Tag: rhetoric

And whatever happened to that whole “speech has consequences” idea they were pushing anyhow?

Back in September, we reported that TV network OAN had filed a lawsuit against Rachel Maddow for the time the host said that OAN “really, literally is paid Russian propaganda.”

Now, Maddow finds herself having to come up with a defense for her statement in court. And she has also apparently hired Lionel Hutz as her legal adviser.

According to Culttture, her lawyers argued in a recent motion that “…the liberal host was clearly offering up her ‘own unique expression’ of her views to capture what she saw as the ‘ridiculous’ nature of the undisputed facts. Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.”

So Maddow is looking for the court to give her a free pass to say anything she likes, because her words can never be considered true or false. It’s an interesting, and perhaps even novel, legal theory, but I tend to doubt even a sympathetic liberal judge is likely to accept it.

Especially given the particular emphasis she really, literally, placed upon it.

However this is an excellent example of what happens when an individual abandons Truth, as he – or she – eventually becomes incapable of seeing or even speaking the truth.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson talks a good talk about defending the right of Christians to practice their faith. Let’s see him start by defending British people attacked for practicing their faith and reading the Bible in public:

Christmas Day is, first and foremost, a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. It is a day of inestimable importance to billions of Christians. Today of all days, I want us to remember those Christians around the world who are facing persecution. For them, Christmas Day will be marked in private, in secret, perhaps even in a prison cell. As Prime Minister, that’s something I want to change. We stand with Christians everywhere, in solidarity, and will defend your right to practise your faith.

It sounds like a good start. But sooner or later, he will have to address the fact that being a Christian has been redefined by the Prometheans as “anti-semitic”. As, of course, has nationalism, self-interest, and drinking coffee.

Just as conservatives have been forced to choose between their professed ideological principles and not being called “racist’, Christians are increasingly going to be forced to choose between their professed religious faith and not being called “anti-semitic”. The Devil seldom bothers learning new tricks because the old ones work so well.

I would also be remiss if I failed to note that Johnson talks about “your faith” in regard to Christianity, not “our faith”.

If men can identify as women, there is no rational reason to deny those of one race the ability to identify as the member of another race. In fact, the transracial case is stronger, given that racial labels are, unlike sex chromosomes, genuinely social constructs. Godfrey Elfwick was right all along. #Wrongskin

Anyone should be allowed to ‘identify’ as black regardless of the colour of their skin or background, according to Left-wing university leaders.

The Universities and Colleges Union has set out its stance in a report on the ongoing row about whether men should be able to self-identify as women and be treated as female regardless of their anatomy.

The UCU’s ‘position statement’ did not just stand by its support for self-identification of gender, but also insisted people can choose their own race, saying: ‘Our rules commit us to ending all forms of discrimination, bigotry and stereotyping. UCU has a long history of enabling members to self-identify whether that is being black, disabled, LGBT+ or women.’ 

Immigration is a Ponzi scheme with people.

• Conservatives are as useless as bowties on a battlefield.
• They say you shouldn’t kick a man when he’s down. But it’s harder to kick a man in the head when he’s still standing.
• Homeschool or die.

None of the post-Baby Boomer generations fall for the “do it for the children” rhetoric anymore:

Motorists in Germany, the automotive heart of Europe, are not taking kindly to Swedish youth climate activist Greta Thunberg. Some drivers are sporting bumper stickers telling the girl, in so many words, to take a hike.

At the age of 15, Thunberg captivated a large segment of the media in Europe and the US with her impassioned calls for immediate action on climate change, prompting similar activism from youths the world over. As many German cities prepare to go carless, however, some drivers have not been appreciative of Thunberg’s globetrotting activism, and they aren’t afraid to tell their fellow motorists.

‘F**k you Greta’ bumper stickers appear on German roads, taking aim at youth climate activist

Some German social media users also noticed the trend, but not everybody found humor in the vulgar stickers, which can now apparently be purchased on Amazon.

“White Audi Q7 with sticker ‘F**k you Greta’ – is this the new ‘a heart for children’?” asked one Twitter user.

You’d think the global warming shills would have learned from the complete failure of the Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings to even move the needle on gun control. No one gives a damn if one, two, or a thousand kindergartens are reported as being shot up; they’re still not giving up their guns.

And most German motorists would quite cheerfully run over the Gretard before even considering giving up their autos and autobahns.

Besides, if the planet is overheating due to overpopulation, who gives a damn about children’s lives, let alone what they happen to think? And, perhaps more importantly, why would you let even one single immigrant enter the country and contribute to global warming?

Matteo Salvini demonstrates why he is going to be the first Prime Minister of an independent and sovereign Italia.

Golden Globe winner Richard Gere visited a boat with 121 migrants on board in international waters near the Italian island of Lampedusa. Gere was pictured delivering food supplies to the migrants on board, who have been rescued by Spanish NGO Open Arms. In a barb to Italy and his own leader President Trump, he said: ‘Demonizing people has to stop everywhere on the planet. What most people refer to as migrants, I refer to as refugees that are running from a fire.’

The right-wing League leader Matteo Salvini, whose party topped the polls in the recent European elections, hit back. Salvini said: ‘Given this generous millionaire is voicing concern for the fate of the Open Arms migrants, we thank him: he can take back to Hollywood, on his private plane, all the people aboard and support them in his villas. Thank you Richard!’

Hilarious. And effective. Grazie, Richard!

Especially when it comes from the Bully Pulpit:

Somalia President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo voluntarily renounced his U.S. citizenship, a country where he lived, received education and worked.

“This follows the completion of the required legal and immigration processes that had been initiated after the president’s election,” his office said Thursday in an emailed statement.

The renunciation comes about two weeks after President Donald Trump attacked four minority freshmen congresswomen including Somali-born Ilhan Omar, whom he asked to return to the Horn of Africa nation.

It’s a start, anyhow.

Ron Unz reconsiders the plausibility of Pizzagate in light of the Epstein and McCain revelations:

Given my awareness of this remarkable track-record of major media cover-ups, I’m ashamed to admit that I had paid almost no attention to the Jeffrey Epstein case until it exploded across our national headlines earlier this month, suddenly becoming one of the biggest news stories in our country.

For many years, reports about Epstein and his illegal sex-ring had regularly circulated on the fringes of the Internet, with agitated commenters citing the case as proof of the dark and malevolent forces that secretly controlled our corrupted political system. But I almost entirely ignored these discussions, and I’m not sure that I ever once clicked on a single link.

Probably one reason I paid so little attention to the topic was the exceptionally lurid nature of the claims being made. Epstein was supposedly an enormously wealthy Wall Street financier of rather mysterious personal background and source of funds, who owned a private island and an immense New York City mansion, both regularly stocked with harems of underage girls provided for sexual purposes. He allegedly hobnobbed on a regular basis with Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, and numerous other figures in the international elite, as well as a gaggle of ordinary billionaires, frequently transporting those individuals on his personal jet known as “the Lolita Express” for the role it played in facilitating illegal secret orgies with young girls. When right-wing bloggers on obscure websites claimed that former President Clinton and the British Royals were being sexually serviced by the underage girls of a James Bond super-villain brought to life, I just assumed those accusations were the wildest sort of Internet exaggeration….

Around the same time that I first became familiar with the details of the Pizzagate controversy, the topic also started reaching the pages of my morning newspapers, but in an rather strange manner. Political stories began giving a sentence or two to the “Pizzagate hoax,” describing it as a ridiculous right-wing “conspiracy theory” but excluding all relevant details. I had an eery feeling that some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch caused the entire mainstream media to begin displaying identical signs reading “Pizzagate Is False—Nothing To See There!” in brightly flashing neon. I couldn’t recall any previous example of such a strange media reaction to some obscure controversy on the Internet.

Articles in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times also suddenly appeared denouncing the entirety of the alternative media—Left, Right, and Libertarian—as “fake news” websites promoting Russian propaganda, while urging that their content be blocked by all patriotic Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Prior to that moment, I’d never even heard the term “fake news” but suddenly it was ubiquitous across the media, once again almost as if some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch.

I naturally began to wonder whether the timing of these two strange developments was entirely coincidental. Perhaps Pizzagate was indeed true and struck so deeply at the core of our hugely corrupted political system that the media efforts to suppress it were approaching the point of hysteria.

Not long afterward, Tara McCarthy’s fine Pizzagate videos were purged from YouTube. This was among the very first instances of video content being banned despite fully conforming to all existing YouTube guidelines, another deeply suspicious development.

I also noticed that mere mention of Pizzagate had become politically lethal. Donald Trump had selected Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his National Security Advisor, and Flynn’s son served as the latter’s chief of staff. The younger Flynn happened to Tweet out a couple of links to Pizzagate stories, pointing out that the accusations hadn’t yet been actually investigated let alone disproven, and very soon afterward, he was purged from the Trump transition team, foreshadowing his father’s fall a few weeks later. It seemed astonishing to me that a few simple Tweets about an Internet controversy could have such huge real-life impact near the top of our government.

The media continued its uniform drumbeat of “Pizzagate Has Been Disproven!” but we were never explained how or by whom, and I was not the only individual to notice the hollowness of such denunciations. An award-winning investigative journalist named Ben Swann at a CBS station in Atlanta broadcast a short television segment summarizing the Pizzagate controversy and noting that contrary to widespread media claims, Pizzagate had neither been investigated nor debunked.

Here is my prediction: Pizzagate will, sooner or later, be largely confirmed to be true, most likely sans a few of the more lurid and cartoonish elements, and, as with the Epstein case, will turn out to be more sinister and of larger scale than even the conspiracy theorists initially believed.

As always, you can trust the lies and illogic to guide you toward the truth. Which is to say, once you know someone is lying, once you see that someone is presenting an obviously false syllogism, you know there is a specific truth that they are desperately trying to hide. The fact that the oft-repeated claim that Pizzagate has been “debunked” without any of the so-called debunkings being at all logically coherent, let alone conclusive, is sufficient to indicate that there are specific truths being hidden underneath the denials.

Imagine if we were to utilize this debunking logic in other scenarios.

• Major Premise: Conspiracy theorists claim Donald Trump is the President of the United States.
• Minor Premise: A crazy man tried to attack Donald Trump at a rally in Vandalia, Ohio.
• Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that Donald Trump is President of the United States is debunked!

After the media collaborated with Richard Spencer to poison the term “Alternative Right”, we simply began to describe ourselves, accurately, as nationalists. Specifically, as “Nationalist Right” to distinguish ourselves from the left-wing imperialists of the Fake Right. Since the media’s many subsequent attempts to poison that term have absolutely failed despite their best efforts, both the Left and Right factions of the globocracy are now attempting to capture it.

Nationalism, by its nature, excludes people. Raising one’s nation above others begins with defining what that nation is — and who belongs in it.

It’s theoretically possible to have a liberal nationalism, even a socialist nationalism, that welcomes foreigners interested in joining the nation’s ranks. The last president’s rhetoric about what Americans have in common, and how immigration strengthens the country, strikes me as a species of liberal nationalism.

But conservative nationalism by its nature not like that. It holds that community arises from longstanding and deep connections between citizens, connections that come from their shared identity, history, and cultural values. This is what is “conservative” about it, and also what makes it inclined to view the entry of foreigners into the American polity skeptically.

So now instead of liberalism/socialism vs conservatism they’re attempting to set up a false dichotomy of liberal/socialist nationalism vs conservative nationalism. Their problem is that despite their best efforts to redefine “nationalism”, the word still actually means something substantial to most people.

And not, as the NatCucks, aka Neoclowns 2.0, would have it, in “a repudiation of racism, libertarianism, and identity politics.”

Nationalism, in the American context, means America First. Not “we must defend our Greatest Ally” or “we must bomb X for the children” or “we must invade Y because weapons of mass destruction” or “the problem is ILLEGAL immigration” or “the Z is rotting in the fields!” or “they have the Magic Paper so they are just as American as you”. Nationalism means rejecting the Proposition Nation, the Huddled Masses, the Melting Pot, and the 1965 Invasion Act. It means rejecting Judeo-Christianity, the Athens+Jerusalem equation, equality, desegregation, diversity, and every other historical falsehood that is being utilized to adulterate, devalue, degrade, and demoralize America.

And no amount of placing adjectives in front of the word nationalism in order to gatekeep the genuine nationalists is going to work. But the mere fact that they feel the need to do so now confirms that the long-term macrosocietal trends are finally flowing in our favor.

I keep being asked if I’m willing to debate X or interested in talking to Y. The answer is no. What point is there in debate when most of the people watching are totally incapable of having their minds changed by the information exchanged and those who don’t even bother watching or listening to it are nevertheless willing to lie about it. Consider these two recent YouTube comments concerning what passed for my “debate” with Andrew Anglin:

honkyness
Didn’t know about the Andrew Anglin interview.  You did some serious dodging Vox – damn disappointing.  I have no idea where you stand on the only thing that matters – the onslaught on Western Civilization and its people.

Hunter of Witches, Orcs and Goblins
I saw that debate recently and I’ll admit I was secretly rooting for Anglin because I instinctively tend to root for people who are brave enough to fight unwinnable battles. That said you absolutely brutalised him. Even to call it a debate is a misnomer. It was an hour long history lesson with a whiny little pupil who ended up learning nothing. He couldn’t even improvise, he was reading everything from a piece of paper and didn’t even respond to anything you said. He was so intellectually inept and puny that it actually hurt my opinion of Anglin, he did nothing but whine and cry about “muh censorship”. Seriously, get in line. Who isn’t being censored?

In my both debates with Andrew Anglin and Bob Murphy, my opponent was totally – 100 percent – unable to even begin addressing the points I made. Neither of them raised a single point that was in any way new to me or that I did not address – if not refute entirely – with ease. And yet, there were still a sizable minority of viewers who claimed that Anglin or Murphy somehow won the debate.

So, when people ask me why I turn down debate invitations these days, that is why. As usual, it comes down to MPAI. I have always preferred written debates, and at this point, that is the only format that even potentially interests me anymore.