Archive for the ‘Free Speech’ Category

Just a reminder: The Bible says you should judge

October 20, 2014

Lefties invented and perfected the Big Lie. The National Socialists used it to great effect, but other leftists (Soviets, Cubans, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Libyans, etc.) also abused it to death.

One part of the Big Lie is repetition: people will truly believe anything if its said by enough people. Peer pressure wasn’t just something your D.A.R.E. officer told you about to scare you; it is very, very real.

One Big Lie the left likes to tell is that Jesus commands people not to “judge” others, and by judge they mean “say that someone is doing something bad, or that a person is evil.” In fact they often quote Jesus’s words (twistedly, of course): “Judge lest ye be judged.”

Of course they’re lying.

Jesus never says don’t judge someone as sinning or being evil. The context of his quote is that Jesus is saying “don’t be a hypocrite when you judge people.” This is the whole “remove the mote from your own eye” argument-context. In fact, Jesus was condemning the Jewish high priests for their hypocrisy, as they would condemn people for sins they themselves or their family were committing and getting off scot-free.

Jesus had no problem for you condemning another’s sins if you were free of such sin yourself. In fact, in both the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus orders his followers to do just that.

What Jesus hated in sinners was hypocrisy, which the Jewish high council had in droves. Compare Jesus’s treatment of prostitutes, thieves, and tax collectors.  He dines with them because they know they are sinners and want t do better. Jesus curses those who sin and don’t care, or worse complain abut others doing their same sins. Compare, again, Jesus’s treatment of the two thieves he is crucified with—one has no repentance, and demands Jesus save them; Jesus ignores him, likely knowing that, that day, he would see him in hell. The other begs Jesus’s forgiveness for his crimes; Jesus pardons him and promises him heaven.

For example, if you don’t molest children, condemn homosexuals.

Fuck the left. Yay Jesus. Condemn sinners.

Are You Date-Worthy? A Quiz for Women

September 11, 2014

This post was inspired by this unintentionally hilarious article. Go read it, please.

In case of tl;dr, the woman writer complains that women need to start asking men out on dates because men are too weak/stupid/unmacho/ungentlemanly to ask women out on dates anymore.

That’s right; according to authoress Lauren Martin, women deserve to be taken out on dates—proper, old fashioned, man pays-and-buys-flowers-and-holds-doors dates—and the only thing stopping this wonderful thing is the failures of men.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Now, at first, I was going to just link to the article and laugh.

Then I thought, nahhh, I should respond point-by-point, giving the shiv of truth to each and every one of Lauren Martin’s lies.

Then I thought, nahhh, too much work for soon-to-be-forgotten Feminazi whack-a-mole articles like this. Instead, why not give the girls some chick crack—e.g. a Cosmo-style quiz—while at the same time having each question mercilessly fisk and fuck their delicious little egos into fillet, sending them running to their wine cabinet and therapists and Girls reruns and gay bffs and feminazi studies classes for at least 5-10 years of rehab.

Excellent plan.

So ladies, please see the quiz below. Answer all the questions and answer each question truthfully.  At the end, we can tally up your score and find out if you are truly worthy of a man taking you out on old fashioned, fun, dressed-up, he pays, he holds the door, dinner-and-a-movie, flowers-candy-card, classy dancing, sweet-peck-on-the-lips-on-your-front-stoop-but-nothing-more-expected date.

Ladies, Are You Date-Worthy?

  1. Are you a virgin?
  2. Have you had 3 or fewer sexual partners?
  3. Have you ever had a one-night stand/fuck buddy/”it’s complicated” relationship that included physical sexual gratification for either of you?
  4. How many men have you kissed?
  5. How many men have you made out with?
  6. How many men have you given blow jobs to? How many of those have you swallowed? Allowed to cum on your face or body?
  7. How many men have you given hand jobs to?
  8. How many human penises have you deliberately touched?
  9. Have you ever had sex with a black guy? If so, how many?
  10. Are you lying about your answer to question #9?
  11. How many black guys have you kissed?
  12. How many black guys have you given a blow job to?
  13. How many black guys’ penises have you touched?
  14. Have you ever felt attracted to a black guy? Please explain.
  15. Have you ever said out loud that a black guy was attractive, “sexy”, or in any way sexually worthy? How many times and to whom?
  16. Do you listen to rap/hip-hop/whatever marketing word they’re calling it this week? Have you ever been to a rap/hip-hop/etc. concert?
  17. Have you ever had an abortion?
  18. Do you believe abortion should be legal? Paid for by the government? Celebrated as a right?
  19. Are you a feminist? If not, how much of feminism do you agree with?
  20. How often do you masturbate? Do you have a dildo?
  21. Do you vote Democrat, or anything that Fox News would call left-wing?
  22. Are you proud America elected Obama?
  23. Do you think we need more blacks and/or women and/or other minorities in political power?
  24. Do you believe that blacks are held down because of unfair racism against them, and that they are just as smart and good and kind as anyone else, or more so?
  25. Who do you think was right: Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman?
  26. Who do you think was right: Michael Brown or the cops of Ferguson, MO?
  27. Do you think nationalized healthcare is good for America?
  28. Are you in favor of affirmative action?
  29. Are you in favor of gay marriage?
  30. Do you believe gays and transgender people are just born that way?
  31. Do you believe gays and transgender people are normal?
  32. Do you want to get married and have children?
  33. Did you major in a humanity? If so, did the title end in “studies” or “theory”?
  34. Do you have a graduate degree?
  35. Are you overweight according to the BMI scale?
  36. Have you ever kissed, fondled, or had sex with another woman?
  37. Have you ever been involved in a sexual encounter involving more than two people? Kissing, making out, and light petting count here.
  38. Do your friends consider you sexually adventurous?
  39. Have you ever taken a naked selfie, or one where you are dressed provocatively? Have you ever sent it to a straight male or posted it where a straight male could see it?
  40. Are you on Twitter?
  41. Do you think a man should be king of his castle?
  42. Do you think a woman should obey her man?
  43. How often do you get drunk? (note: “tipsy”=drunk for the purposes of this quiz).
  44. How often do you use recreational drugs/illegal substances? When was the last time?
  45. How often do you date or have sex outside your race? Races for this quiz: White, East Asian, South Asian, Arab/Persian, Native American/Red. If you are considered “mestizo”, you may claim both races. Jews can group themselves by skin color here.
  46. How often do you date or have sex outside your ethnicity? Your ethnicity is the country of origin of your parents’ ancestors. Don’t be obtuse; if you’re a mutt but mostly Northern European, use most of those countries, but if you’re 100% Irish or Chinese, use that one nationality alone. Jews count as a separate ethnicity here.
  47. Do you go to the same house of worship for services at least 2x a month?
  48. Does that house of worship have only male clergy? What percentage of the administrators are female?
  49. Do you believe in your religion’s teachings? Do you believe in God (or gods)?
  50. Does your religion/church support homosexuality, abortion, affirmative action, government-provided healthcare, or any other planks of the Democratic party?
  51. Do you have a gay bff? Is he promiscuous?
  52. Do you believe a woman should have a career when she is 22?
  53. What is the proper age for a woman to start having children?
  54. At what age do you want to have children?
  55. Would you or have you ever gone backstage or on the tour bus or into a VIP lounge with a male celebrity?
  56. Same question as #55, but with the condition that you have been on or have gone on at least one date with a guy that went well and you two are texting?
  57. For older girls: were you Team Aniston or Team Jolie?
  58. Have you ever cheated on a man you were dating? Kissing, making out, holding hands, touching each other’s bodies, foreplay, sex are all cheating.
  59. Have you ever competed with a man for a job or promotion?
  60. Is it ok for a woman to cheat if she’s lonely, depressed, or she’s fallen out of love with her man?
  61. Did you ever beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  62. Did you ever want to beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  63. Can you cook a complete meal? Do you do so at least 3 times per week?
  64. Can you clean? Is your home/apartment/room clean?
  65. When not dressed for work, do you dress feminine?
  66. When not dressed for work, do you wear dresses? How often?
  67. Do you watch reality TV? Talk shows? TV dramas? TV scripted comedies? Which ones? How many hours per day?
  68. Do you watch pornography?
  69. Do you have tattoos? How many? How large? Are they visible when wearing any of your own skimpy summer outfits?
  70. Do you believe organizations and companies should be allowed to be all male and exclude blacks?
  71. Have you ever flashed anyone?
  72. Do you swear? How often?
  73. Do you ever say or think that you get along better with men rather than women?
  74. Is there a box of condoms in your room?
  75. Do you believe a woman should look pretty for her man?
  76. If you are overweight, are you ruthlessly trying to get underweight?
  77. Have you ever participated in or cheered on a Slut Walk?
  78. Do you believe women have a responsibility to dress appropriately?
  79. Do you believe single mothers are good mothers?
  80. Do you believe in divorce?
  81. Have you ever been divorced?
  82. Do you agree to raise any children in the religion, town, and way your husband decides?
  83. Do you believe sex is about intimacy, or is more physical?
  84. Do you believe a woman in a serious relationship/marriage has a duty to sexually please her man even if she isn’t in the mood?
  85. If you get into an argument with a man, would you ever throw a drink at him or hit him in anger? Note that “playful hitting”=hitting. If so, and he punched you or slapped you hard, would you consider that fair?
  86. Do you know that regret is not rape?
  87. Do you watch “Keeping up with the Kardashians,” “The Daily Show”, “The Colbert Report,” any kind of talk show, “The Today Show”, anything on MSNBC, or anything on Bravo or E!?
  88. Do you listen to top 40 radio? What about NPR?
  89. Have you ever embarrassed a man who was trying to flirt with you? Ask you out on a date? Get your phone number?
  90. Have you ever liked a man, only to have your gfs/gay bffs dissuade you from dating him?

Quiz Answers

As you can see ladies, the questions really answer themselves, don’t they? That is to say that, immediately upon reading each question, you knew–almost instinctively–what answers would be correct and render you still date-worthy, and what answers would be wrong and render you not worth it for a man to take out on a date. You knew it in your gut, though you hated the fact that you knew it, and that you knew it so well.

And, for some of you, what hurts even more is that even for so-called left-wing men, the “correct” answers and the “wrong” answers remain the same. That is to say that, even though certain men that you would date would express the views that my questions are stupid/don’t matter, you know instinctively that such men still would greatly prefer the “correct” answers.

Some of the questions are super-damning for wrong answers, while others aren’t so much deal breakers.  I mixed and matched according to my whims and what struck me at the moment. Like a good psych quiz, I asked the same questions different ways, and followed easy questions with hard ones, just to keep you off balance. I’m awesome like that.

 

But I don’t need to really tell you if a certain wrong answer is super-damning or merely hurtful to your date-worthy chances; if you aren’t sure, ask a few gfs, or even your token gay bff. The more offended they are by a certain question, the more you can be certain that that question is a super-damning, automatic-disqualifier if you give the wrong answer.

By the way, this list is by no means exhaustive; I barely grazed the anti-male area of family law, for example. But it is comprehensive enough to give 90% of women out there a very, very good idea of what men want out of women, and, equally as important, what they, in the strongest terms, do not want.

What Date-Worthy Really Means

What Date-Worthy really means, ladies, is whether you are worthy of a long-term, locked-down relationship/marriage. You know that and we know that; that’s why, when you really like a fuck buddy, you’ll start whining or setting up circumstances—such as meeting for drinks around dinner time before you’re going to fuck—that will encourage him to lay down some change, hold a door, and otherwise be a boyfriend-on-a-date.

You know that if a man invests his money, time, and charm in public on you, it starts to lock him down into relationship status. Men who put time, money, and effort into courtship behavior are setting themselves up for relationships, whether they know it or not. It is instinctual and natural; when we invest effort into something, we expect it to mean something.

Once upon a time, most middle class women in America gave the “correct” answers to all the questions on this quiz. This is why men then took women on formalized dates; such women, because they gave the correct answers, were deemed date-worthy, and dates were designed to further test the waters for lifelong commitment, i.e. marriage. Other women—the sluts of their times—were not taken on dates; they ended up as bar floozies, prostitutes, yoked to underclass or unrespected men, or else lonely and alone in their lives. Johnny the Good Boy didn’t marry Suzy the Floozy, he married Mary the Good Girl.

And here’s a very important part you ladies need to hear: Johnny married Mary because it was a good deal for Johnny. Johnny got a loving, virginal wife who never compared his faults or shortcomings to past lovers; obeyed his word; respected him; cooked and cleaned for him; stayed feminine for him; gave him regular, faithful sex; and all-in-all remained a loyal wife.

These are what the “correct” answers mean to men: she is worthy of a man’s time and investment because she will reward the man with what he wants. And this is why your “wrong” answers today hurt you so much inside: you instinctively know that your actions have devalued you so that investing time, money, and effort on you isn’t worth it to a man today, unlike, say, your grandmother. Ladies, you are much less worthy of love—less “date-worthy”—than your own grandmother. Unlike your grandmother, you ladies aren’t a good deal for a man today.

Another way to put this for women is to stop thinking “what do I want out of a man” and start thinking “what does a man want in a woman.” Men—especially men in the PUA community—spend an inordinate amount of time wondering what he has to offer to a woman to get what he wants. Women would do well to wonder what they have to offer to a man to get what women want—dates, intimacy, long-term commitment, etc. And it ain’t just sex, ladies; no man every went to war, worked for 40 years at a worthless job, or built a mansion for a prostitute or the easy chick down the block.

 

What Happens When You’re Not Date-Worthy

You’re fucked.

Just kidding.

Kind of.

There are some things you can do to mitigate the damage your “wrong” answers indicate. However, that is left to another post and time. I will say this much: many times the Rubicon cannot be uncrossed; the bell unrung; the die uncast. But despite this, you can at least mitigate such damage—and not in the ways you’re probably thinking.

The Wake of the Boston Marathon Massacre: New York Wi-Fi Down by Homeland Security

April 16, 2013

I live in NYC, and when I got back home tonight after Boston was all over the news and New York went on high alert, suddenly wifi was down in my apartment.

Note: not the complete internet. Just Wifi. In fact, my router was giving a “wifi ok” signal the whole night, but it still couldn’t be picked up. If I connected via a wire to the cable/internet system, however, it worked fine. Still is doing so no, 1:23am EST.

My smartphone had 3g access, but also couldn’t access ANY wifi—even the free ones I used to sneak on when I didn’t have wifi of my own.

Remember that NOTHING happened in NYC at all.

Plausible theory: I think DHS dampened wifi around the city, in the fear that 1) wifi was being used to set off the bombs; and 2) that 4g/hardwired networks were easier to monitor.

Reports from Boston are already and also saying that several cellphone towers ” were shut down” from “overload” and the “internet” was overloaded —several remote feeds of news crews from Boston were extremely fuzzy.

DHS has the ability to shut down wifi, people. And cellphone towers. And did so when push came to shove.

Just a friendly warning. Fuck the left.

Men of the West, Listen to Aurini’s Gold

March 13, 2013

Men of the West, listen to Aurini’s gold.

Sharia law is looking very good, ladies. Beat you into submission and silence, castrate the niggers, stone the fags, re-promote male leadership and greatness.

Leftist chickens…are coming home…to roost.

lol. Another Nigger-Fucker Gets What She Deserves

March 5, 2013

lol. Another nigger-fucker gets what she deserves.

A painful death and a short life at the hands of her ape-lover.

Remember ladies: when you’re screaming for help as you’re being raped and murdered by the “diverse” guy you went out with, the “racist-sexist-homophobic patriarchal assholes” that you shit on daily, that used to unflinchingly protect you from these uncivilized monkeys…will now only laugh and cheer them on.

Enjoy the decline, bitches!

Leftism as a Cult?: A Tenative Hypothesis

January 20, 2013

I’ve had a rather murky epiphany as of late. If it holds true, it could provide to myself and other anti-leftists a wealth of power and knowledge in combating the evil that is leftism. And it comes, strangely, from fire-bomber Ann Coulter.

I do not know quite how to take Coulter—is she a career-driven loudmouth who only takes extreme right wing opinions because she thinks it will give her more fame? Is she genuinely adhering to most or all of her extreme beliefs? Or is she merely a right-winger who deliberately pushes more extreme right wing views to “give space” to more moderate righties? I do not know. But in thinking about her thesis in Godless: the Church of Liberalism, I have realized that she was on to something.

Certainly she was not the first, nor the most articulate in pointing out that left-wing ideology is like a religion to adherents. However, to the generation of people who became politically aware in the 1990s and 2000s, she is the loudest voice asserting this.

So I’ve explored this issue, and concluded that the idea the leftism is a religion is both right and wrong. It is right to say it is a substitute spiritualism for leftists. However, it is wrong to say that leftism is a religion.

Instead, leftism is, I tentatively believe, a cult.

Any assistance from readers in helping me flesh this out in the coming weeks would be greatly appreciated. I plan on a series of posts explaining my belief that left wing thought is a cult.

Stupidity, Thy Name is Kayla Monster

December 7, 2012

Here’s a typical idiot, a left-wing “womyn” trying to argue that Atlas Shrugged” is stupid, without ever having read it.

Read her post here, and then come back for my counter below. I posted it as a comment today, but I doubt she has the balls or intellectual capacity to allow it through moderation—the “too mean/too nasty/stop pointing out I’m stupid!”-hamster logic of a woman.

This is the kind of stupidity feminism hath wrought.

————————————————

God, this is dumb. You fail so hard. You must be a woman.

1. You admit you that “I still haven’t read Atlas Shrugged.” And yet you discern from only the first page that, in Atlas Shrugged, “Rand chose Atlas for her Titan because the image of Prometheus would destroy her entire argument. Cherry-picking the evidence, she took traits from both brothers, combining the (incorrect) image of Atlas holding the world on his shoulders with Prometheus’ compassion.”

Um, what? What proof do you offer that Rand painted her “Atlas”-folk as compassionate?

None.

In fact, Rand never said Atlas ever acted out of compassion. She deplored charity, compassionate religions (well, all religions), and altruism. She was a very strong proponent of the notion that people should act selfishly.

Nowhere does Atlas Shrugged say that Atlas acts out of compassion. And your ignorant statement that it does only underscores your assertion that you haven’t read it. If you’re going to make a statement about what a piece of writing says, you have to read it first.

In other words, your criticism as to why Rand didn’t name it Prometheus Unchained is completely invalid.

Ignoramous.

2. To start, Atlas isn’t carrying the world on his shoulders. He’s carrying the sky

—Yawn. Weak criticism. Common artistic interpretations of Atlas are of his holding the earth on his shoulders, and most people who are not Ancient Greek scholars/heavily into ancient Greek myth study would make that error. Given that the metaphor is well understood (“having the world on your shoulders”), it’s pathetic of you to require it of Rand. Are you going to require it of the thousands of artists who created images of Atlas holding up globes?

What is more, think of the metaphor of Sisyphus. If we describe a task as “Sisyphean”, does that mean we think it’s a punishment for betraying the trust of someone, or murdering houseguests? No? Because that’s what Sisyphus did to earn his torments. But artistic interpretation and common usage have both come to use the phrase “sisyphean” as merely a task that is endless, monotonous, burdensome, and pointless.

Unless you’re going to start scolding and dismissing thousands of artists (poets, prose writers, sculptors, painters, musicians, etc.) who have used these commonly accepted meanings of the Atlas and Sisyphus myths, I’d suggest leaving the cheap-grad-school-like nitpicking behind on this one.

Moron.

3. Disregarding the myths, she created a new one, where Atlas’ punishment is self-inflicted, the result of a societally-created belief in the virtues of compassion.

—Wrong again, stupid.

Atlas’s punishment in Rand’s world is that he holds up the burdens of the entire world—the finance, the innovation, the tax burdens, the governments, the technology, everything.

Rand didn’t believe everyone was the same or equal in ability or importance. Rand believed that there were some incredibly smart, incredibly talented people whose accomplishments and self-interest benefited society greatly—and without these few, the vast majority would founder. Call it her own version of the Great Man Theory.

In Rand’s world, it is their self-interest that supports the world and its burdens—but if the world asked too much of them, they will show the world who supports whom.

Again, like an idiot, your arguing that Rand claimed these Great Men had compassion or should have it. Nothing of the sort.

Liar.

4. Atlas can’t shrug, because if he somehow managed it, Zeus would come by and stick the heavens right back on his shoulders.

—-Except that the world trembles, and, if done completely, it falls crashing down.

The point of Rand’s story is what happens if Atlas (again, using the common artistic metaphor of holding the world on his shoulders) momentarily “shrugs.” He could shrug the world off his shoulders completely, thereby bringing it crashing down. Or he could just give a minor shrug—causing the world to rattle, shake, and its inhabitants to fall down in stupor and terror.

Which is the point of Rand’s story—which you could see if you’d even bothered to do a modicum of research of even the base plot outline (or, you know, like an intelligent person, read the book).

When the Atlases of the story—the genius, self-interested capitalists–shrug, they merely refuse to work anymore due to onerous social and governmental requirements/punishments. In the story, the economy and transit of the US grind to a half–because it was precisely the Altases who kept them going.

Yes, in the myth, Zeus may come back and “force” the world back on Atlas’s shoulders—but, should Atlas not be pleased with his burden, the people of the world will be punished again, as he will “shrug” again when Zeus is not looking, causing the world to fall apart again (and this will result in fewer sacrifices for Zeus and the gods, who need the people’s sacrifices to survive).

And here we see another meaning of the metaphor of the shrug. When a person “shrugs”, they express a disinterest or uncaring and dismissive attitude towards a subject. “Atlas Shrugs” also means the self-interested “doers” of Rand’s world simply do not care if the world falls apart due to their actions—they “shrug” at the problems, and are only self-interested. As they accomplish their goals in “going Galt”, we can see that “shrugging” at the problems of the world in pursuit of your own goals is a positive in Rand’s book.

I realize this is a bit beyond you, since you’re too ignorant to read something you’re criticizing , but the point isn’t that Zeus would put the globe right back on Atlas’s shoulders.

The point of the title-metaphor is at least two fold: to show what happens when common people punish society’s producers for no crime, and to show the attitude that the producer’s should have towards such punishers.

Philistine.

5. this is the same woman who went on Medicare late in her life, but did it under a false name; to admit she needed help from the government would have been to admit the flaws in her ideas.

—LMAO ROFL.

Here’s where you show yourself to be truly dumb. And I’ll bet you think this is a “strong” criticism.

Home mortgage deduction: Let’s say a person hates the home mortgage deduction tax deduction that we get from the IRS. This person thinks it’s both inefficient and a revenue killer for government, and that it screws up the housing market (even more than Fannie Mae,/Freddie Mac/FHA loans/and Al Sharpton already have). This person rail against it and think says publicly and loudly that we should abolish it.

Does he need to forgo the tax deduction on his next tax bill to prove he’s not a hypocrite?

No.

This person identified what he sees as a flaw in the system. He believes that if everyone had it taken away, the country would be better off. However, given that such a flaw still exists the next time he does his taxes, his forgoing it would do nothing. Those people he hates would use it, become richer, and market would still be screwed up, and his energies would be diverted from railing against the inefficiency to earning money to make up for the loss of not applying for the tax deduction. His actions do nothing but punish him from feeding at the tragedy of the commons.

This man’s taking the mortgage deduction does not affect his credibility.

Hypocrisy would be saying that something is morally or legally evil/wrong, being “caught” doing it, and yet claim the same punishments he put on others should not be put on him.

Like that fine lefty Eliot Spitzer.

A poor person can recognize that the Welfare State keeps many poor from moving up. However, he can still collect from it while railing against it. A great-scoring hockey player can recognize the stupidity of the penalty shot format in a tied game and holler against it at union meetings, but still can participate in it while it is part of the rules. A lawyer could think that the Fifth Amendment is a ludicrous idea and should be abolished, but still advise his clients to take it on the stand while it is still good law.

Perhaps this kind of nuanced, deep thinking is beyond someone with the simplistic brain of a “stealing money good/rich people are evil” mindset. But…

It is not hypocritical to take advantage of a (legal) flaw in the system that you’ve noted should be removed.

Eejit.

Kindly go light yourself on fire. And next time you open your fat, hairy trap about something, make sure you know what you’re talking about first.

“The 60’s” and Communist Propaganda

December 5, 2012

In response to Steve Sailer’s posts here and here (though, as always, I hate Taki).

I’m usually one who mocks conspiracy theorists, so I fully expect some kind of take down here but…

I think “the 60’s” can be explained by communist propaganda.

Look, pre-1960s, America had twice gone on a major rampage against Communist spying: the 1920s (where, just before that, the “Progressives” gave us women voting and Prohibition) and the 1950s. And, if you read up on the history of these times—not just the propaganda disseminated by left-wing sympathizers—you find that, behind the demagoguery of McCarthy (who was a classic “pick a target, freeze it, polarize it” idol for pre-Alinksyites) were very scary, very Anti-American actions by left-wing sympathizers within the U.S. Terrorism and spying for Mother Russia being two major items. These were not “scares” or panics—they were based on very real infiltration of the U.S. by Communist agitators.

But, by the late 1950s, the KGB/CPUSA were honing a successful counter-offensive to any prosecution of organized left-wing agitation:

1. Use of entertainment industry to downplay Communist actions and attack anti-communists as opportunists/fanatics (e.g. The Crucible)

2. Finding extreme anti-communists and holding them up as examples of the entire anti-communist movement (McCarthy)—often by feeding news organizations info on them to discredit them.

3. Likewise, finding sympathetic left-wing “innocents” who were “victims” of anti-communists/right wingers (e.g. the “blacklisted” writers, The Ethel Rosenberg Cult, Medgar Evans, MLK). I call this “creating martyrs” or “Al Queda” syndrome.

4. Also feeding News organizations spectacles tailor-made to seem large on the (brand new) medium of television, but were in reality quite small and led by few people (e.g. “peaceful” black civil rights demonstrations being hosed down , feminism, Vietnam “massacres”). Especially at times there were stories breaking of violence by left-wing agitators—better to distract

5. While not creating conspiracy theories, encouraging any blossoming ones that fostered distrust in the U.S. government or right-wing morale (e.g. the KGB actively promoted JFK conspiracy theorists, especially those that implicated the CIA or anti-communist ones).

6. Discrediting right-wing centric organizations (e.g. lying about the Klan, purging the Birchers).

In this context, we encounter 60’s “social” movements. The hippie movement, the feminist movement, and the civil rights movement all were agitated, financed, and organized by communist/KGB front groups (e.g. almost all of MLK’s white advisers—especially those dealing with the media—were involved with communism). Most people those days didn’t march or protest or go to Woodstock, but communists made sure the TV screens were filled with them weekly, and made sure entertainers wrote pop songs extolling them and movies celebrating them.

Once you had people on board with the idea that “everyone” was doing it, people naturally followed suit. Most people are followers, and if this is how “everyone” was thinking, it must be right.

The successful pushback using McCarthy as the symbol of the anti-communist movement emboldened the left, and Hoover’s waning power at the end of his life, and in regards to his conflict with Kennedy and Johnson, meant that the opposition was severely curtailed.

When Nixon, fierce anti-commie, realized that TV reality was not actual reality, he began his “Silent Majority” movement, which culminated in his surprise victories (and showed that lefty-media types totally bought commie propaganda, as displayed by Pauline Kael’s famous statement on not knowing who voted for Nixon).

But by then, the value of more than a decade of successful demoralization was done: Vietnam, though winnable, was lost as a cause to the American people, and Nixon pulled out; Nixon got rid of the gold standard, rationing, and implemented Affirmative Action and the EPA and all sorts of nonsense, and basically threw a lot of bones to the left to keep them from getting too upset (until, of course, the commies/KGB made a HUGE deal out of Watergate, a minor scandal, just to rid themselves of an anti-communist).

I think the 1970s the commies ideas waned, as televised protests became old hat and boring. Probably US counter-intelligence made a comeback or the KGB lost some key players, or maybe commie focus shifted to other nations. In any event, Reagan’s election was a bad thing for them, because he was both fiercely anti-communist AND, just as importantly, knew how to stage public events for the cameras.

Anyway, the more I study the history of communist spying (thanks James Bond!) and the power of news-entertainment propaganda, the more this hypothesis moves me: the “60’s” was nothing more than a massive and very successful propaganda campaign by KGB/CPUSA forces to demoralize and discredit U.S. anti-communists.

Reasons Why I Drink, #1

November 28, 2012

Reasons why I drink, #1

Gavin McInnes is Canadian, who came here because it was a refuge from Canada’s increasing police state. But now that we’re a police state—where can we go?

Caveat to the fact that not all of his “outrageous arrests” hit home with me. I’ve learned that sometimes one-side of a story is very different from all the facts. For example, the Indy 500 driver he mentions who got arrested for trespassing on protected land—I immediately thought “he could have been illegally hunting and covering it up.”

But still—those news stories on his list that I know of make me cry. And do a shot of Jameson.

Here’s to what America once was, and down with what it has become.

Opportunity Costs, the Internet, and the Death of Modern Leftism: Is it Too Late for America?

October 5, 2012

The rise of left-wing dominance in America was caused by the short lived period between widespread use of the telegraph/railroads and the the widespread use of the internet in the country (1860s-2000s).

Pre-these inventions, American people lived more ensconced lives in terms of news. Any news from out of town might be questioned thoroughly, and people lived in distrust of strangers bearing news; people looked to leaders (their favored political party, their local minister) to ruthlessly run down distant stories, but otherwise what people gossiped about was local town news—and sources that could personally be verified.

However, When the telegraph first hit, it allowed a few people (newsmen paid to be sitting in the telegraph office all day) the luxury of taking all the information around the country and spewing it forth with all their propaganda. The railroads also enabled this; since now a few papers could pay its reporters to cris-cross the country, and pay railroads to drop them off at most cities across the country, suddenly news was both larger (in terms of geography and amount of information) and smaller (now, only a few paid newsmen crisis-crossed the country and controlled the flow of information).

The telephone’s rise managed to curb this a bit, since you could now call someone in NYC yourself instead of waiting for a newspaper to tell you what happened, but, really, who knew a “credible” person in NYC or DC to dispel truth from newspaper lies? The car also broke this down for the same reasons—the average man could now get out of town and see what was going on. However, how many would drive to DC to question a rep?

The information mass was huge, but only a few people who made huge profits distilling it would tell it to you; it was too expensive for you to investigate anything beyond local news. Thus leftism was fueled by this control of information—people were hungry for news from further and further away, and thus had to rely on left-wingers (who worked hard to dominate the media) for the news.

As the world got smaller (planes, radio, television), there still was the problem of how the average joe could garner news–and rich leftists paid handsomely to use their wealth to control the flow. Government regulators—-FCC, FAA, even the Postal Service—could control the flow of information by keeping prices artificially high for travel and communication, thus restricting those who told you things , again, rich leftist news organizations. And rich leftists used those regulators (whose idea they conceived) to clamp down on interlopers.

For example, FDR shut down radio power Father Coughlin (a man who was, ironically, further left than FDR) by not allowing the U.S. mail service to deliver to him or deliver his leaflets. Most people don’t know how dirty the Kennedy clan played with conservative media as well—the Kennedy plan involved using the FCC to clamp down on independently-owned radio stations throughout the South, who supported right-wingers and disliked Kennedy on social issues–by, again, driving up licensing costs so that these poorer stations couldn’t stay on the air.

Cable news was a dent in this, since the FCC wasn’t given control. The emergence of Fox News wasn’t new, it was an inevitable return of non-leftist media once opportunity costs dropped. But Fox was but a small dent compared to…

The Internet. Combined with free blogs.

Now, a person in Abu Dahbi can write for free, publish online, and report and highlight news and studies that hurt the dominant leftist media. The opportunity costs are nil; to read news from a world away costs me $30/month. As is to scream to the world about injustices, and be heard. Somewhere.

This is why President Nigger signed his internet kill switch bill, and why leftists have suddenly turned so hard against free speech lately: now “free speech” that is not lefty-controlled drivel can’t be clamped down on, can’t be stopped, can’t be neutered, can’t be silenced.

The internet is the doom of left-wing thought everywhere.

But for our nation, it may be too late.