surface of the Pure Chadism that flows through Donald Trump's veins at any given moment. For him, bullyciding isn't just a fun pasttime; it's a way of life.

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 f****t, 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 :allears:):

View PostCinco Jotas, on 14 May 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

f**k the movies. There's no happy ending here for the media. This is evolution in action. Our oppressive s**tlib media has produced the ultimate media killer. Trump isn't a centipede.  He's one of those giant Japanese hornets that kills an entire hive full of bees. He's immune to their stings, and until they evolve a new strategy, which will take a generation or more, it'll just be carnage.

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 f****ts 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 s**tlib onslaught, President Trump uses their angst to propel himself forward, not really even aware that any one given s**tlib-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.

#446998 Boiling the Dog: Ethnic Conflict and the Sarah Jeong Affair

  • 94

Posted Bonobo Mindset on 03 August 2018 - 11:23 AM

Frequenters of MPC know that American society is fast approaching a tipping point where arguing about racism is simply no longer credible. The arguments have become trite and all of them are used disingenuously—as cudgels—to simply extract concessions from other tribes. No better example of this effect than what occurred yesterday in the discussions surrounding South Korean-American blogger Sarah Jeong.

Part I

Within hours of the New York Times's decision to hire Ms. Jeong to its editorial staff, a few enterprising tweeters had unearthed her online history of racially taunting whites. Her comments, while vicious in the context of ordinary decency, are standard fare in the world of Vox-tier liberal snark. Like technical mastery of the violin or a diploma from Columbia, edgy tweets about whitey just look good on a resumé.

Nonetheless, the Times issued the following forced non-apology (without bothering to check for glaring typographical errors):

TRIGGER WARNING

In short, it's still your fault, white America. Presumably, as Ms. Jeong begins a plush gig with the Times, it may never be clear what of her editorial content is her own work and what is "imitating the rhetoric" of others. Just as the achievements of white men are invariably rooted in the thankless toil of Persons of Color, Ms. Jeong's vituperations are not her own, but flow from the inexhaustible tributary of white racism.

The facts are secondary to the narrative which grows around them. In rallying to Ms. Jeong's cause, many on the left used the standard, tired attack: one cannot be racist against white people. This argument relies on the prior assumption that racism has nothing to do with ethnic hatred per se, but that it is instead a function of power relationships. Since whites dominate America, so the theory goes, racism is nothing more than the system which whites use to control other races. Nonwhites are therefore permitted to dehumanize whites as part of their general struggle toward emancipation. However, in the case of Ms. Jeong, this strategy doesn't resonate for a few reasons. Here are some of them, below the spoiler:

TRIGGER WARNING

As you can see, it's hard to find socioeconomic data to support the claim that Asians in America are structurally disadvantaged. Champagne oppression categories like Oscars representation won’t cut it.

Aside from the fact that it doesn’t seem to apply to the case of Asians, whites don't really buy the "power + prejudice" formula anyway. This is not 1990s America, and ethnic conflict is no longer a kind of gentleman's duel where both sides tally up the balance of past slights and wrongs before affording the other a game shot from point-blank range. It's no-holds-barred backcountry brawling. Racism is just racism, the horse is out of the barn, and everyone knows it. As I talked about in the Future of Racism Thread, we should expect ethnic conflict to become more stark and hostile as White Supremacy wanes.

That's why the big-brained leftist take on Ms. Jeong is coming from a new angle:

TRIGGER WARNING

Now the cry is that white complaints about ethnic hostility are made in bad faith. Well, maybe they are. But I don't see people like Yglesias running out every time someone finds a backward swastika painted on an old tool shed to put the purported victim's tears under a microscope. "Just how genuine is your pain, whitey" is itself not a good faith argument, not from the left anyway, which has made a cottage industry out of performative grief.

#357629 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 94

Posted Tariff Pillow Talk with RexLex on 17 June 2017 - 10:36 PM


#384091 MPC's Guide to Trump

  • 93

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 21 September 2017 - 02:22 PM

Part 1: The Delusional Alt-Right

Dumb people are incapable of understanding sophisticated arguments or outside perspectives--they lack the necessary conceptual language.  Their brains translate smart thoughts into stupid ones, a conversion process aided by being angry, counter-intuitively wrong, or socially cut off from people who could remind the dumb person of obvious counter-arguments.

The latest dumb person view on the alt-right is that anyone who does not join them in decrying Trump is a committed dupe who is unable to emotionally detach from support and adopt the superior views held by high-pitched young males who spend every waking hour making podcasts and using Twitter (the galaxy brain's choice of intellectual salon).

Since almost the election itself, the fringe alt-right has been obsessed with finding fault with Trump and his policies.  This escalated dramatically after the Syrian strike on April 7, and then reached apoplectic levels when the Trump administration was reported to be in talks with Democrats and Republicans about DACA legislation.  Along the way every White House power struggle, every anonymous media rumor, and every hiring of a Jew for a cabinet post further aggravated alt-right nerves.

Media gaslighting has played a relatively small role in this; while it exists, the main tension has been fueled by the alt-right fringe's frustration that Trump was not a white supremacist and does not seem to adhere to any ideology beyond a vague American nationalism.  Therefore, even when Trump issued a Muslim immigration halt, even when Trump went out on an incredible limb and said that antifa and white nationalists were both to blame for Charlottesville (one of the only correct statements made by a politician about the fiasco), even when Trump defended Confederate statues as part of our nation's heritage, for Trump's alt-right detractors it was never enough.

After the 2016 election, nothing could satisfy the high-strung alt-right nervous system, not even its cartoonish meme fantasies.  The alt-right's view of the world had become so reductive, so dumb, that there was no way the complex real world would ever come into alignment with it.  People panting for large scale violence and oppression did not appear to understand that a system of balanced government powers was unlikely to ever produce this (not to mention their glaring lack of fitness for such a political environment).

#355025 Trump: high risk, anti-fragile

  • 93

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 08 June 2017 - 12:19 PM

Gwerks was in chat saying that Trump was as "bumbling and corrupt" as all politicians (or moreso).  This is probably a prevalent acela attitude, along with being certain that the Russians influenced the election because "intelligence agencies" all said so.  Even though these same intelligence agencies have had difficulty producing reports that do not contain factual howlers, acelas are at heart managerialists and therefore love consensus assessments and rely on them daily.  "The New York Times says it, I believe it, that settles it."  The managerialist model promotes such thinking by selecting for those who believe in hierarchical systems of consensus and organization.  Every nu-male and pussyhat in DC bars watching Comey's testimony probably had similar "bumbling and corrupt" thoughts while also nodding sagely about "no drama Obama", the managerialist's ideal figure.

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.)

#298112 Africa: The Perpetual Intercourse

  • 93

Posted The Gay Syndrome on 08 October 2016 - 12:26 AM

Some might remember that my personal red-pill story took me through the bowels of the world, where I ""served"" as a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa. That """job""" gave me a first hand look at how international development works, and since the Shoah guys talked about AIDS and NGOs a bit on the show this week, I wanted to throw in my personal experience on it.

For those of you who didn’t listen, they were talking about AIDS conspiracies, and the possibility that the AIDS epidemic in Africa is completely overblown to justify the existence of the organizations that serve AIDS-ridden Bill Gates vaccine recipients. Their point was that it’s much too costly and logistically difficult to blood test people living in the bush, so they rely on symptom questionnaires. The questionnaires are unreliable because they ask questions like, “Have you had diarrhea recently”, which anyone living in the bush would of course have.

Their specific points about AIDS and the conditions that African villagers live in are actually largely incorrect. AIDS testing today is done using saliva tests, which are cheap and practical in all kinds of settings. Untrained NGO workers can swab people’s mouths, and throw the swab into a tube with a preserving agent. As for starving people in horrific conditions, that's a myth outside of the war-torn areas. Thanks to international aid and Western Union, nobody is going hungry in these countries. Obesity is plenty common in the villages, and access to basic medical services and drugs are all a day’s trip away.

Where the Death Panel wasn’t wrong was their general impression of NGOs and aid organizations. They are indeed rent seekers, and very little of their money goes to help people, at least in the way you intended when you tossed a quarter into the bucket with the picture of the kid with flies on his eyes.

The majority of NGOs you've heard of don’t actually do work. They collect money and provide grants. Those grants go to groups already on the ground in the country, staffed by locals plus one or two SWPLs. Maybe you can see where this is going! Even the name "Non-Governmental Organization" is sort of a misnomer, because the single largest provider of grants to fund these “N”GOs is USAID, which is a tax-payer funded arm of ZOG.

I'll use an example that was popular during my time over there to explain the standard structure of an aid project: distributing nutritionally-enriched flour to pregnant or nursing women. It starts with a big NGO that you’ve heard of giving grants to dozens of small fly-by-night organizations. These little organizations pop up  to address whatever problem is chique this year, and to apply for grants related to it. They have no special expertise in these problems; they are just vessels for grant money. The terms of the grant will be to provide people in villages with enriched flower, give some number of trainings on how to use the flour, plus follow up on the women and collect data (weighing the babies, and "accounting" for the people, flour and trainings, for instance). To reach all those people, you will need to hire local fixers.

There is a caste of Bill Gates vaccine recipients whose job is to know what to say to naïve SWPLs to gain their trust, to know the general structure of these projects and how to give the SWPL what he wants. The project will hire dozens of these guys, one per two or three villages, provide them a salary, office and car. They also need a liaison in each village he’s responsible for, so he can suggest his buddies for that job. Since the SWPL will usually do the trainings himself (it’s a big glamorous thing for the village, so they want the white face), the fixer’s job is to actually carry out the project's implementation. He brings the flour to the village storehouse, shows the village liaison how to measure it out and distribute it, and fills out a bunch of data collection forms so the SWPL can write a report later.

Here’s how it really goes (this is a true story). The fixer gets hired. He gets a car, an office and a salary. He uses these things to improve his standing in the village, and drives to and from the capital city to buy stuff, billing the NGO for gas money. After the SWPL comes by for the training, he explains in the local language (that white person doesn’t speak) that this training is the whole project, there's nothing else. He puts all the flour in a house, and waits for people to forget about it. Then he cuts off the USAID logos from the bags and sells them as animal feed. When it’s time to do data reporting, he makes some s**t up. The SWPL comes by months later to pick up the falsified data, he writes his report, and everyone feels great about themselves for helping pregnant and nursing women.

There’s another dimension to the fraud, from the people themselves. The fixer class knows what white people want to hear and how to play them, but Dakimbe Q Public is no fool either. Going back to the AIDS example, if a white person with a clipboard and a truck of free stuff rolls up, they will say anything to get free stuff. Not to go all DR3 here, but we all know shitlibs believe blacks are children with no agency. They come to a poor village and open the conversation with “Hi, we’re here to identify who has AIDS and needs free AIDS medicine. Can you answer a few questions to see if you need this free stuff or not?” And Bill Gates vaccine recipients want free stuff. Especially free white people stuff.

I told the water pump story in my other big post on this crap, but it’s the same idea. Even if you don’t need whatever is being given away, you damn well better try to get it. When I was there, there was a super-food plant that grew like a weed in our local climate, so we were pushing it hard and showing people how to dry the leaves and make a multi-vitamin powder. My buddy gave a training on the power, and planned to away little one-gram bags after the talk and demonstration. When the women who attended sensed the training was winding down, they all started slowly edging towards the table with the small, worthless bags of green powder. In the end my friend didn’t even finish his talk, he was stampeded by a herd of fat black women trying to get the gibs.

Here’s the tl;dr:

1. NGOs are frauds. Many of them are taxpayer funded via USAID.

2. Even money not labeled “administrative expenses” in their annual reports goes to administrative expenses, because giving grants to embezzling organizations counts as "giving".

3. The SWPLs that work on the ground in-country have no specific skills beyond grant writing and networking. They don’t need any one specific cause to stay in business; they can write a grant for AIDS medicine as easily as enriched flour. You just need to change your signage.

4. African society has become perverted by the aid-industrial complex. Everyone games it openly and aggressively. Knowing how to get priority access to the handouts is a marketable skill. Old hand NGO workers know this and accept it.

5. All money in these villages economies is leeched off your economy one way or another, either via tax-funded grants, donations from naïve do-gooders, or Western Union transfer of wages from your country back to theirs.

6. Never give money to any aid group, no matter what. Encourage your friends to not give a s**t about Bill Gates vaccine recipients. They are doing just fine.

#221134 Liberalism and free speech

  • 93

Posted Terrence Rhine on 11 September 2015 - 08:55 PM

From the Trump thread:

View PostBeef Supreme, on 04 September 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

Found this gem: http://www.cosmopoli...s-donald-trump/

Quote

"Folks like Trump because he is 'refreshing,' 'tells it like it is' and 'speaks his mind,'" Jonathan Capehart notes in the Washington Post. "And every time he whines about not bowing to 'political correctness' to the delight of his adoring fans, what he (and his overwhelmingly white audiences) really mean is that they want the ability to insult anyone they damn well please without rebuke or censure for being vulgar, racist or rude."

The lie this black fella f****t is telling here is at the crux of much our current politics.

No one cares about not being able to call Capehart a black fella. 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 f****t. 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 f****t and a black fella. 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 f****t black fella is lying about really mean too.

#437759 ICE ICE BABY

  • 92

Posted Harry Dexter Whyte on 18 June 2018 - 04:15 PM

About a year ago during a press conference ICE director Thomas Homan gave a shocking answer to a rather inane question:


The reporter blathers on about Trump's "rhetoric" and its effect on the "community"...and Homan responds with an extended rant on the realities of illegal migration - on its cruelties and hardships, on the human suffering he confronts every single day in his line of work:

Quote

When I was in Victoria, Texas I did stand in the back of a tractor trailer with 19 dead aliens and [one of them was] a five year old...that suffered...what do you think that five year old went through that last thirty minutes of his life, what do you think his father went through the last 30 minutes of his life looking down at his child knowing he couldn't help him because they're locked in the back of the tractor trailer...

This is what these ICE agents, these comic book super villians, these modern day gestapo, these hated and despised thugs of the Trump regime, are confronted with. Constantly, relentlessly, endlessly. There is something tremendously cruel about our immigration policy, and our enforcement of it - nobody can deny that. This "don't ask, don't tell" policy wherein lax border protection, low levels of deportation, and friendly welfare services not only allowed for but encouraged and incentivized human smuggling was cruel. And it is cruel, because as much as Trump would like to he cannot change it - not in the face a divided congress suddenly united on this issue and this issue only.

Children suffocating in the back of tractor trailers, young girls raped by cartel smugglers and then forced into sexual slavery, teenagers shot in the back of the head because they couldn't afford the fees. That's what illegal immigration is. The trafficking and the suffering of children is not a side effect, but a constitutive aspect of our immigration system. So when shitlibs suddenly say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" I'd point them to this short clip of Thomas Homan talking about children.

After all, nobody knows better than him what children on the border go through. And nobody knows better than him how much their plight was blatantly ignored by the powers that be, by these newly outraged shilitbs. There was no talk of "family reunification" when it came to the hundreds of thousands of Central American teenagers who flooded into the US (often at the behest of their loving parents) in 2014. There was no talk of "sexual abuse of migrant women" when metro Houston suddenly became the largest sexual trafficking hub in the nation. Nobody gave a s**t about child abuse when the DoD allowed child rape on US bases in Afghanistan and ensured that anyone who questioned it would be unceremoniously discharged.

Of course, none of this registers with shitlibs. I think this is whataboutism, or something ("I get to be a hypocrite and you can't call me on it otherwise you are a Russian troll"). The heart of the matter, though, is that the policies they advocate - the policies they have advocated - would and will ensure the continued suffering of migrant children. Trump's actions, while undeniably harsh, are designed precisely to prevent migrant parents from using their children as a bludgeon with which they can bash their way into this country. This policy is designed to stop hundreds of thousands of underage and vulnerable people from trekking thousands of miles through cartel country for the off-chance of a better life in America. If you want to stop human smuggling, if you want to stop sexual trafficking, if you want to keep people out of camps and detention centers and prisons, then build the wall. It is designed to do just that!

As for the inevitable counter that "oh, I don't like current immigration policy either I think we should just have open borders that would surely stop this human trafficking", well I invite you to take a look at Mexico (which is what this country would become, to an even great extent, should we allow free movement of people across the border) to see where that policy would lead. All that would change is that the bus-fulls of murdered Central American kids would probably start appearing on our side of the border too. Open borders will have the same effect on human trafficking as legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands did - none.

#384095 MPC's Guide to Trump

  • 92

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 21 September 2017 - 02:23 PM

Part 5: The All-Powerful 5,000,000-D Chessmaster

The caricature from the self-caricature alt-right is that Trump supporters--"fools"--excuse everything Trump does by calling it some absurd variation of 5D chess.  This was a meme used hyperbolically during the election, but which is now deployed by blackpilled alt-righters to sarcastically (and childishly) deny that any interpretation of events other than their own is valid.  Merely by snarkily referencing "5D chess", inane bloggers with practically no life experience can expound (blow hard) about politics well into the night, proud of never being wrong, or never being really wrong, or only being wrong for the right reasons--whatever the current bullshit excuse is.

In reality, politics is rarely two-dimensional--hence, Republicans who really supported DACA nevertheless loudly criticized it when there was no hope of doing anything about it.  (Or Obamacare.  Or our porous southern border.  Or abortion.  Or gay marriage.)  There is, normally, a certain amount of kabuki.  The legislative calendar is arranged by partisan needs.  Many pieces of legislation are designed to fail, or to succeed and then to fail, or whatever convoluted outcome is required.  Because they do this every day, legislators are usually smarter about this than the blog-reading spectators.

By now, using 5D snark to defuse counter-argument is the dumb person's tactic.  It's only deployed by dumb, insecure people who don't have a lot to go on other than their depressive feelings and the toll that being antisocial has taken on them.

MPC--I can speak for it because I created it--does not believe in an all-powerful Trump.  We also do not believe that an all-powerful Trump, or a victorious Trump presidency, is required to move forward.  Very nice to have, but not a requirement.  Even a failed Trump presidency is superior to the bumbling alt-right meth squad, which aside from being antisocial, stupid, bitter, insular, self-serving, unpopular, narcissistic, and amoral, is just plain unpleasant.

A failed Trump presidency has still accomplished the following:

- created a populist uprising that has shown fanatical devotion

- badly damaged the conservative media establishment

- separated a majority of the base from the Republican establishment

- reoriented right wing politics around immigration and trade instead of taxes and budget cuts

- ground neocon warmongering to a halt

- proved the enemy's vulnerability--it can bleed, and therefore it can die

- for the first time in a century, made America First a successful political slogan

If you can't appreciate that, you need to switch from blackpills to a full bottle of your mom's Ambien.  It's courteous, however, to leave a note.

#447000 Boiling the Dog: Ethnic Conflict and the Sarah Jeong Affair

  • 91

Posted Bonobo Mindset on 03 August 2018 - 11:29 AM

Part II

We’re getting to the point where a critical mass of people have begun to see that caterwauling about racism is mostly manipulative bullshit. When members of the elite Asian professional class are hiding behind black liberation narratives about “structural power,” and Jews are publicly musing whether whites are “actually” upset about jokes celebrating white extinction, you’d have to be hunkered down in some sort of Centrist bomb shelter not to realize the temperature is rising outside.

Indeed,

Posted Image

Let’s get down to brass tacks. Nobody cares about “racism,” we’re just clawing out each other’s eyes grasping for control of this country and its resources. And guess what? Ethnocentrism is the most powerful solution to collective-action problems of mobilization and free-riding ever devised.

Which brings me to this fascinating 2013 article called “The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation.” Essentially, the authors ran iterated prisoner’s dilemma games among teams of automated competitors, evaluating what cooperative strategies generated the highest returns per team.

Quote

From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation.

In short, if you can effectively argue that “tribalism is bad except when we do it,” you will kick everybody’s ass very quickly. This is not a winning strategy, it’s the winning strategy in a multicultural system. This is why the NRO response to the Jeong affair is so repulsive. While being shredded by ethnocentric tactics, it’s maddeningly cruel and self-defeating to beg your followers to cling to humanitarianism.

As America becomes more multicultural, the system of “in-group favoritism for me, but not for thee” is only going to become more brazen. It is already critically important for right-wing people to learn to hold the line the way the New York Times did yesterday. When the mob gets upset, just give your enemies the middle finger, and issue a typo-ridden, perfunctory justification for your behavior if you absolutely have to. This mercenary state of affairs would not be my first choice, but it’s the world the left has worked tirelessly to build for the last 50 years, so they at least deserve to get it good and hard.

#421756 funny pics thread

  • 91

Posted (((SINISTER NAZI ECHO))) on 27 March 2018 - 01:46 PM

Posted Image

#407291 Yes, your country is in fact a shithole

  • 91

Posted Vovin on 11 January 2018 - 10:04 PM

Posted Image

#367185 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 91

Posted pecunia strigis:WOMP WOMP on 19 July 2017 - 08:17 PM

I am going to learn you what type of cuckservative John McCain is at the peril of doxing myself.  You may have read this story elsewhere, and it was used by the DNC against McCain in his previous election.

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 s**t 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.

#324526 Obamaism in the rear view mirror

  • 91

Posted Cinco Jotas on 20 January 2017 - 09:42 PM

President Urkel X is familiar sort to anyone who's been in academia: the moderately high-IQ, lazy-ass, affirmative action nig. If I had to guess, I'd say he's at least as smart as George W., 120 IQ or so, (three standard deviations above 85). The problem is that an articulate and presentable nog with a decent IQ is going to be able to coast through school big time.  As undergrads, they're generally not in over their heads intellectually, so they're not plagued by resentment and self-doubt like dumber blacks who are over-schooled. Outside of the sciences, where their shitty work habits sink them, they'll pull Bs' with not much effort and frequent plagiarism. If it were a white boy doing this, no one would care. Smart kids who coast in college are a dime a dozen and they often do well in life. But the bar is set so low for blacks that when a unicorn like Obama comes along (which was rare in the 80s & 90s and less so now because of race mixing) the professors go wild. Better grades, scholarships and opportunities of all sorts will open up. They'll even inflate his grades and ignore his slack ways with citations. Grad school can be more of the same if they're in the right program (sociology or psychology) or the Dunning-Kruger crash when they hit that heavy reading and writing load. (Note that these observations only apply to black men. There's a different dynamic for smart black women, they're angrier and harder working.)

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 vagina (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.

#204370 How transsexualism destroys identity

  • 91

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 06 May 2015 - 02:25 AM

Quoted in a post on our favorite radfem blog, Gender Trender:

Quote

“You are NOT alone. Aside from some of the wonderful women here, this happened to my MIL. Luckily none of the children in that case were young, but it still caused serious problems for them–it was so devastating to his son that he moved to another country. My ex-stepFIL–who now is “a woman,” although he looks, talks, and behaves exactly like a man–barely has a relationship with his children anymore. He’s rarely permitted to see his biological grandchildren, and then only with supervision. (We allow him to see our daughters, but with the caveat that he is NOT to “present” as anything but male around them. We do not call him by his ridiculous tranny name and our girls are not even aware that he goes by a different name around other people.)

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.
https://gendertrende...hove-been-there

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.

#429364 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 90

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 08 May 2018 - 12:04 AM

the greatest injustice done to Trump is the media's failure to acknowledge his incredible sense of humor

Norm once said that most comedians aren't funnier than Trump, and I think he meant it on a basic level:  they really cannot tell jokes or mock someone as well as Trump has done thousands of times just in his Twitter career

let that sink in:  people whose careers are telling jokes and winning audience favor and who have reached high professional status doing so are not as good at it as some guy whose career was moving NYC real estate

Trump is one of the funniest men alive, he performs in front of a relentlessly negative crowd, and like all truly gifted comedians he makes it look so easy that people refuse to give him any credit for it

#427891 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 90

Posted Augustus: Shark Week and Chill on 29 April 2018 - 03:43 PM

View PostREPORTERS YELL INDISTINCTLY, on 29 April 2018 - 08:06 AM, said:

View PostRexLex Gina Haspel, on 28 April 2018 - 11:53 AM, said:

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to start pulling the federal government out of K-12 education, following through on a campaign promise to return school control to state and local officials.

The order, dubbed the “Education Federalism Executive Order,” will launch a 300-day review of Obama-era regulations and guidance for school districts

Obama made fun of Trump and Trump will make sure there is nothing left of Obama's presidency, no policy, no trace. I don't think Mueller et al. appreciate what's coming their way.



The Long Island Times April 30, 2587 (NASSAU UNIVERSITY): A cyberarchaeologist sifting through the ruins of Man-f**king-Hatten claimed on Thursday that he had discovered evidence of a 'forgotten Trump' existing in the early 21st century.  Prof. Mario Von Schecklsteen, whose dig in the ancient ruins has so far produced several fascinating fragments from the mostly lost Great Library of YooToob presented this short video in front of a packed conference room and claimed that it was proof that a small gay black man named Obama was Trump shortly before the golden age of MAGA began more than five centuries ago.

In the video, a black, clearly homosexual man  answers a 'tweet' (an ancient form of communication) allegedly from Donald the Great himself.  He then proceeds to drop whatever he was reading from and the video ends.  The meaning of the dropping gesture itself is unclear but MAGA historians suspect that it may be a form of invitation to gay sex.  But what is truly controversial about the video is that the man claims to be 'President Obamma' (Note: 'President' was the title Trumps used during this period) and asserts that Donald will never become Trump, dating this piece to just before the ascension of Donald the Great.  'The proof is in the tweet he answers' claimed Prof. Schecklsteen, 'Donald himself attests to the legitimacy of this man's claim to be Trump'.  Shecklsteen continued: 'If this gay black man, this Obama, truly was Trump, it will open up an amazing new field in MAGA history.'

But most MAGA historians are not quite ready to clear a space in the books for Obama yet.  Prof. Chad Vaughn, chair of the Dept. of MAGA Studies at Pence University in Cambridge is one of them.  'Other than this video, there's no evidence that this Obama character was ever Trump, and our knowledge of the period is quite comprehensive.'  The story of how Donald the Great humiliated the last Trump of the Age of Cuck, George Jeb "Jebya" Bush and ushered in the Age of MAGA is known to all Americans, but could this bombshell video change that?  'Unlikely' claims Prof. Vaughn.  'The tweet he claims to have received from Donald doesn't even exist in the Trump Archives and while there are a few holes in the record of this time period, it strains credulity to think that a former Trump would never be mentioned at all during Donald's reign.'

One piece of evidence that backs Prof Schecklsteen's claim is that this Obama really did exist.  Records show that a 'Barack Obama' served as a local functionary in the Ill-Annoy region of America at this time and that also served a brief period of time in the US Senate, but Prof. Vaughn sees this as irrelevant.  'I fully concur that a Barack Obama existed and that it is probably him in the YooToob video, but after only two years in the US Senate, he virtually disappears from the historical record.'  Vaughn suspects that Obama more than likely died from AIDS while in the Senate and that this video was probably made when he was suffering from the debilitating effects of the disease (Note: AIDS was a fatal disease contracted by highly promiscuous gay black men during the late 20th and early 21th centuries).  Asked for his final thoughts on the Obama video, Prof. Vaughn said: 'While I think it is an interesting curiosity and no doubt will help scholars of ancient diseases to further their understanding of the mental deterioration caused by AIDS, it will take a lot more than a video of some poor deranged man ranting about being Trump while soliciting gay sex to convince me that Obama was some long lost Trump.'

#407797 Rick Wilson and Realignment

  • 90

Posted Terrence Rhine on 14 January 2018 - 12:00 AM

Rick Wilson, MPC's favorite, had some reactions to Trump's shithole comment.



This video is magical. You wouldn’t think this sad clown, this Pagliacci of Piss, had any novel psychic pratfalls left in him but here he is actually pioneering new frontiers of abasement. Who is he performing for? His MSNBC salary-writers? The black guy from the NYT on the panel? History? Where did he learn the phrase “gut you like a fish” and does he in fact know how to gut a fish?
 
“You are a weak, impotent person who can’t handle the fact that people want to come to this country because our system is awesome” :lol: Truly that is the root of the boomer/cuck philosophy, as deep and well-considered as it gets: “The American system is awesome.” James Madison was such a badass and Benjamin Franklin seriously rocked.

“I’m sure your ancestors here weren’t descended from the Mayflower in some cloud of heavenly light.” Great evocative image, airtight metaphors. Probably he conflated the Mayflower cliche with something like “your ancestors didn’t arrive here on a cloud etc.”

“I’m sure they came here from Ireland or Germany or Italy or somewhere else. And you know what? Back then, they were the shithole people.” lol when was Germany a shithole exactly, 476 AD (present day migration-related conditions don’t count)? It certainly hasn’t been a backwater anytime since Jamestown. Yes, the irrelevant intellectual cavity that introduced the printing press. Germany’s problem is more being world-important to a fault. Caution about German immigration was about assimilation, not quality, same as it would be for comparable percentages of settlers from Norway.

“Then your idea that these people should be bounded out of here, because they happen to come from the ‘shithole countries’ is absurdly un-American, absurdly unconstitutional, and not conservative in any way whatsoever.“ Absolutely, skepticism of change isn’t conservative in any way whatsoever and the Constitution prohibits choosing who our immigrants are. I don’t remember which Article that is (the 14th amendment maybe but he says these are founding principles), I guess it’s somewhere in the preamble after the phrase “for ourselves and our posterity.”

“And if you believe that, go on Amazon, order yourself a pointy white hat.“ That’s right, they banned the Dixie battle flag but Amazon sells Klan hoods, killer line Rick.

The whole effect is helped by the way the other guy, Fredericks, just sits there calmly through it, though it escapes me how you could be in his position and not just bust out laughing, make fun of his strained attempts at rhetorical color, and then call him a deranged f****t.

By the way, a lot the clickbait sites showing this video don’t have the beginning, so here is the only thing John Fredericks said beforehand to provoke Wilson’s abusive conniption. Enjoy that gay and literally breathless reaction from Wilson around 00:20. :lol: Screencap that s**t, emoticon it.

Posted Image

So Fredericks flat out denied that the comments had anything to do with race—a hopeless assertion yet exactly the opposite of what Wilson proceeds to accuse him of defending. Fredericks calls the host lazy but says nothing personally to Wilson; PissDad is flipping out entirely to white knight for Lazy Lemon (that’s his name now). It’s true Fredericks eventually hits Wilson with a crack about his shithole of a professional track record (back in the main video up top) but only after sitting quietly through minutes of deranged abuse, and then being interrupted when he tries to respond to it.

Anyway, the Wilson rant is bizarre, his laborious uses of “weak” and “impotent” have a real “why is your mind even going there” quality. Notably those are the words he turns to after saying his initial piece, meaning they probably weren’t as planned in his head as the pitifully tryhard Mayflower/light-cloud and Amazon/Home Depot stuff, which sounded like a creative writing instructor once told him that a good writer uses details and it just really stuck with him. “Don’t just say ‘Zomg das Racis,’ describe the racism, Rick, show us what that racism might look like. No, you may not go to the bathroom again, you’ve been enough times this period.”

(The other funny thing about his performance is that the guy on the panel Wilson probably most wants to impress, to make stand up and clap, the black NYT columnist Chuck Blow, doesn’t move a muscle in his face for Wilson’s whole premeditated homily (he only gets validation from the dumb bitch who keeps mm-hmming him on, whoever she is), yet Blow does actually crack a smile at Fredericks’s little jab about Wilson’s paltry Twitter follower count :lol: )

But there is something actually significant somewhere in this wonderful meltdown, that mixed in with the weird emotional issues he’s moving our political realignment further along. (Well all right, he personally is too insignificant to put it that way, but what he’s saying here is representative, and he’s more fun to pick on than the other cucks.) The desperate professions of potency and wit are Wilson’s singularly, but his demented lesson in constitutionalism is the same one everyone on the archaic Right is using right now and they’re using it at a juncture where it isn’t going to be misconstrued by the public any longer.

One of the most crucial and indecent ways the old Republican Party, the old conservatives, kept the populace sedated on the immigration issue was by being vague about what we’re actually talking about. For decades huge portions of the country—not just conservatives—polled favorably for immigration strictness. Obviously this was why for example even a Democratic congress couldn’t pass amnesty with either Bush or Obama between 2007-2011, not even in lame duck sessions. But the only public mouthpieces for anything to the right of the George W. Bush on immigration made sure to discuss the issue only in the narrowest terms they needed to whenever they had to deal with it—border security, rule of law, fairness to legal immigrants who did it the right way. 

And you could see this persist well into Trump’s campaign and presidency—Trump and his allies would finally introduce the idea of immigration, even legal, affecting American wages and jobs and still, even as some conservatives adjusted to allow this new thought to gain oxygen, it was only allowed to exist in a mindspace that basically on the whole we needed high and non-particular immigration.

Well here it is, the old Republican Party telling its public that the Constitution prohibits us from choosing which countries we take people from. And if you think otherwise you’re in the Klan. No one’s pretending to be talking about amnesty and border security any more. No one’s pretending they’re on one side when they’re not. No one’s pretending we’re all one happy tax-cut-and-jingoism-party that pretty much agrees on the marginal issue of border security. We’re now talking about whether Americans get to live in a country or in a job fair. The Trump comments have put the fundamental concept—forced the lunatic media to put the fundamental concept—front and center. The old party are trying to play their usual trick—“we're only here to debate border security and legalization, of course indiscriminate immigration is in the Constitution and so undebatable”—but they are no longer doing it where they can blend it into an opposition to amnesty or MS-13 or whatever, hide the one marginalized issue of migration within the usual checklist of trusty Reagan stuff, and trick their followers into thinking they pretty much are on their side. They’re letting them know in fact that they consider that side to be the Ku Klux Klan. They are doing it front and center, and in so doing are realigning themselves off the stage. 

#393535 funny pics thread

  • 90

Posted REPORTERS YELL INDISTINCTLY on 30 October 2017 - 05:11 PM

Posted Image

#376263 The GOP: Garbage since 1932

Posted Anonymous Shitposter on 20 August 2017 - 09:17 PM

I've been reading a lot of 20th century political literature recently, especially Nixon. We need a major reappraisal of the GOP's history. The usual story goes something like this: after two decades in the wilderness under FDR, the Republicans finally managed to start getting their crap together in the 1950s, had a false start in the 1970s thanks to Nixon literally Hitlering Watergate, and renewed itself in 1980.

I have noticed a common theme with Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. In each case, you had a GOP that was apparently a shipwreck, yet won the Presidency thanks to an outsider (either from truly outside the party or its periphery) running on a populist message that appealed to a wide swathe of Americans, dispensing with rigid doctrines that had consistently failed to win people over. And in all four cases, once in office, his own party set about immediately trying to undermine him rather than reorient itself to follow his lead to new heights of victory. Of the four, Nixon was the closest to being a "party man," but he was disliked by the core of the party since the day he "embarrassed" them by exposing Alger Hiss' lies and treason to our nation, thus earning the permanent ire of the Communist-loving press (Republicans will forgive treason, but not being made to look like bad people in the New York Times). Of the four, Reagan was the closest to turning the GOP his direction, as the Reagan faction in the Party has had some influence in the intervening decades.

It seems to me that 20 years of consecutive losses during the Depression permanently shattered the Republican Party. It seems to have never actually recovered. To this day, the Party is organized as a minority party. A minority party is not designed to govern; it's designed to secure benefits for particular patrons and constituents from the ruling party. Democrats are punished when they break party discipline; Republicans are punished when they don't secure donations. This is why, despite having more power on paper than at any time since before the Depression, the Republicans are intent on sabotaging their own President and completely incapable of passing any meaningful legislation. Democrats sacrificed their elections to get Obamacare passed; Lisa Murkowski won't sacrifice a $5000 donor check and Rand Paul won't sacrifice a stern tut-tut in Reason to repeal it. They aren't really set up to achieve anything, because their whole party, its structure, and its incentives are designed to always have it anticipating its next defeat, positioning itself to secure maximum benefits once it has lost.

Such a party cannot serve the country and cannot rule. It's time for the GOP to go.

#368841 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 90

Posted KG: Womp Nationalist on 26 July 2017 - 07:10 AM

while the boomers were outing themselves:





Trannies BTFO recovery status: uncertain

:trump: :trump: :trump:

#362558 CNN Declares war on reddit

  • 89

Posted FCL: sleeping giant-fucker on 04 July 2017 - 09:17 PM

Posted Image

#324501 Obamaism in the rear view mirror

  • 89

Posted Chicano Studies Major on 20 January 2017 - 07:50 PM

But we can thank him for revealing the utter moral emptiness of the modern left. Ah, can you still picture those emotional protests against Dubya, all the things the left claimed to oppose?

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.

#411894 Trump, Sportsball, and Managerialism

  • 88

Posted Stiles on 01 February 2018 - 08:28 PM

View PostKing Flip, on 01 February 2018 - 01:03 AM, said:

BA is one of those posters whose legend goes well outside MPC, and I remember reading his posts before I even found my way here. Despite being "just the internet" it's hard not to feel sad when good bloggers and personalities retire.

Perhaps one day in the not-so-distant future, a strangely familiar man will be relaxing on a beach.  He sips some expensive looking cocktail, the sun baking his skin, as he looks out upon the sea.  A shadow falls across him.  A voice, not unlike a sophisticated frog, says, "It took me fifteen years to track you down, you know."

Without turning around, the strangely familiar man takes another sip of his drink, his free hand working the beads on a rosary.  "I thought I told you gay bodybuilding sons of bitches that I'm retired."

The froggy voiced man pauses, then replies. "Legends don't retire.  I'm getting the forum back together, BA.  Nobody ever shitposted like you did."

BA sighs, and stands up.  He then makes a joke about a movie from the fifties that I don't understand, but upvote anyway.

#282711 Trump's War on Complexity

  • 88

Posted Chicano Studies Major on 29 July 2016 - 05:19 PM

A popular elite talking point on Trump or any other movement riding the wave of right-wing populism is that they allegedly provide "easy answers to complex questions". This of course is meant pejoratively: we can't just solve our immigration problems by halting immigration - we need a bureaucratic Rube Goldberg machine to select and manage immigration precisely to fit "our" needs. The fact that this hasn't been working in the majority's interest for decades doesn't matter; it just implies that we need better, perhaps even more complex solutions.

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.

#274609 How Brexit helps Trump

  • 88

Posted Chicano Studies Major on 24 June 2016 - 10:00 AM

Today is a very instructive day to look at the various shades of left-wing publications and find that all of them are so far off the mark on this issue that you have to wonder if they live in some kind of poz bubble (they do).

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.

#443828 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 87

Posted Jung Man on 16 July 2018 - 07:33 PM

I remember back in late election 2016 there was a SERIOUS poll on reddit asking why (heh, mouthbreathing, flyover, idiot) Trumpists were voting for the man. I posted simply "To avoid thermonuclear war with Russia." As you may imagine, my response was roundly mocked, and downvoted such that I couldn't reply, the s**tlib's ideal debate.

Well, here we are, friends. Flip on a TV. Libs truly, actually, and non-ironically think we should be revving up Cold War 2: Electric Bugaloo simply because Russians "hacked" the election by posting on Facebook and because Russians aren't all in on forcing children to watch grown men fellate each other in public. Put another way, libs are game to kill every single living thing on the planet, extinguishing all life in the known universe, erasing all of recorded history, because of how Russia treats homosexuals and other, even gayer tertiary factors.

Odd case. So glad I voted for the Peace Candidate.

#407537 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 87

Posted Jourdan Peterson on 12 January 2018 - 09:30 PM

View PostPeak XOJane, on 12 January 2018 - 05:28 AM, said:



This is the new embassy.  It has "security measures" by which we mean... a literal f**king moat.  I guess that's part and parcel of living in a diverse 21st century city.

TRIGGER WARNING

This is the old embassy.

TRIGGER WARNING

It's been sold to a Qatar wealth fund to become a hotel.  The iconic golden eagle will be retained... on the Qatar wealth fund hotel. :hank:

Embassy talk leads to casting of second level hatebro spell :Summon Mattress Store Guy:

Following the Embassy Nairobi and Embassy Dar-es-Salaam bombings the State Department tasked the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) to work jointly with the Office of Overseas Building Operations (OBO) to design new embassies with a strong preference for security over all over considerations. This project lead to the development of a number of standardized plans (Consulate A, Consulate B, Embassy A, etc.) with options that could be added or subtracted to customize the new chancery with the post's unique needs, and it lead to a very long-term plan of new building, which has over the past two decades affected just about every embassy and consulate in the world.  

While I understand the reaction--these two bombings were devastating to the State Department community, nearly everyone at State lost someone they had worked with and known at some point--the outcome of this process is a shining example of the problem I have reconciling my very strongly held views about what actions are proper or improper for a Great Power to take with the daily reality of a foreign policy ministry that has become a routinized bureaucracy that is seemingly immune to embarrassment and wedded to isolation and failure.

To my mind, it is intensely embarrassing for a great power to build forbidding citadels in foreign cities and to surround its facilities with blast panels, concrete barriers and walls that make DHS's southern border prototype models look like toys. It communicates to the local population and the world at large a nation under siege, its officials living in fear.  Worse, it cedes the public square of the host city to those who are enemies (or, at least not friends) of the United States.

I am a political officer. It is my job to develop deep and personal ties with numerous contacts, in government, politics, business, non-profits, education, science and artistic circles, so that I can accurately report home to Washington both how local developments are going to affect the United States and how our foreign policy is going to be received at post in any given area. The State Department expects its diplomats to do this job from sealed fortresses. When I was posted at a major United Nations office, we were routinely unable to host meetings of like-minded nations' delegations, because we couldn't get the advance security done in enough time to move with events.  And when events dictated that our office was the only one on offer--for example, for a quick consultation among the U.S. and major allies during a development at the International Atomic Energy Agency--we would have to go ahead and stand there while Her Majesty's Ambassador, the Ambassador of the French Republic, and the Ambassador of Germany were searched, wanded and deprived of anything remotely electronic as if they were grave enemies to be watched.

All of which is bad enough, but then there is this special case, the embassy in London.

First, some qualifications to give you some context for what appears to be an inexplicable decision: the current embassy is located in Grosvenor Square, the heart of Mayfair, a part of London which through no fault of the U.S. Government has become the playground of immensely rich and powerful Muslims who can, and do, object to the traffic and other frequent headaches having the U.S. Embassy on your block brings; the Embassy building was nearing the end of its planned life-span, despite its listing as a historic building and one of architectural significance; the above-mentioned new security guidelines made the building of a new Embassy in Grosvenor Square impossible.

That said, this decision is a yet another in a long line of actions that shows the State Department and the U.S. Government do not understand the importance of honor or pride, nor the power of symbolism.

The location is where the U.S., under Ambassador John Adams, established the first U.S. embassy to London, an incredible time in our country's history that was so ably dramatized in the John Adams mini-series.  The U.S. Embassy has been there ever since, until this year.

The location is where U.S. contributions to life in the United Kingdom are nearly uniquely displayed, including a number of memorials and statues that are of import to the UK and its relationship with the U.S. even if they don't document anything that is much talked about in the United States itself.  Take the Eagle Squadrons, for example.  What were they?  They were RAF squadrons manned by USAAF pilots who had resigned their commissions at home to fight in Britain's defence in its darkest hour. It is a sign of the blood relationship of our people, of how close we are, that some of our best volunteered to fight for Britain before the U.S. was even at war.  And the monument itself! Not only does it proudly display the Eagle Squadrons' insignia--nothing more or less than the USAAF seal with the royal crown on top of it, a remarkable piece of real-life historical what-if--it features our national symbol taking off in flight. Now it'll be another forgotten statue that rich arabs shuffle past.

Posted Image

The square also contains moving tributes to FDR, Supreme Commander Eisenhower, and the two countries' populations during the Great Depression. Now just background for Gulf Arabs' Ferraris and Bentleys.

Congress was never for it: State had to spend its own money to build the damn thing. (Yes, State makes money which it can use that is not appropriated by the Congress, a fascinating and complex tale in its own right).  Its in Southwark, which will isolate the Embassy even more than the damn moat and the walls.

But that is beside the point. The only point that matters is that goddamn security concerns have chased Uncle Sam from his historic home in London, under circumstances which call our honor, our sense of self, our very manliness into deep question.  

I've often said that while the FSO corps is liberal, it's a strange liberal, and this is another example of it. No one I know is in favor of isolating us like this. The attitude of the diplomatic corps is that we need to be mindful of security and safety but if we get blown up, well f**k, it was an honor to serve our country. We're no different than military officers in that respect.

Instead, our own government is treating us like children and subjecting us to institutionalized and ritual humiliation in repeated moves that signal weakness to the world's worst people, no matter how much money they have.

I'm on "administrative leave" now, kicked out of Mexico, awaiting word on my fate. I have my children to think about, of course, but there is no small part of me that wants to be freed from these people. They aren't my people and they're from a country and a government I not only do not recognize, everything they do seems to be shot through with their insane disease, the rank stench of failure.

#371528 Stephen Miller: honorary goy

  • 87

Posted Bernie (PBUH) Would Have Won AKA ENJ on 03 August 2017 - 04:27 PM


#305802 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 87

Posted Jung Man on 06 November 2016 - 08:24 PM

Posted Image

I have tried to write this several times over the past week, but it always comes out too saccharine. Seeing as we’re at the 11th hour, however, I’m just gonna roll with it, and hopefully the more chic MPC poasters among us can forgive me the sentimentality. I’m both very excited and very nervous right now, and I’m afraid it’s bleeding into my poasts.

Trump winning the election was always an impossible dream. When I first happened upon MPC in early 2015, I had consigned myself to not voting in US elections ever again. Even at my relatively young age, I was so supremely disillusioned by the multiple back-to-back Current Years of 2012, 2013, and 2014 that I had – like many in this particular political sphere of the Internet – essentially given up on any sort of interaction with the system. What we now refer to as the elite or the establishment seemed to have such absolute power, such wide-encompassing resources, and so many talented if craven people working for it that it all seemed completely hopeless. I was thoroughly blackpilled, having watched shitlibbery march through the universities and institutions unabated, each year adding an even sillier and more detached outrage, increasing the anti-white sentiment as we went from Trayvon to Ferguson. Worse yet, looking to what we now refer to as the cuckservative leadership for some reprieve, there was nothing to be found but clowns and (((jesters))). It was a dark time, friends; the Overton Window (to use a blast from the past) had essentially grown wings. The poz was inescapable.

What struck me about my first visit to MPC was the humor, far funnier than anything I’d encountered in the despair-mines of Unz or the chans or (forgive me) Takimag. To be sure, there was still a perceptible stench of doom about the place, but at least these shitlords were handling it with a sense of style and grace. The discourse was easily 1488x more intelligent than anything I’d ever read on /pol/, and I enjoyed the complete skewering of some of the sillier ideas I’d entertained in moments of weakness (Moldbug). “These guys really get it”, was what I found myself thinking while I lurked, “and they hate naggers, too!” So began my passage across a sea of hurtful words.

Still, even the bleeding-edge visual grammarians of MPC had to let out a virtual groan over the prospects of Election 2016. Here came Jeb! the Empty Man, just a completely worthless sad sack who was obviously incapable of winning the election against The First Vagina Pres, let alone stopping the issue du jour, HUD-sponsored nagger colonizers being deployed onto unsuspecting whyte neighborhoods. I was still having a good time lurking, but even the humor started failing to mask how dire things seemed for non-gay right-leaning white folk in the West in general and America in particular.

And then he appeared.

In an age where a man LARPing as a woman with a penis was being tentatively considered as the hip, new, Cronenberg-esque face of Republicanism, real-estate billionaire and reality TV star Donald John Trump rode a golden elevator onto stage and announced that the Mexicans were doing the raping and it was high time to kick them the f**k out and that he was running for President of the United States of America to do just that. The sheer tonal bitch slap of that first press conference, when The Donald first showed his characteristic insouciance by dropping his brass YUUUGE ones right onto the podium, was the black swan event (apologies to Taleb if this isn’t quite the exact definition) of the Alt-Right generation. The stunned trickle media down whores could barely believe their eyes… and neither could what would become the foot soldiers of the Trump Army. After all these years, and so many false starts, it was finally happening (f****ts).

I mean, if we could just pause for a moment, Donald Trump really should not exist. In an age where Jeb “Bottom of the Barrel” Bush was predetermined to be the completely ineffectual and lackluster “champion of conservatism", in strolled a populist/nationalist with absolutely zero political experience and basically walked up to the biggest baddest nagger (the media), punched it right in the mouth, and declared loudly that anyone who didn’t like it could “Eat s**t, niglet.” In an age when Republicans were cucking for “compassionate conservatism", Donald Trump advocated building an actual border wall between the US and Mexico. And stopping trigger-happy Muslims from coming to our shores. And ending birthright citizenship. He advocated putting America First, and he did so without falling into any of the retarded cuckservative traps of yore, like the unconventional conservatism of talking about GDP growth while your nation transformed into a morass of rootless muds right before your very eyes. Incredible and inconceivable.

To condense a long story that you all know very well, here we find ourselves on the eve of the 2016 Election, with that very same madman in the final showdown versus the old shitdawg herself. This thread is an excellent compendium of all the many twists and turns that we took together getting here, from the early TRiUMPhs in the primaries to the weekly Wikileaks drops. He energized an entire generation of Americans into openly realtalking, into asking why our leaders were such incompetent and malevolent clowns. He destroyed the GOP, a feat for which he will always be owed an insane debt of gratitude, and forced many a (((values))) conservative to out themselves as just another side of the globalist coin. He instilled primal fear in our enemies, flipping the tables on them for once, and caused them to go mad, embracing everything from neo-McCarthyism (“The Russians hacked the FBI!”) to overt demographic dispossession (“Can’t wait ‘til all you whites die out!”). He revealed shiftless and violent muds to be exactly what everyone knew them to be, a far cry from the cuckservative’s Natural Conservative™ label. He did this and so much more, becoming the lone champion of the American People against a tidal wave of character assassinations and snarky takedowns.

I want Donald J. Trump to be my president more than anything I’ve perhaps ever wanted. He is one of history’s Great Men, flawed though he may be. His mere existence is the essence of hope.

Will Trump win? God, I hope so. I know in my heart that he can win, that there are certainly worlds that exist after this Tuesday where President Trump is a reality. The odds are likely no better or worse than a coin toss, which is in and of itself one of the most inspirational stories of our time. I believe that Trump will win in the same way I believed that he would win the primaries even when things looked grim after Iowa. I trust the analysis of WWP, and of the thousands of shitlords who have dedicated their 2016 to analyzing Trump’s chances of being president. Make no mistake: I do not think it will be a Trump landslide. It’s going to be close, and we’ll all be incredibly lucky if Trump eeks it out with a few Electoral Votes to spare. But also make no mistake: it can be done. Trump can win.

If the forces of evil prevail once again and we awake Wednesday to Hillary’s MADAME BUTTERTHGHS, I am going to be f**ked up, full stop. Pman et al. have advised that Trump is likely the opening salvo in a long realignment away from failed s**tlib Current Year policies and I believe him, but the thought of Trump not clinching it is almost too much to bear at this late hour. I love Donald Trump and he seems so unique and the odds are so high that it is nigh on impossible for me to imagine there will ever be anyone like him again. I certainly believe that Trump is the last chance to right the USS Western Civilization by completely democratic means; we are in for a rough next five years no matter who wins, but doubly so if it isn’t Trump.

I also just really, really want Trump to win. I love Trump’s hate of shitlibs, and he’s brought us so far.

In closing, the only vote I’ve ever cast before for president was begrudgingly for John McCain in 2008, God forgive me. To contrast, right now as I type this, I am decked out in Trump gear, have written a small novel about my love for Trump, have donated a respectable amount of money to the Trump campaign, and am completely energized to vote for Trump. Trump has made me believe in America again, that maybe things aren’t completely f**ked after all. When I think back to my first days on MPC and compare them to now, I cannot believe how far we’ve come, and we owe nearly all of that to this one man, Donald Trump.

I want to live under a President Trump more than I can really rightly describe. It seems almost surreal that such a wish could very well be a reality in short order. Trump truly is an exceptional man on every level, and the only one I trust to Make America Great Again!

Preaching to the choir here, but please don’t forget to vote, friends. Trump has done so very much for us, and it is now time for us to repay him in kind. God be with us and The Donald now. Trump winning the presidency was always an impossible dream, and yet here we are. Let’s finish the job.

:trump: :allears: :allears: :allears: :allears: :allears:

#447051 Boiling the Dog: Ethnic Conflict and the Sarah Jeong Affair

  • 86

Posted Doctor Sardonicus on 03 August 2018 - 03:48 PM


#446172 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 86

Posted Monkfish on 29 July 2018 - 07:29 PM

Little does Emma Watson know, Paris is already full of cloaked, ultra-religious breeding factories. Someone drag this moron into an Algerian suburb for a day

#428180 Deep State in Deep s**t

  • 86

Posted Anonymous Shitposter on 01 May 2018 - 12:55 PM

Those are ridiculously open-ended questions.  It's a clever technique that I use all the time time when taking depositions -- ask a reasonable-sounding question, get the witness comfortable, let him talk all he wants, and then mine the answers for inconsistencies and admissions against interest. Most experienced lawyers know that witnesses will shoot THEMSELVES in  the foot, again and again, if you can get them talking.  Even witnesses with good lawyers who have been thoroughly prepared in advance of their testimony will shoot themselves in the foot, again and again, if you can get them comfortable and keep them talking.  (Another technique that I use, which works even better, is asking questions that make the witness look GOOD.  Everyone who give a deposition expects the opposing counsel to browbeat them, put words in their mouth, etc.   I almost never do that, I ask questions designed to flatter the witness, so that I can get him comfortable, keep him talking, and then -- once he's in an agreeable mode -- get him to admit whatever I need him to admit.  This works almost every time.)    

Muller is using the same technique, which is smart.  He obviously trying to set up a perjury trap with these open-ended questions.   I don't have time to go over them all, and I haven't interviewed all of the witnesses and reviewed all of the documents like Muller has, but even I can tell that some of these are land mines. For example, Sessions No. 3 -- "[d]id you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?"  is obviously a double-edged sword.  I can guarantee that Muller has in his coat pocket statements from  one or more witnesses who have already testified that yes, Trump discussed whether Sessions would protect him, and yes, Trump did reference past attorneys general.   (My guess is that Sessions himself has so testified.)  So if Trump DENIES this, other witnesses will contradict him.  Trump says yes under oath, the others say no, boom - Muller accuses Trump of lying under oath.  If Trump ADMITS it, then he's subverting the justice system by asking the Attorney General, a cabinet officer, to act as his personal attorney and squash an investigation into his own wrongdoing, etc.   It is possible for Trump to thread the needle and answer this question in a way that avoids all danger -- "yes, I asked Mr. Sessions to protect me by acting as my legal advisor, explaining the my constitutional role so that I can ensure that my actions as Presdient are in compliance with all applicable laws"  -- but you can see how dangerous this question is.  And if you can ask enough similar questions, sooner or later the witness will shoot himself in the head.  Even if he's done nothing wrong, ask enough open-ended questions and the witness will say something that makes him look bad.

The "what did you know" questions are obviously perjury traps, too.  President Trump is a very busy man who receives hundreds of memos, e-mails, and phone calls per day.    There is no way that any human being can remember all of the information that is given to Trump on a daily basis.  It's like drinking from the proverbial fire hose.  So when Trump answers the question of "what did you know...." about X, he is almost certain to forget one or more details.  Let's say that there are 10 things discussed in a meeting about arming Ukraine, and President Trump only remembers 8 of them.  Muller can easily impeach Trump him by saying, a-ha!  18 months ago you received an email listing 10 things!   This technique basically amounts to a... cheap shot.  Now we know that Muller is willing to stoop to using cheap shots to subvert our elected President.  Someone I voted for.  Thanks a lot for trying to invalidate my vote, asshole.

Finally, some of these questions obviously involve matters that are within Trump's discretion, as President.  Stuff about pardons, resignations, etc. -- a President generally has discretion to hire and fire people, and I don't know of any Constitutional limitations on his pardon powers.  I would not want President Trump to answer questions that involve the discretionary powers of the Presidency, because the courts have no jurisdiction to review those decisions.  Sure, there is always tension between the judiciary and the executive, but come on -- I don't see how the courts have any jurisdiction over the president's pardon powers, we're not talking about stuff like the president ordering the troops to invade China without seeking a declaration of war by Congress.  Pardons are clearly an executive function, within the executive's sole discretion.  Other stuff is really outrageous -- Trump is the President, he is entitled to form his own views about issues.  And her is entitled to disagree with past presidents, or the rest of the USG, on important issues.  If he wants to have "discussions about Russian sanctions" -- he can.  Honestly, this part makes me feel mad.  

As Trump's lawyer, I would not be comfortable having him answer a lot of these questions in deposition, or in a face-to-face interview.   I am pretty sure that competent lawyers could put together WRITTEN answers to these questions that would (1) be truthful; and (2) keep President Trump out of trouble.   But Muller is clearly trying to set perjury traps here.  

Oh, one last thing -- again, i don't have time to go over all of these questions, but my gut impression of all of these questions is that they are EXTREMELY POLITICAL.  They involve so many different subjects, and are so open-ended, that it doesn't look like Muller has any real dirt on President Trump.  If he did, I'd expect to see him focusing like a laser beam on issues like financial statements -- "is that your signature?"  -- instead of asking nothing but open-ended questions.  The only case I can see them building is that Trump tried to impede Muller's investigation -- the rest of it looks like a fishing expedition IMO.

This whole thing makes me really angry.  The "elites" are trying to take away my vote, and are doing it right in the open.  f**k them all.  They've obviously got nothing -- but it's the thought that counts.  To me, trying to take away my vote is just as bad as succeeding.  Bastards.

#417615 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 86

Posted REPORTERS YELL INDISTINCTLY on 04 March 2018 - 04:19 PM

View PostGeorge W. Bush, on 04 March 2018 - 01:08 PM, said:

https://talkingpoint...gridiron-dinner

The entire thing is gold, but here's some choice quotes from ARE SHITPOASTER-IN-CHIEF

So good.

Quote

But Attorney General Sessions is here with us tonight. … I offered him a ride over and he recused himself. … But that’s OK. We also have some of the leading lights of the media here including some folks from the failing New York Times. That sucker is failing! … I know we have our differences, but I also know that you have a very special place … in my heart. … The other day they had five stories on the front page of the New York Times and every one of them was totally different and each one of them was bad.

After all, you the New York Times are an icon. I’m a New York icon, you’re a New York icon, and the only difference is, I still own my buildings.

:lol: Brutal.

Quote

I especially have a place in my heart for Arthur Sulzberger. … Our stories are almost mirror images. I inherited a million dollars from my father—had a great father—gave me a million dollars and I turned it into billions. True story. Arthur inherited billions of dollars and he turned his into millions. Hello Arthur.

:lolnig: Savage.

And he just doesn't let off.

Quote

Before we go any further, I want to just discuss the big financial story of the week. Ever since we announced our new tariffs, which actually is very popular with people because they’re tired of getting ripped off, many dying American industries have come to the White House asking for protection. They want help. They need protection. Unfortunately, I’m sorry, I fear it may be too late for the print media. That was pretty good though wasn’t it? … That’s another bomb that I thought was going to be great.

Bashing the media Trump is my favourite Trump :allears:

Quote

I better wrap it up. I have to be up early tomorrow morning—six o’clock—to be listening to Fox and Friends. … But I do want to say this is one of the best times I can ever remember having with the media. This might be the most fun I’ve had since watching your faces on election night. … I apologize. Years, years, years taken  off your life. Oh, John King, with that beautiful red map. His hand was shaking toward the end. … I love the way he uses that map. He’s good at it. … And then it was Michigan. Remember they wouldn’t call Pennsylvania? There was one percent of the … vote to go in Pennsylvania. It was like 11 o’clock. One percent of the vote to go, they wouldn’t call it. And if i lost even one of the votes, I won by a lot. They wouldn’t call it. So instead, they called Wisconsin. And then, John King, remember, ‘The Winner of the great state of Michigan.’ He’s going Michigan. He’s like, ‘Hey Trump won Michigan, this can’t be happening.’ And that hand was up. …

Look, whether you like me or not, you have to say that was good. That was exciting. … Lot of tears were in this room. You’re not supposed to cry. Mike are they supposed to be crying? If somebody wins or somebody … they’re supposed to be a little impartial. Let’s be a little bit more impartial. …

Posted Image

Someone who hates the media just as much as we do is not only a significant political figure, which I couldn't even hope for a few years back, he is the leader of the free world and he openly mocks them every chance he has. This was like a jokeocracy twitter feed (pbuh) on steroids and they had to silently take it. Beautiful.

#403955 funny pics thread

  • 86

Posted Bonobo Mindset on 22 December 2017 - 10:03 PM

View PostMGR: Indigenous Australian Health Researcher, on 22 December 2017 - 07:01 PM, said:

Posted Image

The simplest explanation is both dads are explaining to their sons how to f**k a white woman

#374021 Lessons from Charlottesville

  • 86

Posted Mein Covfefe on 13 August 2017 - 11:05 AM

View PostQuads: Louise Mensch, on 13 August 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

Charlottesville: there's only so many ways to say "stupid," "deplorable," "senseless" and "dumb". I've read a lot of angry emotional ink today. I'm already sick of hearing about how destructive it all was, but three people are dead now and we're about to have a National Conversation, so we better talk about it. It doesn't matter that the news spins more destructive leftist outbursts (Chicago, Dallas, Hodgkinson); it doesn't matter that antifa also rioted today; it doesn't matter that the cops started it. We need to reflect. I offer this thread for that purpose.

First recognize the world we live in. It looks something like this:

W.B. Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
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:

:geeksquad:

* 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?  f**k 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 s**t.  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.

#374013 Lessons from Charlottesville

  • 86

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 13 August 2017 - 10:44 AM

Quad's list of dos and don'ts is pointless.  THESE ARE f**kING RETARDS.  This march had an asinine mission (to protect a monument in someone else's city by invading with fat malcontents in polo shirts) and could only have attracted the most useless, degenerate portions of the fringe right.

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 s**t, and not helping matters is that notable figures in charge have drug/drinking problems, are vain gloryhounds, and were more interested in possible side vagina 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 s**t.  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 f**kED 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.

#357118 Mainstream Liberal Terrorism

  • 86

Posted Anonymous Shitposter on 15 June 2017 - 08:32 PM

Surprise, people who think Muslims should rape your kids think Boomers should kill your congressman.

#342499 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 86

Posted Bersicker on 19 April 2017 - 11:46 AM


#440407 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 85

Posted Terrence Rhine on 29 June 2018 - 07:15 PM

View PostEarlTurner, on 28 June 2018 - 01:19 PM, said:

View PostSaucer Lord, on 28 June 2018 - 12:33 PM, said:

Same people who were like "SAY GOODBYE TO UR CONSTITUTION CONSERVITARDS" when Obama was president are now very upset and concerned about the constitution.

I wish I had screencaps from that fateful week in June of 2015.

This week is an excellent time to revisit the infamous "They Lost, We Won" post by Jewish Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet in May 2016. Anticipating a Hillary Clinton presidency and a leftist justice in Scalia's seat, Tushnet triumphantly typed up a six-point prescription for what the unbeatable 5-leftist majority on the court ought to do, with the support of the leftwing legal-judicial complex such as HLS.

The points were basically these: overturn all the precedents they don't like, exploit "ambiguities and loopholes" in precedents that "aren't worth overruling," use doctrine to empower the Left in general (ie, voting rights), imitate aggressive activist justices like Marshall and Brennan, show no accomodation for the losers of the culture war, and "f**k Anthony Kennedy," (yes, the Harvard professor wrote it that way) because his vote would no longer be needed. Though presumably Tushnet would have been happy to have a supermajority of 6-3 in the event of Kennedy's retirement this week. (instead, we'll be the ones who have it just as soon as Ginsburg croaks.)

Re: overturning precedents-- His first example was 1978's Bakke decision on affirmative action, "for rejecting all the rationales for affirmative action that really matter," ie the pure racial power grab ones. It's good to be reminded that "precedent," when it comes to political cases, is nothing but politics. The Left will overturn whatever they want if they have the votes, so should it be likewise for the Right.

But overturning precedents and pushing the Left's agenda is to be expected; it's what they are currently panicking now about happening in reverse with a rightwing court, it's partly inevitable and partly why the SCOTUS is way too powerful. What got the Tushnet post so much attention two years ago was that item about the losers of the culture war.

Quote

The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars (see Justice Scalia in Romer v. Evans, and the Wikipedia entry for culture wars, which describes conservative activists, not liberals, using the term.) And they had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy. The earth that was scorched, though, was their own. (No conservatives demonstrated any interest in trading off recognition of LGBT rights for “religious liberty” protections. Only now that they’ve lost the battle over LGBT rights, have they made those protections central – seeing them, I suppose, as a new front in the culture wars. But, again, they’ve already lost the war.). For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.

There were a lot of cinders in there that got the post attention-- the overall threateningly triumphalist tone, the tendentious conception of the culture war and how conservatives fought it, the bigoted and backwards interpretation of the aftermaths of the Civil War and civil rights movement, the approval of the homosexual/tranny movement's aggression, and of course the inevitable, irresistible comparison to defeated Nazis. But most of all it was just the stake in the sand that "we won, they lost" represented, the encapsulation of the Obama era Left's approach to the future of the United States: they no longer had to learn to live with conservatives, because they had totally defeated them. From this assumption comes so much of the rancor that has made the daily news such a vicious phantasmagoria. Any sense of accommodating very different values, let alone ancient ideas like federalism, seems inconceivable to the Left because they have a sense of being in a position of power where they don't have to. They have become accustomed to defining legitimacy and illegitimacy in their terms and aren't willing to recognize a distribution of power in the country that might force them to be more openminded. They've been getting the cakes baked and the racists closeted with just about undiluted success and still have enough levers of power at their fingers that they don't see that ever changing.

The last line of the 2016 Tushnet post was this:

Quote

Of course all bets are off if Donald Trump becomes President. But if he does, constitutional doctrine is going to be the least of our worries.

Indeed. You might say, if that did happen, that others would then be the ones who get to say "they lost, we won." And then those others might find that they're not even tired of winning...



#436049 funny pics thread

  • 85

Posted Mass Grave Robber on 10 June 2018 - 10:00 PM

Posted Image

#435783 The Psychosis of the Liberal Female Mind

  • 85

Posted Dogmatic Tower on 09 June 2018 - 03:48 PM

View PostHouse of Memes: Crack Addicted Public Official, on 09 June 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

Quote

Emotional labor is bullshit when it isn't fairly compensated. I might suggest that someone else doing emotional labor for you in return is fair compensation. Unfortunately, I personally have yet to find a partner who is capable of doing that kind of emotional work, and I know I am not alone in this. It's just not part of their upbringing, baby - they're men. They never learned how to do it, and everything has worked out just fine so far without it. They sure as s**t aren't going to start doing it now.

--Saint Thérèse of Lisieux

Men do far more emotional labor than any woman cares to recognize.  Every man who ever felt like s**t because he couldn't make a woman happy.  Every man who ever kept on keeping on when he'd rather walk away from a family or a life that he sees as a failure because of his own inadequacies.  Every man who put up with a complete lack of respect or gratitude from everyone around him.  Every man who keeps his stupid little dreams - that he knows are stupid and little - locked in a psychic hope chest and would never consider reaching out to anyone who might share them, including the most [outwardly] devoted wife, because he knows that's not what any woman wants from her relationship with a man.

#429009 Pitbull Genocide Megathread

  • 85

Posted BJ Dart on 05 May 2018 - 06:43 PM

Don't forget the Pit-zaGate thread from a few nights ago in chat:



:morpheus: "You take the Pit Pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

No idea how true any of this is, but I find it funny. I suppose it would be inevitable that this crowd would attach graft to the issue.

And pit advocacy IS a bizarre issue; other breeds like Chows are high-insurance risk breeds, but they don't have their own lobby :lol:

Every pit I've known has attacked either people or animals. One Polynesian guy I worked with had a killer animal: it had mauled several of the neighborhood's pets. It was well behaved otherwise, probably because he beat the dog into having manners (other than ragdolling Chihuahuas). Another Mexican guy I know has one that is now fully grown and absolutely massive. We're all just waiting on her to get her first (human) victim. Even my s**tlib aunt got a pit mix from a kill shelter when they first started getting popular. I was about 5-6 years old when we had a family reunion at her house. All of us kids were playing catch out in the backyard. This pit mix is chained up in her dog house, silent as a lamb. Everyone knows this dog is aggressive. This dog probably had been trained by black fellas to f**k up other black fella's dogs. It had already killed one cat. It would try to attack other dog's when it was on walks. My cousin throws me the baseball. I didn't catch it, and it rolls back towards the fence. Probably a good 15 feet away from this dog. I walk over to pick it up. As I lean over to pick up this ball, the pit bull tears across the yard (still completely silent) before MAULING MY GODDAMN FACE. This dog is pulling on its chain trying bite MY GODDAMN FACE OFF. I'm screaming, trying to get away from this animal. My cousins are screaming. My parents start screaming. My whole extended family starts screaming. My uncles and older cousins fight the dog off as my father carries me inside. There's blood everywhere. I get cleaned and bandaged up in the bathroom as my family is ready to take me to the hospital. The family draws lines in the battlefield over whether this dog should f**king die or continue to live to keep my aunt's cat population under control. Most of the facial scars went away by the time I was a pre-teen but my left eye is still slightly droopy because of this goddamn pit bull.

It took me years to get over dogs man. Every time I had to go to a friend's house or had to walk by a dog in the neighborhood I'd jump because all I could think of was this assault doge peeling out across the lawn to attach itself to my face. Have you ever been afraid of dogs? Dogs are everywhere. Every one has a damn dog. I used to even cringe when my own dogs would try to jump up at me. These were 20 lb beagles; not the type of dog that is aggressive in the least but my brain was rewired to keep pits away from my jugular. Even now, as a fully grown 6'2" male I have to mentally prepare myself whenever I see that my girl's Pomeranian wants to jump into my lap.

I hate black fellas and their f**king black fella dogs. :KILLPITS:

#407809 Yes, your country is in fact a shithole

  • 85

Posted Coutural Marxist (Fashion for Fashin') on 14 January 2018 - 06:51 AM

In view of a recent rumor from the bullshithole Washington Post about the President's alleged use of an excessively accurate locution during a discussion of our nation's policy on Mexcrement, I feel compelled to write a summary of the crux of the immigration issue in America and the Western nations. Nothing I say here is new to MPC. But I've never seen all the most important observations collected in a blunt, pithy precis, so this is my attempt to draft one that you and I can use as a handy public-domain shitlord reference guide. It is not written to convince shitlibs or even moderates; it's written as a checklist for those of us who already understand the key truths. I'll try to stick to facts and keep opinions out of it (allowing for poetic license).

There are few statements more irrefutable than "Haiti is a shithole". Sub-Saharan Africaca is a shithole. The Piddle East, much of Asia, much of Central and South Americaca--shitholes. More than half the world's countries are shitholes. With a few exceptions (perhaps North Korea), they are shitholes because they are full of shitty people. Fewer than half the world's countries can sustain an advanced industrial civilization, and the reason for that is not oppression (again excepting North Korea), it's not poverty (a circular argument), it's because their citizens are incapable of sustaining (and certainly incapable of building) an advanced industrial civilization. Even if we build it for them. As our president tries to renegotiate our immigration policy, it is absolutely crucial that we remember that if we continue to import shitty people, America will be a shithole like Mexico. Ubiquitous drunk drivers blasting shitty monotonous pop, broken-down neighborhoods, corpses hanging from bridges. The place doesn't change the people (much); the people change the place.

America is one of the greatest countries in the world, where everybody wants to immigrate, because legacy Americans are unequivocally a higher quality people than you'll find almost anywhere else in the world--with better genes, a better culture, higher IQs, more trustworthy, less criminal, more creative. The enemies of the legacy American people call us racist for saying this, but we must keep reminding them of Americans' unique greatness. Almost no immigrant groups match this high quality (notwithstanding that there are some excellent foreign individuals who do). You can't replace Americans en masse because legacy Americans have a unique excellence.

Shittiness is mostly genetic, though shitty culture plays a role too. (Culture is downstream from genetics--genes constrain culture, but don't completely determine culture.) There is strong evidence that the success of nations depends firstly on IQ. "Smart fraction" theory suggests that the per-capita GDP of a civilization depends on what fraction of the population has a verbal IQ over 106. IQ is highly heritable. There is strong evidence that every behavioral trait is heritable, with heritability averaging about 50% (but varying from trait to trait). Shitty genes can't be fixed. Culture is more malleable but some of the shittiness is passed down through genes and upbringing, especially when the immigration is massive. This is important because it means that ten generations after we import shitty people, their numerous descendants will still be shitty.

Most Westerners do not comprehend how shitty human shittiness can be. The average IQ in Haiti is 67. Most sub-Saharan blacks have IQs so low they are not even capable of abstract thought. Many of them "want to see death, and they jeer and mock at the suffering involved, especially the suffering of a slow and agonizing death." They are handicapped at long-term planning. They are incapable of maintaining an advanced civilization. Without help, they are unable to maintain any civilization at all, and they function well only in tribal life.

IQ is not the only important heritable trait that differentiates Westerners from many of our immigrants and from much of the rest of the world. (Alternative subtitle: "Russia and China have high average IQs; why are they such shitholes?") Many countries are shitted up by clannishness and a low-trust culture (which is associated with corruption), physical ugliness, and/or a high predisposition to crime, violence, or sexual deviance. In much of the world, it's considered virtuous to screw people outside your clan if it gets you or your clan a benefit. In much of the world, you cannot have shared beautiful public spaces (like the large outdoor flower garden near my home) that are not destroyed by vandalism or theft. In most of the world, most of a nation's wealth is extracted by a small corrupt elite. American values are NOT universal! Hell, in some of the shitholes we've sent troops to, doing young boys up the shithole is just part of a man's routine. Although there is a large cultural component to these problems, the genetic component is probably just as large or larger. Among the world's peoples, nobody but a Christian people of Western European genetics would have ever thought to preserve national forests and endangered species, to end slavery internationally, to spend billions of dollars trying to lift up foreign countries filled with people of different races, or to create art, science, music, and technology as sublime and complex as the West's best.

America was extraordinarily fortunate in the high quality of its founding stock. Coming from the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, they were an unusually independent-minded and self-sufficient yet high-trust, community-oriented lot, serious but not dogmatic about their Christianity. They also had the good taste not to interbreed with the locals, unlike the Spanish and Portuguese who turned South and Central America into breeding grounds of medium-shitty people. Thus legacy American values are unique in the world--nobody else is as entrepreneurial, as open to novelty, as pro-free speech, or as hostile to intrusive government control of its citizens' affairs. Alas, immigration has already dampened the last two traits.

That's why it's so important to understand that most of the world's people have values that are bitterly opposed to legacy American values. People who say that America is "about an idea, not a people" are lying through their teeth because they hate America's unique, eccentric ideas and want to extinguish them. Most humans are predisposed to love socialism, speech restrictions, clannishness, and especially corruption (so long as their tribe is the beneficiary). Many have shame-honor cultures that are incompatible with our guilt culture. Many would replace our common law justice system with a civil law regime. There is no bigger lie than the lie that mass immigration can improve America. With the exception of some Englishmen who missed the Mayflower, immigrants are attracted to America by its wealth and openness, not by a love for its values. America is unique and uniquely successful because our values are not shared by most of humanity. Immigrants will extinguish America's unique flame not only because they're less capable, but because they are opposed to everything the red, white, and blue stands for ... except that sweet green.

The Great Lie: "Diversity is our strength". Mass diversity is the most destructive tool of social engineering ever invented. Recall Robert Putnam: "immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to `hunker down'. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer."

Much of the value of a nation is in what we call "roots"--the many organic, long-term connections among family and friends who have lived much of their lives, ideally, in one or just a few neighborhoods. Immigration tears these roots apart by cutting off the shared understanding, common culture, and easy interactions of a place; by introducing conflicting values and religions; by lessening shared interests, hobbies, and languages; and by driving out residents through crime, noise, urban decay, and loss of community. When the neighborhood where an American grew up is recolonized by an immigrating ethnic group, and his relatives and friends have dispersed, he has lost something of greater value than money. Immigration is a rapacious force that dissolves communities and atomizes individuals, annihilating many of life's greatest satisfactions. But this damage doesn't receive the attention it deserves because economists can't measure it and our shitty nihilistic elite class of rootless cosmopolitans doesn't comprehend that anything has been lost.

Of course, I don't have to tell you that politicians promote immigration expressly to provide votes for parties hostile to legacy American values and to undercut the wages of American workers, especially the hated working class. Blacks hardest hit (well, blacks who want jobs).

On a long enough time scale, history shows us that wherever it arises, pronounced racial, cultural, and religious diversity leads to racial strife, war, and often genocide. There are few examples (none?) of starkly diverse civilizations living side by side in peace for centuries. This goes triple for Islamic diversity; Islam has been at war nearly every decade since its founding 1,300 years ago. The wags are probably right to say that DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR is a law of human nature. However, because the effects are delayed--the most vicious wars might happen at intervals averaging 70 years or so (one truly no-holds-barred war per human lifetime)--fools who don't study history can fool themselves that we can have peace if we just lecture the more peaceful side about "racism" enough. Those fools may delay the inevitable, but Death will have his due, and eventually every nexus of diversity will be a flashpoint for war and atrocities. Thanks to modern transportation technology and treasonous politicians, America and Europe have recently experienced the biggest migrations in human history. Odds are they will eventually experience some of the nastiest ethnic wars in human history.

History shows that Islam is the religion of war, the religion of conquering competing civilizations and turning them into shitholes. The probability that Europe's Muslim migrants will remain at peace with their European hosts is zero. The people of Western Europe have sentenced their children, their grandchildren, the next ten generations of their descendants (if Europeans manage to reproduce for that many generations) to endless ethnic conflict. Imagine your daughter's legs blown off and her brain damaged for life by an IED while she's walking to the hochschule. Imagine rioters burning down whole sections of your arrondissement. Imagine Yugoslavia on your doorstep. It will not end until the Europeans purge the Muslims from Western Europe, or the Muslims purge the Europeans from Western Europe. (If you don't believe me, just ask yourself, what other outcome is possible? A longstanding peace between Germans and their Muslim rapists? :lol: :biggrin: :lol:) People of Western Europe, this is the future you have chosen for your posterity. Don't say you didn't know; you could have read a history book or two. You will be held accountable at the pearly gates.

Merkel and other globalists may be doing what even two world wars could not do: ending Germany. I don't downplay the evil or destruction of World War II and the Nazis at all. But after World War II, Germany was still Germany and France was still France. Soon, it is possible that Germany will not be Germany, France will not be France, Britain will not be Britain; there will just be three more shitholes. Throughout history, migration has had a finality that bombs cannot touch.

The stakes are much higher than most people can comprehend. I don't know why, but the international elites are behaving as if their primary goal is to turn the whole world into one gaping shithole so that nothing as good as America can ever happen again. America faces its biggest existential crisis since its founding. Europe may join the many forgotten nations previously lost to Islam. To make it worse, shitty people are more fertile than the non-shitty (especially when they don't have to work), and exponential growth is a bitch. If we keep taking shitty people with shitty genes and shitty cultures, there will never again be a culture as great as the West at its peak, at least until after the next Ice Age kills the shitty people and the glaciers carve out fresh, clean holes not yet shitted up. Except for getting right with God, no issue is more important than stopping the inflow of shitty people and shitty genes.

God bless America and the great American people. Don't be afraid to shout out that, yes, the American people really are the best; Americans are excellent in a unique way, and other nations just aren't the same. You can't improve a great bourbon by gushing tequila in, even if you like tequila.

[Suggested edits and additions are welcome. Someday, I plan to do a second edition of this post with more, umm, s**t, and more links added to document the facts. If I get really ambitious I might someday attempt a second essay covering the same ground in normie-friendly talking points, but that's hard and I would be very happy if somebody else does it first. I need to go clean my shoes.]

Posted Image

#393666 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 85

Posted That One Guy on 31 October 2017 - 09:12 AM

View PostShitlord HR Rep, on 30 October 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

there's still 7 years left of this.

Trump didn't take office until Jan 21st 2017.  President Trump has only been in office for 9 months and 10 days.  So we have 7 years, 2 months and 20 more days of winning left.  And you can believe Trump will be winning up until his last day in office, Jan 20th 2025.

Liberals, seriously, time to sit the f**k down and shut the f**k up.  You are marxist robots led around by a bunch of jews.  f**k off, theres nothing American about shitlibs anyways.  As Ann Coulter said, you can go to Italy and live there for 50 years and learn the language, wave the flag and get a tan and you will NEVER be Italian.  But any f**king piece of s**t can wander across USA's border and call himself an American, and thats it.  You're officially an American.  No assimilation  process, no learning our culture ,no learning our language is even necessary anymore.  The only thing Americans, the freest nation in the world, have to bond us together is our language, our cultural and historical heritage and our flag.  Everything else is optional.  And yet marxist programmed black fellas and shitlibs are spreading around the USA, destroying the national language, disgracing the flag with meaningless protests and rewriting our history by making our flags illegal and removing our monuments.  The final stage of a take over is when the flag is removed.  Keep flying our flags!  Shitlibs stand for nothing American, nothing.  There are only a handful of things that even define what an American is and shitlibs can check ZERO of the 3 boxes.  At what point do shitlibs and their jewish antics become treasonous and threaten the peace and stability of the union?

:killjews:

#384795 Trump, Sportsball, and Managerialism

  • 85

Posted Money Vampire on 24 September 2017 - 12:42 PM



I knew Villanueva from back when we were West Point Cadets. Of course every Cadet knew him, he was the one wide receiver that could be relied on to actually catch a pass...

Anyway, I'm not at all surprised that he would go against the rest of the Steelers players in doing this. This is one of those times where I'm proud to say, "Hey, I knew that guy. He's a good dude."

#375107 MAGA or GTFO

  • 85

Posted Anonymous Shitposter on 17 August 2017 - 04:53 AM

The events of the last few days have brought things sharply into focus. I've not had much of a coherent political ideology for some years now. Who is "us?" What "cause" am I supporting? What "political goal" do I care about? Charlottesville finally made it clear to me:

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.
Posted Image

We have a message we've settled on.
Posted Image

We have rallies where we outnumber antifa 500 to 1.
Posted Image

We have marches where nobody gets killed.
Posted Image

We have a flag that makes people feel patriotic instead of angry.
Posted Image

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.

#371255 Hillo-bitch 2016: The Neverending Lesbian Bed-Death

  • 85

Posted Harry Dexter Whyte on 02 August 2017 - 07:25 PM

Eternal reminder that the only reason Hillary Clinton has a political career at all is because she is a woman. She married a man who was a much more charismatic and adept politician, a natural leader, and used his popularity to gain national prominence. She admitted this to the entire world when she was cuckqueened by Bill and remained - remains - in the marriage because she needed him to win her Senate seat.

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 f**king 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.

#362910 CNN Declares war on reddit

  • 85

Posted John Rocker on 05 July 2017 - 08:41 PM

At last, the catlady shows her fangs...

Posted Image

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.

Keep winning.

#353810 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 85

Posted Anonymous Shitposter on 03 June 2017 - 08:24 PM

When you have a President that is actually sent by God.

#327555 H-1BTFO

  • 85

Posted George Hiwuhi on 31 January 2017 - 05:27 PM

http://www.moneycont...ge_8379301.html

Quote

Shares of technology stocks tanked, dragging the index around 4 percent on visa concerns. Stocks like TCS, Infosys and Wipro   fell 3-5 percent while Tech Mahindra tanked 10 percent intraday Tuesday as minimum salary of H-1B visa holders is proposed to be more than double. A legislation has been introduced in the US House of Representatives which among other things calls for more than doubling the minimum salary of H-1B visa holders to USD 130,000, making it difficult for firms to use the programme to replace American employees with foreign workers, including from India.

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...

Quote

It raises the salary level at which H-1B dependent employer are exempt from attestation requirements to a new required wage level of 35 percentile points above the median national annual wage for Computer and Mathematical Occupations published by the Department of Labour Occupational Employment Statistics (roughly USD132,000), which would be adjusted in the future without the need for new legislation, and eliminates the Master’s Degree exemption for dependent employers.

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.

https://swizec.githu...aries/#2016-*-*

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.

#320148 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 85

Posted Chicano Studies Major on 01 January 2017 - 09:02 AM

Hope you're having a great current year already, my fellow bigots.

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 f****t 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.

#318313 Snopes gets Doxxed

  • 85

Posted PLEASUREMAN on 21 December 2016 - 09:13 PM

Posted Image

#431766 funny pics thread

  • 84

Posted Traumatized 3rd Gen Lolocaust Survivor on 21 May 2018 - 12:16 AM

Posted Image

#416674 funny pics thread

  • 84

Posted Blue-tick Snipdick on 27 February 2018 - 02:06 PM

Posted Image

#414395 WTF TRS/4chan prank about white supremacist Florida school shooter

  • 84

Posted Bernie (PBUH) Would Have Won AKA ENJ on 15 February 2018 - 04:44 PM

View Postwomb raider, on 15 February 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

Just check that out. It looks like TRS and 4chan may have literally trolled their way into discrediting the MSM in a huge way.

This won't discredit the MSM and it isn't a good thing at all. Making the media think that Sam Hyde's responsible for a mass killing is funny, making them think that an unhinged READ SIEGE White black fella group is responsible isn't because that's far more plausible.

I can forgive 4chan for telling the media that he was part of Jordan Jereb's radical Floridian group but I can't forgive Jereb for telling the ADL that Cruz was a member of his group; which is like pranking your wife by convincing her you're having an affair. Thanks Jereb, thanks for helping the ADL and the media build their narrative you stupid cunt, you sure "owned" them by giving them exactly what they wanted you fat f**king clown.


#399110 Looks like the DEMONcrats are going after the little guy again (banking Jews)

  • 84

Posted Money Vampire on 27 November 2017 - 04:24 PM

Mods, please word filter “slavery” to “character-building farm work”.

#392180 The Donald Trump Presidential Archive

  • 84

Posted Blaire White's Fiance on 24 October 2017 - 12:12 AM

Posted Image

#355027 Trump: high risk, anti-fragile

  • 84

Posted Habakkuk Mucklewrath: Autism Has No Gender on 08 June 2017 - 12:21 PM

Great analysis PMAN. Incidentally, who/what is Gwerks?

#337134 Boomer encounters

  • 84

Posted Anonymous Shitposter on 21 March 2017 - 05:56 PM

"I'd work for free if I was a lawyer. Also don't you f**king touch my tenured income. Also my passion is something I don't actually do."

#247015 Culturally Appropriating the Frankfurt School

  • 84

Posted Chicano Studies Major on 07 February 2016 - 06:39 PM

Whoever ventures into the realm of the alt-right is bound to encounter the term "Frankfurt School" sooner or later. If one group is perceived by the alt-right as the single most important culprit for our current societal malaise, it would be this band of (((intellectuals))):

Posted Image

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:

Quote

In this chapter, certain key notions and images of literature and their fate will illustrate how the progress of technological rationality is liquidating the oppositional and transcending elements in the "higher culture." They succumb in fact to the process of desublimation which prevails in the advanced regions of contemporary society. [...]

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.

Quote

And in the literature, this other dimension is represented not by the religious, spiritual, moral heroes (who often sustain the established order) but rather by such disruptive characters as the artist, the prostitute, the adulteress, the great criminal and outcast, the warrior, the rebel-poet, the devil, the fool-those who don't earn a living, at least not in an orderly and normal way.

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:

Quote

Artistic alienation is sublimation. It creates the images of conditions which are irreconcilable with the established Reality Principle but which, as cultural images, become tolerable, even edifying and useful. [...]

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:

Quote

If one wished to proclaim the equality of all those who bear human features as an ideal, instead of establishing it as a fact, this would be of little help. The abstract utopia would be all too easily reconcilable with the most devious tendencies of society. That all human beings would resemble each other, is exactly what suits this latter. It regards factual or imagined differences as marks of shame, which reveal, that one has not brought things far enough; that something somewhere has been left free of the machine, is not totally determined by the totality.[...]

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.

Quote

An emancipated society however would be no unitary state, but the realization of the generality in the reconciliation of differences. A politics which took this seriously should therefore not propagate even the idea of the abstract equality of human beings. They should rather point to the bad equality of today, the identity of film interests with weapons interests, and think of the better condition as the one in which one could be different without fear.

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.

Quote

The “melting pot” was an institution of free-wheeling industrial capitalism. The thought of landing in it conjures up martyrdom, not democracy.

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:

Quote

[...] after the revolutions of 1848, the continental bourgeoisie took a decidedly conservative turn, which manifested itself philosophically in two main ways, according to Horkheimer. First, it abandoned of the universal regulative ideals that had guided it during its heroic phase. The positivist attack on metaphysics was directed not only against religious concepts such as God or the eternal soul, but against transcendent ideals of any type, even progressive ones such as universal rights, human dignity or a just society. Second, it entailed a corresponding loss of self-reflexivity. [...]

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:

Quote

When it became increasingly apparent that bourgeois society would not automatically realize this promise of creating a more just and humane society - that the interests of large industry and its bourgeois proprietors might not be identical with the interests of society as a whole - philosophy was called on to justify the aims of science. [...]

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!

#179603 Public School and Diversity

  • 84

Posted Stiles on 25 July 2014 - 11:02 AM

You also get a better understanding just how much a fatherless household affects kids.  The students who loved me the most and hated me the most had one thing in common - fatherless households.  I had a group of about 7 girls that absolutely loved me.  I was their only male teacher, and they'd come see me before school, after school, between classes, anytime they could.  They all wanted my attention, just a little bit of my time.  If I remembered some detail about their lives and thought to ask about it, they were thrilled.  They needed a male in their lives so badly, a male who took an interest in their lives and showed genuine care for them.  I could only give them a bit of time and attention, but that was all it took because they were so starved of positive male attention in their lives.  On the flip side, I had girls who would test me endlessly.  They clearly had daddy issues, and would respond to any question or comment from me with disrespect, eye rolling, the whole preteen angst spectrum.  With the boys, it usually worked in my favor.  Mexican boys, in particular, responded very strongly to me telling them when their behavior was childish and unmanly.  I had one boy, constantly in trouble in all classes, who I brought outside and gave a "are you going to be a man or a baby?" speech to.  He straightened up immediately, and was rarely a problem in my class from then on out.  Others just asked me endless questions about being a man, being married, and being a dad.  They loved hearing my perspective on these things.  


#426561 Crossing the Rubicon - destroying the Republic in the name of fighting Trump

  • 103

Posted Scotsman on 23 April 2018 - 01:08 AM

It has often been said, many times over, if not daily, that Trump is violating ‘ARE NORMS AND VALUES’, but actually specifying what these ‘norms’ are is left vague.  They certainly aren’t written in the Constitution.  Having watched it for the last 2+ years, these ‘norms’ are all essentially media-created relics from the Cold War – such as the idea that Trump can’t criticize the media or else he is  saying to the world that he doesn’t respect the First Amendment.  But even Trump’s supposed ‘norm violations’ are just tired manifestations of the President-as-Monarch theme that accelerated during the Cold War and has only grown in our 24-hour news cycle environment.  

But unlike those, there are actual dangers to democratic government that are going on right now in the NAME OF fighting Trump, and that have all been justified for petty, short-term reasons, yet all will have lasting damage to our entire government.  I believe we’ve crossed a line in several dangerous ways, and there isn’t even any need to buy into any deep state conspiracy theories.  It’s pretty much all out in the open. Three things that have happened, starting in the summer of 2016, that I think are key.

1. The Mainstream media dropped all pretense of objective coverage.

You all probably remember it, so I will keep the first one short as it is well covered territory here. About the time of the GOP convention, some of the bigger media outlets, such as the New York Times, announced that they would be ‘calling out the lies’ (ie only of Trump). This has continued uninterrupted to the present.  Look at the straight news coverage in the Times, or WaPo, and you see terms used in either the title or first paragraph that would have been considered violations of the style guide before 2016. “Falsely claimed”, “lies”, etc.

2. Heads of Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies as political talking heads

In the old days (as in oh, Barack Obama’s term) former intelligence officials, especially those of high-rank, avoided appearing too often in the media, especially in partisan political fashion.  They retreated from public life, speaking only at conferences, writing their memoirs, or perhaps commenting rarely on Sunday political shows on some major national security measure – couching policy disagreements, even major ones, in calm tones as all should want the President to succeed.  You occasionally had a few write angry memoirs – such as Louis Freeh’s book that bashes Clinton in strong terms, but these were rare.

What do we have now?  John Brennan, former head of the CIA, spreading innuendo about the sitting President like a Democratic talking head on MSNBC.  Sending mean tweets to the President from Twitter. James Clapper calling Trump an ‘asset’ of Putin’s on national TV.  I really cannot stress how shocking this was to me when it first started. But it isn’t just ex-Obama people.  Bush’s former National Security Agency head/CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden also provides only slightly less hysterical anti-Trump commentary from his twitter and on CNN.  

Unpacking their statements divorced from context, they sound as though they could have come from the mouths of John Birch Society members circa 1960.  They are all but calling the President a traitor.  It’s absolutely irresponsible to say any of that about a sitting President coming from these men, and they should know better.  

To his credit, one of the anti-Trump commentators had some second thoughts about some of the things said during the campaign and after by himself and these officials.  Michael Morrell endorsed Clinton during the summer, writing an op-ed in the NYT. While not completely retracting his statements, he seems aware of the damage they caused:

https://www.washingt...m=.2e9abdaecd19


Quote

And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent. And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security adviser, Mike Flynn. And so this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, “What is it with these intelligence guys? Are they political?” The current director at the time, John Brennan, during the campaign occasionally would push back on things that Donald Trump had said.

So, when Trump talked about the Iran nuclear deal being the worst deal in the history of American diplomacy, and he was going to tear it up on the first day — John Brennan came out publicly and said, “That would be an act of folly.” So, he sees current sitting director pushing back on him. Right?
Then he becomes president, and he’s supposed to be getting a daily brief from the moment he becomes the president-elect. Right? And he doesn’t. And within a few days, there’s leaks about how he’s not taking his briefing. So, he must have thought — right? — that, “Who are these guys? Are these guys out to get me? Is this a political organization? Can I think about them as a political organization when I become president?”
So, I think there was a significant downside to those of us who became political in that moment. So, if I could have thought of that, would I have ended up in a different place? I don’t know. But it’s something I didn’t think about.
Since then, Morrell has been much more circumspect in his critiques and occasionally has given advice/praised things he’s agreed with (he was really bullish on Trump’s idea of Tom Cotton as CIA director, for instance), but he’s in a minority of one.

And the most previously unthinkable of all:

3. Leaking foreign intelligence to damage a domestic political opponent.

With the leaking of Michael Flynn’s name to the Washington Post, we entered into Soviet Union territory.  Jeff Sessions was also a victim.

There was an interesting article written in the left-wing Guardian by a former George W. Bush Justice Department Official.  This man is no fan of Trump, and is in fact a fierce critic, which gives his statements more weight:

https://www.theguard...a-michael-flynn

Quote


The first major one, in February 2017, concerned a court-approved NSA wiretap of a phone conversation between Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, and incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn that concerned, among other things, the possible removal of Russia sanctions imposed by President Fuccboi Cryalot. Flynn had denied that the men discussed sanctions, and the leak revealing his lie led to his resignation.

Another major leak concerned communications intercepts during the campaign of Russian government officials discussing potentially “derogatory” information about Trump and top campaign aides. Other leaks in this vein included intercepts of Russian officials claiming they could influence Trump through Flynn, of Kislyak supposedly informing Moscow that he discussed campaign-related issues with then-Senator Jeff Sessions, and of Kislyak discussing in a communication to Moscow that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, wanted to communicate via a secure channel.
These leaks probably mark the first time ever that the content of foreign intelligence intercepts aimed at foreign agents that swept up US-person information was leaked. They clearly aimed to damage US persons – ones who happen to also be senior US government officials.
They were unlawful and, beyond that, they violated two until-now strict taboos about leaks – first on revealing the content of foreign intelligence information collected through electronic surveillance, and second on revealing the content of incidentally collected information about American citizens.

All of this is justified in the name of Trump. These people will all claim to one degree or another that they do this out of love of country, ie like joining the Resistance after the fall of France.  But as any student of history will tell, once the rubicon is crossed in terms of state power, it never retreats.  The American Left has a short memory; once Trump is gone, they will almost certainly make the same justification of the same style against a future political opponent.  

After some weak, pathetic well-maybe-it-was-justified nonsense, the author then goes on to state:

Quote

However those matters develop, the whole ordeal has already done great damage to both the presidency and the national security bureaucracy.
As deep state officials get a taste for the power that inheres in the selective revelation of such information, and if the leaks are not responded to with severe punishments, it is easy to imagine the tools that brought down Flynn being used in other contexts by national security bureaucrats with different commitments and interests.
Even the most severe critics of Trump should worry about this subtle form of anti-democratic abuse. The big loser in all this will probably be the national security bureaucracy itself and, to the extent it is weakened, the security of the American people.
This is where I see this all going as our new normal:

1. The Media will not feign even a figleaf of objectivity toward right-wing opponents, all the while using the shield of ‘neutral media’ given to them in earlier era that they’ll use when criticized.

2. Incoming administrations will be pilloried and sabotaged by the outgoing one.  It will become par for the course for major Intelligence and Law Enforcement officials, once they are out on their ears, to become virtue-signaling partisans and talking heads. Trust in these institutions will decline as a result.

3. Foreign intelligence will routinely be used against domestic political enemies, politicizing all intelligence in the process, weakening American civil liberties and adding a nearly unaccountable tool of abuse to be used against us

Once given these powers, they won’t give them back.  There is no ‘After Trump’ return to normalcy. This is our new normal, creating new tyrannies in the name of fighting an imaginary one.

MPC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.