Although I'm unhappy about AD being out for the season, I'm confident that Asiata and McKinnon can pick up where they left off two years ago. Especially with Bradford at quarterback instead of Cassel.
#RabidPuppies #ALTRIGHT #GamerGate
A lot of people ask me whether they should read Gorilla Mindset or Danger & Play: Mike Cernovich’s Guide to Life first. It’s a complicated question, so here’s the short answer:Actually, it's not criticism at all. It's just aimed at a different, more specific, and older market. I would recommend starting with Gorilla Mindset because it is less personal and more practical. It's advice for your life. Danger & Play, on the other hand, helps you better understand the author of Gorilla Mindset, how he originally derived and developed its lessons, and how he has applied them in his life. In other words, the latter provides a deeper understanding of the former, therefore the former should be read first.
Every man, woman, and child can benefit from Gorilla Mindset. Danger Play is for dominant adult men and the women who want to understand their mindset. Gorilla Mindset is my general interest book.
- If you are over 18 and enjoy edgier content, read Danger & Play first.
- If you’re under 18 or want a more accessible, helpful version of me, then read Gorilla Mindset first.
Women read Gorilla Mindset. Aggressive alpha men read Gorilla Mindset. Teenagers read it. You could bring Gorilla Mindset to church. There’s zero politics in it. You wouldn’t know which political candidate I support.
Danger & Play is my edgier, aggressive book.
Long-time blog readers prefer Danger & Play to Gorilla Mindset. That doesn’t mean one book is better than the other. As Vox Day observed in his review of Danger & Play:
It’s not a book you would necessarily want to give to a young man under the age of 18. The saltiness and worldliness of the book is not inappropriate, nor is it particularly offensive by modern standards, but it does tend to preclude giving it to teenagers or putting it in your local school library. I didn’t hesitate to have my son read Gorilla Mindset, I would probably wait until he was 18 or 19 to have him read Danger & Play: Essays on Embracing Masculinity.
That’s a fair criticism, and indeed Danger & Play is a niche book.
The shock for Democrats if Clinton loses will likely be more severe than for Republicans if Trump loses.It's amusing that everyone is focused on the changes that identity politics will make to the Republicans, when the much more serious change is taking place in the Democratic Party. Just like in local Minnesota politics, where the bigamist Somali woman pushed out the long-serving Jewish representative, there isn't going to be any more white Democratic leadership.
One option for Democrats would be to moderate their policies, as the New Democrats urged in the 1980s and Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. After all, that proved pretty successful.
Two decades ago, lots of self-described moderates and even conservatives voted in Democratic primaries. Not so these days. The slump in Democratic primary and caucus turnout, from 38 million in 2008 to 31 million in 2016, was due to a sharp decline in turnout by self-described moderates.
Hillary Clinton’s move from her husband’s 1990s triangulation to her near-total acceptance this year of Bernie Sanders’ left-wing platform was a rational response to changes in the Democratic primary electorate.
One lesson of recent presidential primaries is that Democratic voters are transfixed by identity politics, having elected the first black president and chosen the first female presidential nominee. Another is that there’s a large constituency for left-wing candidates.
What they haven’t been interested in is cisgendered white male liberals. The largely forgotten John Edwards fell by the wayside quickly in 2008, and Martin O’Malley, with credentials similar to those of Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis, attracted zero support in 2016.
That leaves them with no obvious choices if Clinton loses this year. Their most visible and attractive left-wingers, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, will be over 70 in 2020. Prominent black and Hispanic officeholders tend to represent overwhelmingly Democratic constituencies and have made few of the bows to moderation that made Barack Obama a plausible national candidate in 2008.
Erick doubles down on the insanity as the column devolves into self-righteous Churchian Pharisaism while ultimately rejecting both of the choices God Himself has obviously put before us.It's really remarkable what a horrible, and horribly dishonest individual Erick Erickson is. It does not speak well of those Christians who insist on continuing to pay attention to the man and his incessant posturing.
And the logic he uses to do so is horribly, fatally flawed.
Erickson contrasts Clinton’s “tyranny of the minority” with Trump’s “tyranny of the majority” and his “corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism, and dangerous strains of nationalism.”
Since when, Erick, is putting America and Americans above globalist interests a “dangerous strain of nationalism”?
Trumpism, the movement Trump represents, can essentially be defined as taking our country back from foreign, globalist, corporate and establishment interests by securing our border and limiting immigration, establishing a fair, sensible trade policy that protects American jobs, and limiting foreign interventions overseas, among other things.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
By constantly bringing up the “racist” canard, people like Erickson not only lose credibility – because there is not one single shred of evidence that Donald Trump is a racist – but they insult, like Hillary Clinton did, the millions of Americans who passionately support Trump. It’s tired, old and increasingly ineffective, and yet just like the left, who see a “raaacist” behind every tree, hand-wringers like Erickson continue to deploy it to serve their rhetorical ends.
Further, the attacks on the supposed hypocrisy of prominent Christian theologian Wayne Grudem are beyond the pale, especially given the fact that Grudem made it clear that he did not support Trump in the primaries, just as he didn’t support Giuliani in 2012. However, he most certainly would have supported Giuliani over Obama had he won the primaries, just as he is supporting Trump now, with good reason.
Erickson uses the fact that a fellow parishioner at his church tried to make the argument for Trump based on other flawed men in the Bible God has used, like David, Abraham and Samson, as evidence that Trump has “poisoned” the church from within. He believes that while Clinton will do “long-term damage to the country,” Trump will “do far more damage to the church.”
Ironically, Erickson later writes of the church, “But Christ has already risen, so the true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.”
So, which is it, Erick? If you believe that Christ will protect and keep His church, surely you aren’t worried about a mortal human like Donald Trump wrecking it, are you?
You see, unlike our country, the church IS, at root, a spiritual institution impervious to the machinations of man.
After days and days of intensive negotiations, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov finally reached a deal on a cease-fire in Syria which had the potential to at least “freeze” the situation on the ground until the Presidential election in the USA and a change in administration (this is now the single most important event in the near future, therefore no plans of any kind can extend beyond that date).You didn't need to see the radar to know that the bombing of the humanitarian convoy was a false flag. The moment the news about it broke, I said to Spacebunny, "there is no way that isn't fake." At this point, it almost appears that the US government appears to spend more time staging false flags than attempting to stop enemy action.
Then the USAF, along with a few others, bombed a Syrian Army unit which was not on the move or engaged in intense operations, but which was simply holding a key sector of the front. The US strike was followed by a massive offensive of the “moderate terrorists” which was barely contained by the Syrian military and the Russian Aerospace forces. Needless to say, following such a brazen provocation the cease-fire was dead. The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”. What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”. That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.
Next came the pathetic and absolutely unprofessional scene of US Ambassador Samantha Powers simply walking out of a UNSC meeting when the Russian representative was speaking. Again, the Russians were simply blown away, not by the infantile attempt at offending, but at the total lack of diplomatic professionalism shown the Powers. From a Russian point of view, for one superpower to simply walk out at the very moment the other superpower is making a crucial statement is simply irresponsible and, again, the sign that their American counterparts have totally “lost it”.
Finally, there came the crowning moment: the attack of the humanitarian convey in Syria which the USA blamed, of course, on Russia. The Russians, again, could barely believe their own eyes. First, this was such a blatant and, frankly, Kindergarten-level attempt to show that “the Russians make mistakes too” and that “the Russians killed the cease-fire”. Second, there was this amazing statement of the Americans who said there are only two air forces which could have done that – either the Russians or the Syrians (how the Americans hoped to get away with this in an airspace thoroughly controlled by Russian radars is beyond me!). Somehow, the Americans “forgot” to mention that their own air force was also present in the region, along with the air forces of many US allies. Most importantly, they forgot to mention that that night armed US Predator drones were flying right over that convoy.
What happened in Syria is painfully obvious: the Pentagon sabotaged the deal made between Kerry and Lavrov and when the Pentagon was accused of being responsible, it mounted a rather crude false flag attack and tried to blame it on the Russians.
Thermobaric Hellfire air-blasts don't leave craters, and they typically start fires. No craters are visible in footage of the burned convoy.
The Russians have thermobaric bombs, too, according to PavewayIV, but they use different particles and their blast patterns are different: either no "sparkles" or long-duration "sparkles", not the fast-duration flash as seen in the video of the Aleppo blast.
As we reported yesterday, the Russians detected a Predator drone which took off from Incirlik airbase in Syria, flew to the precise location of the convoy, arrived before the strike, stayed for a while, then left after the damage was done.
The other shoe has dropped in the Steve Clevenger saga: The Seattle Mariners have suspended the injured catcher for the rest of the season because of racially-charged tweets about the Charlotte protests, the Black Lives Matter movement and President Obama.This is why the NFL's position on the Black Lives Matter protesters is so transparently hypocritical. The professional sports leagues don't respect free speech in the slightest. They regularly crack down on white players while excusing black players anything short of physically beating women and children.
General manager Jerry Dipoto said in a statement:
“As soon as we became aware of the tweets posted by Steve yesterday we began to examine all of our options in regard to his standing on the team. Today we have informed him that he is suspended for the remainder of the season without pay.”
Clevenger was already on the 60-day disabled list and wasn’t going to play this season anyway. This isn’t about playing time, rather they’re punishing him in his wallet. He’ll now forfeit the remainder of his $516,500 salary for this season. That comes out to about $31,900 for the final 10 games.
Labels: Vibrancy is our strength
This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.One can imagine the tear tracks being carved through the Cheetohs grime covering Glenn Beck's face. I wonder how long it will take the cuckiest of cucks, Erick Erickson, to follow Cruz's lead and reverse course considering that he just planted his flag again earlier today.
In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
The polling has drawn ever closer. More and more people wonder if those of us who are NeverTrump should finally yield knowing that we can beat Hillary Clinton. I am in an odd position. I am mindful that should Trump win, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to Trump. Likewise, I know if Trump loses, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to Trump and Trump supporters will blame people like me for his loss. I suppose I should say not that I’m in an odd position, but that I am in a no-win position.Dude, you voted for Captain Underoos. You voted for a bloody MORMON. You don't get to play the "oh, I'm an evangelical, I'm too holy to care about my country, I'm voting for God" card after that. What the fuck is "the witness of the Church in America" anyhow? Lesbian Unitarians performing gay marriages while the gay Catholic seminarians chase the altar boys and women talk about their mutually submitted husbands in the pulpits of the Protestant churches as the only male pastors left are too busy apologizing for slavery to preach the Gospel?
With Donald Trump’s rise in the polls and the increasingly competitive nature of the race, it is time to reconsider my opposition to Trump. After all, I view Hillary Clinton’s candidacy as anti-American....
I think Hillary Clinton will do lasting damage to the country. I cannot vote for her.
Having reconsidered my opposition to Trump, I think Donald Trump will do lasting damage to the witness of the Church in America and I therefore cannot vote for him.
I am without a candidate. I just cannot vote for either one. Whichever is elected, it is God’s will and as his holy and inerrant scripture commands, I will pray for my President as I pray for the current President. But I will not harm my witness nor risk Trump’s soul to serve my political desires.
The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. I do not believe a vote for either candidate glorifies God and I am certain neither advances his kingdom.
The rise of Chinese investment in Hollywood is raising alarms in Congress, which could complicate studios’ ambitions to strengthen ties to the Middle Kingdom.I tend to suspect Chinese propaganda would probably be less anti-Christian, less anti-white and less anti-American than most of what we've seen out of Hollywood for the last 30 years.
The latest salvo came in a letter from 16 members of Congress last week, which called for closer scrutiny of Chinese investment in the U.S. entertainment and media sectors. The letter cited the Dalian Wanda Group’s acquisitions of Legendary Entertainment, AMC and Carmike Cinemas, and warned of “growing concerns” of Chinese efforts to exert “propaganda controls on American media.”
Wanda has been on a buying spree, of late, announcing a merger between AMC and Carmike that would make it the largest exhibitor in the world. Earlier this week, news broke that Wanda plans to form a multi-picture alliance with Sony Pictures.
Rep. Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, warned that growing Chinese investment could raise strategic concerns.
“Would we raise questions if Russia or Iran was buying large parts of U.S. media and entertainment companies? Of course we would,” Smith said in a statement to Variety. “Raising questions about Chinese investment is no different.”
If presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton slips into a coughing fit or any other medical crisis during Monday's high-stakes debate, she will have to power through, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!The interesting thing is how heavily her handlers are going to drug her. On the one hand, they've got to settle her down, keep her anxiety in check, and suppress her coughing, on the other, they don't want her going out there wild-eyed, manic, and more hyped up than a coke-addled New York Met from the 1980s.
"There are no commercial breaks," a commission source explains. "Period."
Debate moderator Lester Holt does not have the authority to cut away from the stage during the epic 90-minute showdown. And microphone audio for either of the candidates is not to be manipulated.
If we get to $10k by Saturday night I'll run in a bikini and tutu..... it's for a great cause.There is more information about the event on her page, but to summarize, she is raising funds for a prospective cure for Crohn's Disease that is in the testing stage. And yes, I will post the pictures here.
The fundamental uselessness of genocide is best exemplified by the fact that the Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians and somehow missed BOTH the Kardashians and the Sarkeesians.Just to be clear, I'm not banned from Twitter. I just don't see any point in providing free content to a site that not only thought-polices that content, but blocks access to my primary content. And perhaps more importantly, the guys behind Gab are smart, friendly people who aren't SJWs.
Watch out, the DREAD ILK are arriving! Stickwick is here. I thought I could feel the average IQ jump. In other good news, #RunThemDown is trending here. #YouWontSeeThatOnTwitter
@SpacebunnyWe're the George and Gracie of Gab, with just a twist of artistic cruelty.
It's 2016 and literally everything is offensive. So what is the most offensive costume you can come up with for this Halloween?
Milo in blackface carrying a drowned migrant child.
Your observations on the intrinsic branches, or roots, of the Alt-Right greatly helped clarify my own understanding of how the "big tent" ideology and its connected sub-identities would best interact each other. I agree with you that a forward-looking, symbiotic mutualism between the distinct Alt-White and Alt-West branches is desirable at this time. The Alt-White Scotsmen busy administering purity tests, "that person is no true Alt-Right..." have obviously missed point #12: The Alt-Right doesn't care what you think of it. Any branch on the Alt-Right tree that doesn't shut up and produce desirable fruit will be best ignored until it withers away.
I also concur that the implicit tension between the two current branches of the Alt-Right is actually beneficial. There should be healthy, competitive tendency for each Alt-branch to seek out the most effective tactics for its immediate survival and subsequent growth. Attempts to impose one group's identity & tactics onto the other, or merge the two would be as effective as giving a marathon runner two right shoes and then tying his legs together.
In reading through the vigorous chiseling of the comments in the "ALTRIGHT: 16 POINTS", I attempted to make an initial visual depiction of what I could grasp. At that time, I was primarily focused on symbolically distilling out some of the identity politics/tactics of the Alt-Right:
- Opposes the Left
- Opposes the ideas of Equality, Diversity, Tolerance, Progress, Control
- Fights on the identity/culture level
- Accepts any that are willing to fight who subscribe to some/all of its tenets
- Maintains the higher ground (what makes life better?)
- Recognizes the uphill fight requires more energy
It does have flaws, which I can recognize: seems to imply/advocate defensive or reactive tactics, much too wordy, doesn't delineate between the Alt-branches, etc. Praise kek that it did, indeed, lead to a second, more successful attempt which is in more alignment with the clear, tactical understanding of the Alt-Right:
I. Alt-Right is forward-looking and not defensive.
II. Alt-White and Alt-West are independent and distinct branches.
III. Their success, either individually or together, results in success of the Alt-Right.
IV. Other Alt-branches can be added, as long as they share enough of the same philosophy and direction.
V. Alt-Lite can be considered allies, as long as they are not interfering with the two primary branches.
VI. Fighting between branches or internally within a branch is not constructive.
VII. Each branch can be arranged however they see fit (or add their own sub-branches, e.g. Alt-White:US and Alt-West:German).
VIII. Stronger individual branches and a broad collection of branches is ultimately beneficial to the Alt-Right
IX. No branch is more important than the others nor leads the other branches
X. The head of the Alt-Right is Pepe
This iconography does raise the question of "what other viable Alt-branches are there?" for the Alt-Right. I would not be surprised to see Alt-Masculinity be a potential ally given the success and philosophical direction of Roosh.
One prominent figure in the alt-right is Vox Day. Day doesn't directly threaten people, but he does regularly advocate for his readers to harass folks for him. Here's how he advised his readers to treat women like Jessica Valenti, a writer for The Guardian whom he happens to dislike:First, he left out the previous paragraph, which said:
Open up your hate and let it pour over them. Don't think for even one nanosecond that they don't deserve it every bit of the criticism, of the contempt, of the disdainful dismissal that overwhelms them. They are trying to destroy Western civilization. They are trying to destroy marriage and civil society. They are advocates of child murder. They are advocates of a philosophy that makes National Socialism look merciful and Communism practical and Fascism coherent by comparison. Do not hold back. Speak back twice as hard. Speak back until they fall silent.
There are some important lessons to be learned. Firstly, a vehicle isn't going to help when the streets are clogged. You can't drive over dozens of protestors. If nothing else, their bodies will immobilize your vehicle, just as surely as if it became high-centered over a bump. What's more, as soon as you're forced to slow down or stop, you're going to get dragged from your vehicle by angry rioters. That may not be survivable. Much rather use your vehicle to avoid getting into that mess in the first place . . . but you may not have a choice. You may turn a corner in a city center to find the mob coming to meet you, with no time or space to avoid them. If you're on an interstate highway, the on- and off-ramps may be blocked by rioters and/or vehicles with nowhere to go, leaving you stranded with a mob coming towards you, looting every vehicle they pass. This is what I-85 looked like in Charlotte on Tuesday evening.Or to put it more briefly, John Derbyshire was right.
Rioters looted stalled trucks of their cargoes, taking what they wanted and torching the rest. Hundreds of vehicles backed up behind the scene of the crime. If yours was among them, what would you do? Many of those present abandoned their vehicles and fled on foot. That's all well and good, if they had the space and time to do so . . . but what if they didn't? What if the rioters swarmed their vehicle before they could get out? What if they, or a member of their party, had limited mobility and couldn't escape and evade fast enough?
In such a situation, resistance may be your only option. Make sure you have a firearm handy, plus enough ammunition to defend yourself and your loved ones. That may be difficult. It's an unpalatable, raw, brutal fact that you may not be able to offer enough resistance to save yourself in such a situation. If there are a couple of dozen rioters within feet of you, you probably can't shoot fast enough to get them all. Distance is your friend. Even if you use a firearm successfully to defend yourself, whilst that may solve Problem One (immediate survival), it's likely to land you neck-deep in Problem Two. The aftermath of such a riot is likely to see political and social leaders screaming for a scapegoat. If you shoot a few rioters, guess what? You're probably it.
You're just about certain to be arrested and charged with all sorts of crimes, even if all you were doing is trying to save your life and the lives of your loved ones. You may find it very difficult to defeat the charges in court, particularly if witnesses are scarce (or intimidated), and video footage of your activities (from nearby security cameras, hovering helicopters, etc.) is deliberately edited to portray your actions in the worst possible light. Think that won't happen? You're naive.
You need to have a plan, at the first sign of such troubles, to get away from the riots before they get out of control. Make arrangements with family and friends, have bug-out bags and vehicles and plans in place (including sufficient fuel to get out of trouble without having to stop at a gas station, because they'll be magnets for looters). Don't wait until it's too late. Far better to get clear of potential trouble, then return if the trouble doesn't materialize, rather than wait until you're sure there's trouble, but not leave yourself enough space and time to get away from it.
That's likely to be difficult once riots become established. A standard police tactic is to isolate the violence, establishing a perimeter to prevent it spreading. Police will wait at that perimeter until they can see the unrest ebbing, then move inward once again to re-establish control. That works for them, and helps to minimize casualties caused by them (and the political fallout from such casualties) . . . but it won't help you if you're trapped inside that perimeter. The rioters will be all around you, and you won't be able to avoid them. That's not a good place to be. Get to the perimeter if at all possible, and seek police protection. If you can't, you'll have no alternative but to hunker down in place and ride out the storm.
If you suspect you may find yourself in that situation, your location should be prepared in advance to resist that sort of problem. Make sure rioters can't easily break in and get at you. Use obstructions (plants, flower boxes, whatever) to make it difficult to approach windows; put stout burglar bars on windows and security gates on doors, and fortify them if possible with whatever's available; have weapons handy, and make sure that all adults and older children know how to use them. Keep rioters outside, if possible at a distance, so they can't get their hands on you or your weapons. If they do, your resistance is over, right there - and I don't have to tell you what your loved ones are likely to go through under such circumstances.
That's why the best possible solution is to get clear of the trouble and stay away from it until it's died down.
This year I'll publish/have published a novella, stories in three anthologies, a short story collection and a video game. Not a bad year.No, not bad. But of course, that's really not what Tor Books pays him for. What appears to be missing there is the very small matter of a novel. Or two. That being said, I had better not cast too many stones, lest I find myself again addressed as "Vox RR Day" come January. Hey, I'm working on it!
Financial reports for the first half of 2016 from five major publishers showed that none of the companies had a sales increase in the first half of the year; HarperCollins had the best top-line performance, with only a minor sales decline compared to the first six months of 2015. Earnings fell at three publishers in the period and rose at two. Though sales of print books have stabilized, all five reporting publishers said sales of e-books fell in the first six months of 2016 compared to the January–June 2015 period.Sales at Penguin Random House were down nearly 11 percent, at -10.7 percent. HarperCollins did well to remain essentially flat for the first two quarters. And it's only going to get worse, as independent publishers, self-publishers, and Kindle Unlimited continue to take an increasing share of the market.
Account suspendedThis is getting crazy. Twitter is blocking access to my blog, banning Milo, suspending Instapundit... it appears the thought police at Twitter are openly declaring war on the social media Right.
This account has been suspended. Learn more about why Twitter suspends accounts, or return to your timeline.
Sorry, blocking the interstate is dangerous, and trapping people in their cars is a threat. Driving on is self-preservation, especially when we’ve had mobs destroying property and injuring and killing people. But if Twitter doesn’t like me, I’m happy to stop providing them with free content.
Was just on Hugh Hewitt talking about this. Since Twitter won’t let me respond to — or even see — my critics, let me expand here.
I’ve always been a supporter of free speech and peaceful protest. I fully support people protesting police actions, and I’ve been writing in support of greater accountability for police for years.
But riots aren’t peaceful protest. And blocking interstates and trapping people in their cars is not peaceful protest — it’s threatening and dangerous, especially against the background of people rioting, cops being injured, civilian-on-civilian shootings, and so on. I wouldn’t actually aim for people blocking the road, but I wouldn’t stop because I’d fear for my safety, as I think any reasonable person would.
“Run them down” perhaps didn’t capture this fully, but it’s Twitter, where character limits stand in the way of nuance.
Meanwhile, regarding Twitter: I don’t even know that this is why I was suspended, as I’ve heard nothing from Twitter at all. They tell users and investors that they don’t censor, but they seem awfully quick to suspend people on one side of the debate and, as people over at Twitchy note, awfully tolerant of outright threats on the other.
Twitter can do without me, as I can certainly do without Twitter.
Containment, however, is not a winning strategy on its own. Even if you contain a conversation, even if you contain a user base, it can still grow in theory. As degenerate as people are today, quality is easily detected by others, whether it is great art, entertaining jokes or damning evidence. This is why, once a "space" (I'll drop the quotes now, but please note that I don't intend to justify the existing use of this terminology, I intend to dismantle it) is contained, the next move is to ensure its destruction. There are two ways to do this, we will now discuss the first of them:Keep this in mind as you begin to use Gab, Big Fork, and other Alt-SocialMedia. The SJWs will be throwing everything they have at these alternatives in an attempt to neutralize them.
Strategy 2: Dilution and poisoning
Just because a space is contained by no means implies that they intend to leave it alone. Containment keeps people inside the space from going out, like a gated city under siege by a numerically and tactically superior enemy. Dilution and pollution are the artillery and siege weapons deployed to make ensure everyone in the city starves or gets poisoned. Their aim is to destroys the target containment space and ensure those inside surrender and assimilate into the outer safe space.
What keeps a space alive? Two key ingredients: new users and new content (also known as OC). A new participants/lurkers, after becoming familiar with a space, create new content. The OC doesn't make itself after all, and every individual has a finite amount of time and finite will to continue. If they feel they are alone, lacking the will to continue, they will give up. New content, attracts new people and if it directs them to the space that created it, they can participate and grow it. Thus the two parameters are tightly coupled. Lose one and you lose the other.
By diluting the content that exists in a space with bad quality content, it will repel new users. Subtle sliding and shitposts are the main weapon of choice. Burying OC, burying quality posts and ensuring only the rubbish rises to the top. This has an additional benefit, the shitposting will force some users to demand a higher level of moderation. This will go back to the phase of containment, where infiltrating parties will be able to contain the containment through various rules as we saw on gghq and as we are seeing on KiA. The reaction is expected as is part of the strategy.
The other, much more dangerous weapon is poisoning, inserting bad ideas, rotten OC into the target. Making their OC less special/less distinct than that which can be obtained outside in the "safe space". Forcing those inside to play by the rules of the outside, changing their language. Calling them "edgelords" for being different, to shame them from creating certain content. We saw this on KiA where moderators will ban anyone who will call Brian Flynt a man. We also saw this on GGHQ where "dangerous ideas" were censored and the users banned for posting it. The justification is always perception by the outside.
Furthermore, promotion of mixing the enemy narrative and compromising also disinterests new users. An extreme position attracts a lot more people than a dilute position. At this point in time, you can see on twitter how closely the so-called #GamerGate activists resemble the SJWs themselves, from their language, smarm, mannerism and even their beliefs. This is because they are acting as the poison, while simultaneously diluting the discussion with their own low quality content.
On Como Street in Struthers, where CBS News spent a recent weekend knocking on every door on the block, Skook was in the minority. All around her, the community was ditching their Democratic roots and flocking to Trump.I note that Donald Trump has gained 11 points in the battleground state of North Carolina, going from -9 to +2 and taking the lead in the RCP state average. It's too soon to confirm it, but all the indicators of the coming Trumpslide are sliding into place.
Paul Sracic, who has lived in the area for years and is chair of the department of politics and international relations at Youngstown University, described Trump’s “blue-collar billionaire” identity as the perfect cocktail to attract onetime Democrats here.
“They know he’s not really a Republican, and that Mitt Romney hates him, so that helps,” Psaric said of the voters in his community. “So instead it’s like, ‘I’m not becoming a country club Republican, I’m a part of Trump’s party.’”
The story of these defections goes back to March when over 6,171 registered Democrats voted in the GOP primary that was a showdown between Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Even the Democratic mayor of Struthers was caught with a Trump For President sign in his front yard.
But the Democrats here have not come back home. Instead, many of them are still looking to Trump.
I, like some of the Ilk, live in North Carolina and riots have recently occurred in Charlotte.It's reasonably apparent that the Soros money is now being utilized to stir up racial conflict, although it's hard to imagine precisely what the man's desired end game is. Sufficient unrest to justify military intervention? What would that change?
For more information - the area they rioted at is by the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and has such dangerous neighborhood dwellings as Ikea and World Market. Home Depot is the shabbiest part of the area where they rioted. They lit bonfires on the highway so trucks would have to stop, and they were subsequently looted.
Insight into CMPD is that they are kind of like the Detroit PD, as they take care of business when necessary, but are often pretty diligent in avoiding "Ferguson" type scenarios.
Looking at all this, this was not a "burst of spontaneous vibrant anger," but something planned. Often there is discussion of this kind of thing on your site in the comments, but I this is a pretty clear example of what we talk about and are wary of with regards to civil unrest in the US.
Unfortunately, we’re unable to verify you as the account holder and cannot assist you in accessing the account.So, they lock the account for "security" reasons at the same time they block links to this blog, but can't unlock it because I'm not verified. Right. I'm not disappointed at all. It's not a big deal, all I need to do is restore access to my old email address, but right now, I'm just too busy to bother.
If you know which email address is associated with the account and you no longer have access to that email, please contact your email provider for assistance. More information can be found here: https://support.twitter.com/articles/107907.
For privacy reasons, we are not able to provide any additional information about this account’s email address. Even if you mistyped your email address on signup, we require that you write to us from the exact address tied to the account. There are no security questions you can answer nor additional information you can provide as proof of ownership.
While we understand it can be disappointing when you lose access to an account, these account verification requirements are in place to protect accounts and private user data.
Immigration is a modern problem and so some might think that the medieval Saint Thomas would have no opinion about the problem. And yet, he does. One has only to look in his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica, in the second part of the first part, question 105, article 3 (I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). There one finds his analysis based on biblical insights that can add to the national debate. They are entirely applicable to the present.
Saint Thomas: “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.”
Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.
The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and “hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its law.
Saint Thomas: “For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus 22:9): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”
Commentary: Here Saint Thomas acknowledges the fact that others will want to come to visit or even stay in the land for some time. Such foreigners deserved to be treated with charity, respect and courtesy, which is due to any human of good will. In these cases, the law can and should protect foreigners from being badly treated or molested.
Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”
Commentary: Saint Thomas recognizes that there will be those who will want to stay and become citizens of the lands they visit. However, he sets as the first condition for acceptance a desire to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and life of the nation.
A second condition is that the granting of citizenship would not be immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt themselves to the nation. He quotes the philosopher Aristotle as saying this process was once deemed to take two or three generations. Saint Thomas himself does not give a timeframe for this integration, but he does admit that it can take a long time.
Saint Thomas: “The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”
Commentary: The common sense of Saint Thomas is certainly not politically correct but it is logical. The theologian notes that living in a nation is a complex thing. It takes time to know the issues affecting the nation. Those familiar with the long history of their nation are in the best position to make the long-term decisions about its future. It is harmful and unjust to put the future of a place in the hands of those recently arrived, who, although through no fault of their own, have little idea of what is happening or has happened in the nation. Such a policy could lead to the destruction of the nation.
As an illustration of this point, Saint Thomas later notes that the Jewish people did not treat all nations equally since those nations closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close. Some hostile peoples were not to be admitted at all into full fellowship due to their enmity toward the Jewish people.
These are some of the thoughts of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter of immigration based on biblical principles. It is clear that immigration must have two things in mind: the first is the nation’s unity; and the second is the common good.
Immigration should have as its goal integration, not disintegration or segregation. The immigrant should not only desire to assume the benefits but the responsibilities of joining into the full fellowship of the nation. By becoming a citizen, a person becomes part of a broad family over the long term and not a shareholder in a joint stock company seeking only short-term self-interest.
Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot destroy or overwhelm a nation.
This explains why so many Americans experience uneasiness caused by massive and disproportional immigration. Such policy artificially introduces a situation that destroys common points of unity and overwhelms the ability of a society to absorb new elements organically into a unified culture. The common good is no longer considered.
I went to church today and I've been worried for a long time. There have been signs. The original church was extremely intellectual, led by a couple men I respect who learned Greek and Aramaic personally, research like none other and present the Bible in a way I'd never seen in regular church services. Two years ago one of those men was forced out, though I didn't see it at the time because he "left for a new position in another church". He was replaced by young, hipster types leading everything. The lead pastor, whom I also respect, has started backing off, only preaching once a month or so, doing other things while those younger "hipper" people take over.Yes. It's time to leave. Do not discuss it with your wife. It's not something to negotiate; either you are the spiritual leader of the family or she is. Leave and find a new church. She may follow your lead, or she may not, but that's her responsibility, not yours.
A few months ago they started having a woman lead services. They brought in and merged with a chuch from a black area, brought in a lot more minority populations.
I noticed my wife, who's heavily involved in those small groups, started getting really passionate about Good Samaritan type projects and we had a few fights about how I was saying they were scams, as it was a lot of raising money type of deals.
Today it culminated where they actually brought in one of the 49ers who is protesting with Kaepernick and did a sermon on how the "disciples were diverse", and he gave a shpiel about how him and Kaepernick are going to "change the community, because cops can do better, we can do better." Full SJW lie with zero biblical basis. They opened with a video about multi-racial couples and talking about race and probably mentioned diversity 50 times over the course of the sermon.
I walked out during the 49er bit. Now my wife is very very heavily involved in the smaller groups of the church. I grew up with a number of people so the prospect of leaving is like cutting off an arm. What do I do? Is leaving the only thing I can do?
I think I am a “Liberal Christian Nationalist,” and, now that Christians arguably have no real influence in this country – just as they, particularly nationalists, have little influence in Europe (first see here ; then here and here) – this shouldn’t scare anyone.[i] I don’t expect to get too many of my fellow Americans to identify with me in this, nor does it mean I expect to see a LCN party arise. I suspect that the list that I have put together below though – explaining what I mean by “Liberal Christian Nationalism”, might be of more use to countries who are young when it comes to their Christian commitment.The list actually consists of 32 points, but you can read the whole thing there. Unlike the intellectually autistic spergs of the Alt-White, I welcome the rapid expansion of the Alt-Lite, as it drives even more nails in the coffin of ineffective ideology politics in general and American conservatism in particular.
Please note that these points deal with issues of “race” in some detail, since that is, I think, always the elephant in the room and demands thoughtful engagement. Further, in full disclosure, I put together this 32 point list in part in response to a list that the “Alt Right” leader, Vox Day (author of The Irrational Atheist), put together.
Before jumping into my list, a key point: in my view, the Leftism of today includes many who would consider themselves on the political right. Their philosophy is ultimately deferential to the language used in the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision of the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” (of course, logic tells us that “private beliefs” will ultimately only be permitted to be translated into action for some persons – others’ actions will inevitably be determined to be “out of bounds” – see below). A person who is conservative, on the other hand – including those who find room to account for the importance of identity in politics – would continue to agree with the words of the late Russel Kirk – or, perhaps, at least want to agree with him: “[conservatives are] all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.” “Conservatives” who say that what Kirk says is “no longer true” or irrelevant are being anything but conservative. After all, if what Kirk says it is no longer true, how was it ever more than an illusion to begin with (given that he speaks of the words “constant” and “enduring” as if these terms mean something)?
- The history of the world teaches us that the separation of religion and politics is ultimately untenable. Ironically, the possibility of conceiving of a “separation of church and state” could have only taken place in a nation that is largely made up of an influenced by Christians (“give to God what is God’s, to Caesar what is Caesar’s”), who justifiably, at their best, have a reputation for both being simple, humble, content, and not apt to glorify strength.
- The Bible is the Word of God. Whoever you are, Jesus Christ is your Creator, your God, your King. This is what Christians have always believed and taught. It is only for the sake of conversation and common ground with the world – all of whom we are to love with Christ’s love – that we might start by talking about how the Bible “contains God’s Word”, “contains the Gospel”, how Jesus is “our God,” or how we consider the Bible to be authoritative.
- If “true patriotism” means “freedom and equality not only for Americans but for all people on earth,” as Eleanor Roosevelt said, one should consider supporting Christian missionaries who share the Gospel of Jesus Christ – His defeat of sin, death and the devil for us through the (unlikely) victory at the cross vindicated by the resurrection – out of sincere conviction and not with any colonial-esque designs.
- Those countries who have attained a high level of political liberty, including freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion – as well as greater effectiveness, mobility, and choice when it comes to economic issues (made possible by increased trust) – are nations that have been greatly influenced by Christianity.
- Greco-Roman culture, as well as the Renaissance and Enlightenment which drew from it, forced Western forms of Christianity to become much more reflective and nuanced in their understanding of biblical truths. Christianity also seeks to appreciate what is good, true, and beautiful from all cultures (see Philippians 4:8).
- Christians are first and foremost citizens of heaven, not earth. In, but not of the world, their “dual ethnicity” means that they belong first to the kingdom of heaven, and are members of “God’s chosen ethnos” (I Peter 2:9). Though all are one “in Adam,” God has, post-fall, also ordained a diversity of nations (see Acts 17:26), from whom He will obtain worship (Rev. 7:9).
- Biblically, earthly nations are inseparable from the concept of “ethnos,” from which we get “ethnicity”. In like fashion “genos”, from where we get “genes,” can be translated as offspring, family, race, nation, kind, or even sex. We see that these terms involve notions of blood and parentage, even if “ethnos” is more closely connected than “genos” with our notions of culture.
- Ultimately, the Church is a new Nation that re-unites, by faith in Christ, persons not just from this or that race, tribe, or nation, but from the entire human family – making one Nation, or, more accurately, Kingdom, to whom all the earthly nations will stream in the life to come, “Kingdom come”.
- The idea to rather sharply distinguish “church and state” comes from Jesus Christ Himself. He said to “give to God what is God’s and Caesar what is Caesar’s”. It is desirable that the Church and earthly nations support one another even as it is also desirable that each stay out of the other’s core business – the Church forgiving sin and giving eternal life, nations protecting their people while seeking truth and justice.
- It may indeed be better to be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian (mis-attributed to the 16th Church Reformer Martin Luther, though it might seem to sum up his thinking well) though even with this consideration (which seems not to be mindful about continuity), the ideal or preferred persons to lead a nation are, in general, Christians with political gifts – not the leaders of the Church, but Christians nonetheless.
- In contrast to some, there is nothing in the Christian religion that demands we, in our earthly sojourn, must have Christian rulers or even a certain kind of government. If a beloved Christian chieftain or king were to step down to establish a democracy, even with the caveat that the elected ruler must be Christian (e.g. “firm Nicean”) – or at least persons sympathetic to Christianity – it is reasonable to debate whether or not this would, generally speaking, be a responsible move.
- Nevertheless, there is no theological reason, in theory, that a Democratic or Republican (understood classically, not in terms of the American political parties) Liberal Christian Nation should not be desirable – along with the desire to keep it thusly (Ben Franklin: “A Republic – if you can keep it” – see here).
- But if this is the case, here, a “balance of powers” is only one part of the puzzle. Collective theological – and hence cultural – formation must be seen as being absolutely critical: in order to have equality under the law, real respect for the dignity and rights of each individual, a wise degree of cultural tolerance, etc., one must, simply, have Christian teaching. “Liberal Christianity” and their progressive allies are, in fact, parasitical here (see here).
- As “childless men who had forgotten their childhoods” (Bertand de Jovenel), Hobbes and Locke (largely followed by Leo Strauss, the father of “neo-conservatism”) believed the false philosophy that we are by nature “free and independent,” naturally “ungoverned and even non-relational.” (see here) Hypothesizing “states” (personal and corporate!) that are devoid of nationality, ethnicity, and religion is simply unreasonable, and can’t not result in expressions of social Darwinism, glorifying the powerful and attractive, and impatient with, and dismissive towards (or worse) “losers”.
- When it comes to the sexes, the Left has, in essence, rejected fatherhood as a category. Might not the rejection of the notion of “fatherland” by related? (this article is worth pondering) America cannot be “an idea,” however much that statement might force us to consider its seemingly unique qualities.
You are complicit in this! You’ll fine players for large and small infractions but you lack the moral courage and respect for our nation and the fallen to put an immediate stop to this. Yes, I know, it’s their 1st Amendment right to behave in such a despicable manner.The Marine officer hits the key point. Since the NFL aggressively fines its players for other protected expressions, its failure to do so when the players are openly disrespecting the flag and the national anthem makes them complicit in that disrespect.
What would happen if they came out and disrespected you or the refs publicly?
I observed a player getting a personal foul for twerking in the end zone after scoring. I guess that’s much worse than disrespecting the flag and our National Anthem. Hmmmmm, isn’t it his 1st Amendment right to express himself like an idiot in the end zone?
Why is taunting not allowed yet taunting America is OK? You fine players for wearing 9-11 commemorative shoes yet you allow scum on the sidelines to sit, kneel or pump their pathetic fist in the air. They are so deprived with their multi-million dollar contracts for playing a freaking game!
You condone it all by your refusal to act.