ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, April 21, 2018

"Cuck!" they cucked, cuckingly

David French urges conservatives to refrain from going on the offensive against a left-wing professor. It would be unseemly, don't you know.
No, Conservatives Shouldn’t Try to Punish Radical Professors for Offensive Speech

We’re reaching a disturbing point in American discourse where increasingly both sides of the national debate (it’s not the Left that’s driving the firestorm against Jarrar) are looking for ways to justify and rationalize censorship and suppression of offensive views. If the censorship comes through a public employer or government entity, then the Twitterati transforms into a squad of hapless law students, hunting through the results of hasty Google searches to find just the right exceptions to the relevant First Amendment jurisprudence — exceptions that allow for the infamous phrase, “I believe in free speech, but . . .”

If the suppression comes through private employers, then it’s easier to justify. From the left — “Sure, The Atlantic can fire a conservative.” From the right — “Get those damn football players off their knees.” Both sides eagerly obliterate the culture of free speech in the quest to cleanse the marketplace of ideas we don’t like.

But culture drives law, and law drives culture. Every time that we refuse to tolerate offensive expression, we incentivize the culture of crocodile tears. We motivate government officials to expand state power over speech until the silencing exceptions swallow the free-speech rule. California’s recent efforts to compel crisis-pregnancy centers to advertise for free or low-cost abortions represents what happens when the people, to borrow my friend Greg Lukianoff’s excellent phrase, “unlearn liberty.” Periodic conservative efforts to expel radical professors from the academy demonstrate the pernicious effects of a “fight fire with fire” mentality. In both cases, a culture of coercion triumphs and liberty loses.

Here’s an alternative: Leave the trolls alone. Let the radicals rant. Then, rebut the bad speech with better speech, or — sometimes better yet — rebut it with silence. Does anyone really care what Randa Jarrar thinks of Barbara Bush? Or is she now mainly useful as a foil, as clickbait, as the latest pawn in the culture war? I think we know the answer.

If you truly hate the offensive speech in question — if you truly believe it’s hurtful — why share it far and wide? Why amplify the offensive voice? Arguably, the worst rebuke for a troll, the worst punishment for the self-promoting radical, is indifference. I have my own standard for engaging bad ideas — First, I wait. I ask myself: Are these ideas gaining traction? Do they threaten to make a material difference in the marketplace of ideas? If the answer is yes, then I engage. If the answer is no, I let the offensive speech die a natural death.

But killing an idea through censorship? That’s not what free people do.
Actually, it's what people who are not free, but would like to be free, have to do. It's called "reprisal". It's remarkable how these cuckservative idiots are still relying on the same tactics that have uniformly failed for the last 50 years. Why, it's almost as if they want to fail....

Rod Dreher, of course, agrees that nothing should be done. The most important thing when the Left attacks is to not respond, not in kind, and not in any way. Because as long as you keep your eyes shut and pretend it isn't happening, it will eventually stop.
My job here at TAC involves opinion writing. I have been paid for most of my career to state my opinion. Yet no employer of mine — no newspaper, no magazine — would keep me on if I tweeted something as vile as what Jarrar tweeted. It would be devastating to the institutional reputation of these newspapers and magazines. TAC would lose donors left and right, and would take a real hit in terms of its credibility. Any magazine or publication would. I would never abuse the privilege I have. With that privilege comes responsibility.

So, today, I am much less sympathetic to Randa Jarrar than I was when she first spouted off. I still lean towards not firing her. But boy, is she ever a poster child for left-wing academic privilege and arrogance. If the university president fires her for pranking the crisis hotline, I won’t be sorry.
That will show her! Now, I can't help but wonder, do these two gentlemen of principle and champions of free speech also counsel indifference to the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement?

Labels: ,

110 Comments:

Blogger Franz Lyonheart April 21, 2018 6:57 AM  

Jarrar the Hutt

Blogger Tank April 21, 2018 7:13 AM  

Pathetic.

Blogger Robert Browning April 21, 2018 7:18 AM  

Freedom of speech is an absolute. Christians do not punish spoken words. Christians only punish wrongful actions. Christ did no wrong. Christ said things people did not like and was punished for it,severely.

Blogger alex69elijah9yaki April 21, 2018 7:20 AM  

"conservatives" deserve to lose

Blogger VD April 21, 2018 7:22 AM  

Freedom of speech is an absolute. Christians do not punish spoken words. Christians only punish wrongful actions. Christ did no wrong. Christ said things people did not like and was punished for it,severely.

You are a liar and a historical ignoramus. Both God and Christians punish blasphemy. Christians have also punished heresy for centuries. There are still blasphemy laws on the books in many post-Christian states and countries.

Blogger Anno Ruse April 21, 2018 7:23 AM  

Denuclearization of North Korea? DNC suing Trump, prompting Trump to taunt them with discovery and possible countersuit?

Nah, let's talk about cuckservatives cucking cuckily, cuckaroo! It's not like you already wrote a book on it or anything.

Blogger McChuck April 21, 2018 7:24 AM  

The rules of war must be policed by the combatants. When one side violates them, the other side must respond in kind as a punishment. Not to do so is to hand your enemy an extra weapon to use against you, and a way for them to get you to do what they want. This normally leads to defeat.

The highest morality in war is to win.

Anonymous Anonymous April 21, 2018 7:31 AM  

http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=Tongue

Blogger VD April 21, 2018 7:33 AM  

From Infogalactic:

Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania have laws that make reference to blasphemy.[1] Some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days. For example, Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws — a provision based on a similar colonial era Massachusetts Bay statute enacted in 1697 — states:

Section 36. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:

Art. 72, sec. 189. If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at Art. 27, sec. 20, unaltered in text. As late as 1939, this statute was still the law of Maryland. But in 1972, in Maryland v. Irving K. West, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) declared the blasphemy law unconstitutional.[2] This law was still on the books however at least as late as 2003.

Pennsylvania enacted a law against blasphemy in 1977.

Do not comment on subjects of which you observably know absolutely nothing.

Blogger Anchorman April 21, 2018 7:36 AM  

Anno,
What's your blog called?

Blogger Anno Ruse April 21, 2018 7:48 AM  

I'm busy inventing my own platform, Anchorman. Why are you responding to invisible comments?

Blogger tz April 21, 2018 7:52 AM  

Compare John McAdam's treatment. In this case there isn't just tenure, but an actual contract. He defended a student and because he linked to the harrassing professors - grad student's blog, they considered it doxxing and fired him 3 years ago.

The Supreme court is apparenty siding with him - the contract issue is all that is necessary so it might not have to go further.

But to get to some of the stupid "free speech" comments, fraud is not covered. Going beyond fair use in copyrighted works is not covered. Incitements are not covered.

Obscenity was not covered for most of our history, but that is one of the things (((progressive hollywood))) changed.

We used to have blasphemy laws, now we have hate speech laws.

As to the nutty professor from Fresno, She is tenured, so they might be stuck with her, but they can change a basement janitorial closet into her office. Meanwhile the Alumni have stopped contributing. Like Missouri. And Oberlin.

As to the Cucks, when you have a screaming toddler the right thing to do at first is to ignore him, but if he doesn't stop, some action is required to tell his tiny brain there will be punishment. We are well past that point with the left. The usual incoherent screeching can be laughed at effectively, but something so evil and hateful like this deserves a response.

Blogger Howard Stone April 21, 2018 7:54 AM  

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Blogger SouthRon April 21, 2018 7:57 AM  

Arm chair quarterbacks one and all.

They are happy to tell you what should be done, but won't actually get off their larded haunches and fight. Sure you might lose if you do, but if don't, you can still claim you were right and knew what should have been done to win.

Pussies.

Blogger Zaklog the Great April 21, 2018 8:00 AM  

Just a clarification: The First Amendment was originally understood to apply to the federal government alone. The separate states were free to have a state religion and regulations as they wished. I don't really know when this shifted to the current reading. I probably should.

Blogger Howard Stone April 21, 2018 8:03 AM  

This nutty professor is following SJWAL game plan. She will not apologize, and she knows this will all blow over by the next news cycle, and the next time she tweets something stupid, she will get to be guest on Cucker Tarlson.

Blogger Kona Commuter April 21, 2018 8:05 AM  

I'm not an American so take this with a grain of salt

It's my understanding that free speech means that soldiers aren't going around to her flat and dragging her off to be tortured for what she said. If they were then she'd has access to the 2A to protect herself.

Free speech doesn't mean she can say whatever she likes without consequences. Sometimes the consequences are legal, other times they're social and possibly financial.

So she's fair game and if the Cucks won't fight back they need to STFU and get out of the way of those that will (as an aside. I've watched numerous video clips of real world violence. It's been my observation that the minute it looks like the Bad guy is about to lose people rush in to break the fight up. Up until that moment though they let the victim stand alone. There's a lesson there)

Blogger James Dixon April 21, 2018 8:07 AM  

> do these two gentlemen of principle and champions of free speech also counsel indifference to the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement?

Of course not. That might offend our bestest, mostest important ally evar.

Blogger Rocklea Marina April 21, 2018 8:12 AM  

Freedom of speech plus immigration will destroy any nation. Russia, putting Pussy Riot in prison, was righteous. Hungary, passing the "Stop Soros" laws, is righteous. The West, rebuilding Christendom and destroying it's domestic enemies, will be righteous.

Blogger Wandering man April 21, 2018 8:29 AM  

There was an old saying,
"Evil triumphs while good men do nothing"

Blogger Not a lefty April 21, 2018 8:30 AM  

"Conservatives couldn't even conserve the women's bathroom." Best meme ever.

Blogger The Kurgan April 21, 2018 8:32 AM  

This is why I hate these “moderates” probably more than the actual enemy.
Their only use to me is as sandbags.

Blogger Salt April 21, 2018 8:34 AM  

Zaklog the Great wrote:Just a clarification: The First Amendment was originally understood to apply to the federal government alone. The separate states were free to have a state religion and regulations as they wished. I don't really know when this shifted to the current reading. I probably should.

14th Amendment, as all were now citizens of The United States and of the state in which they reside.

Blogger OGRE April 21, 2018 8:45 AM  

@13 The process of incorporating the rights in the bill of rights to the states took place during the early to mid 1900s. The courts interpreted the due process clause of the 14th amendment as, essentially, applying all fundamental rights to all citizens of the United States and prohibiting the states from encroaching upon these rights.

The text of the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Over the years the courts have decided that this includes most, but not all, of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights plus unenumerated fundamental rights. Thus, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to confront accusers, etc, are incorporated into the 14th and thus apply to the states, but others such as right to a jury trial in civil cases, are not.

Blogger Miguel Bárbaro April 21, 2018 8:49 AM  

"Now, I can't help but wonder, do these two gentlemen of principle and champions of free speech also counsel indifference to the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement?"


Shame on you VD. Don't you know that would violate our Judeo-Christian values that go all the wy back to the 60s?

Blogger Steve April 21, 2018 8:52 AM  

"When your back is against the wall, turn around and fight!" - Cuckservative Prime Minister John Major

Blogger OGRE April 21, 2018 8:55 AM  

The woman should be fired because shes a goddam embarrassment to her employer and is a cancer in the education system. We don't need an excuse to go after someone like her...what she said or didn't say, who cares? Shes the epitome of post-modernist, feminist, marxist infiltration into the education establishment and all such instances should be rooted out, no matter if she/they/it insulted the deceased wife of a former President or not.

And tenure is not some impenetrable force field against removal; it simply requires just cause or some other exigency, and provides a hearing and process prior to removal for cause. Moral turpitude is one such just cause and seems quite applicable here.

Blogger Robert What? April 21, 2018 8:56 AM  

"Thank you sir, may I have another!"

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 21, 2018 9:05 AM  

I think the Right needs to rethink Liberty. IMO it is a fine concept but today I seem to have fewer liberties than the protected classes, and seemingly David French is ok with that.

I've long advocated for the strategic goal of freedom from the likes of Jabba the Prof and her enforcers, but it seems conservatives are wishing to have a dialectical discussion with those humanoids and here we are today.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 21, 2018 9:08 AM  

Conclusion; The worst way to go thru life is dusky and mid-wit, used to think it was dusky and dim but obviously to me at least if Jabba was tall, lithe and fair chances are she would not be the loon she is today.

Blogger wreckage April 21, 2018 9:12 AM  

Even if your goal is liberty, the ONLY way there'll be majority support for it, ever again, is if the center and left have the anti-freedom rules turned around and rammed up their arse.

Alt right or liberal right, the needed action is identical: be so aggressive in the use of their rules, that they regret ever penning them.

It's as simple as the old childhood lesson for the tot experimenting with violence against his peers: "How do you like it if I do the same to you?"

Blogger wreckage April 21, 2018 9:19 AM  

For the war analogy, and rules of war: failure to respond in kind to breaches actually makes the breaches too powerful for a rational enemy NOT to use.

Fight back with the same weapon, or you strongly incentivize its continued and expanded use.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd April 21, 2018 9:22 AM  

How much of the need for liberty is a function of ethnicity?
We do know that a great deal of cultural memory can be implanted genetically over time.
Perhaps Anglo-Americans have/had a natural urge towards liberty? Maybe the ethnic European Americans have taken that urge on as well in some instances, due to intermarriage with Anglos.

Nonwhites will never value free speech in significant numbers, though. Maybe an individual here and there might, but never the collective. Blacks don't value it unless it's only reserved for them (like everything else they value), the Latinos don't have a cultural background for it, and don't seem to be as naturally political as other groups; of course, I might be wrong there. I've noticed that 90% of the time it's a very fat and/or solitary Latino woman who is marching, protesting, and rioting for their ethnic group. I guess the attractive young ones and the males are too busy procreating, which is the best political strategy of all in the long run.
The Han don't just dislike free speech. They despise it. The idea of an individual speaking his mind without the approval of a superior is disordered from their perspective. .

The overarching point is that maybe, free speech will reemerge naturally once the ethnic situation is resolved. The corollary is that nothing can save free speech, so long as diversity rules.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 21, 2018 9:27 AM  

As I wrote on the gun control issue we need more Chans and less conservative pose and posture over the latest "outrage porn" from the loony left.

Jabba should be thought of as entertainment, think of bear baiting but without cruelty to something as nice as a bear but instead a humanoid experiment gone horribly wrong.

Gently poke Jabba into spittle rage and keep her tweeting, and I guarantee you she has not yet reached peak tweet lunacy.

Poke- retweet- mock without mercy- delegitimize her institution, and dare I say actually win?

Anonymous Anonymous April 21, 2018 9:27 AM  

A libertarian society can only exist and thrive where the three pillars of the Alt-Right dominate. Those being, 'The European Nations', 'The Christian Religion', and 'The Graeco-Roman Legacy'. In other words, Western Civilization.

The most important in this regard is 'The Christian Religion'. Only it provides the basis for personal self-discipline without which liberty degenerates into license.

History teaches us that the path to a society in which liberty can thrive is through the use decidedly non-libertarian, even violent, means. One does not teach a child by letting him do whatever he wants.

Ad Victoriam, Deo Vindice, Ave Imperator Trump!

--ZhukovG

Blogger Johnny April 21, 2018 9:30 AM  


From the article:
The Supreme Court has long held that academic freedom is essential to American culture:

Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. “The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.”


So much for equal rights. The above opinion, if implemented, gives superior rights to a certain class of people.

And from Findlaw:
Today most social scientists believe very strongly that the research they conduct is important for solving social problems

Translation: Pushing personal political viewpoints at public expense that just happen to coincide with their self interest.

Tenure is something we would now be better off without. Its current commonplace use is to give the professor class the power to lobby at public expense for their political opinions. Not different in kind from those football players making a political statement while on the job.


As for the defense of Randa Jarrar, give me a break it is principled. The publication is taking sides, that's all. Bet ya if a professor lobbied for the right to bare arms in an abrasive tweet freedom of speech would not be such a big deal.


As for her, the most creepy people in this world are those people who don't know they are creepy.


Blogger dienw April 21, 2018 9:32 AM  

Zaklog the Great wrote:Just a clarification: The First Amendment was originally understood to apply to the federal government alone. The separate states were free to have a state religion and regulations as they wished. I don't really know when this shifted to the current reading. I probably should.

That only applies to the establishment clause; yet, the states saw the logic in it and followed suit.

Blogger Crew April 21, 2018 9:47 AM  

OT, but it seems that Jeff Sessions is doing things behind the scenes:

http://www.americanjournalreview.com/sessions-opens-investigation-obama-holder-lynch-defrauded-taxpayers-of-at-least-6-billion/

Blogger Lovekraft April 21, 2018 9:54 AM  

So French and Dreher would passively accept someone stating such drivel about their mothers? If so, they are less than men. If not, hypocrites.

There is lots of talk about the left/right divide in the west, but this is an empty slogan designed to deflect away from the progressive agenda and history.

The left via post-modernism and rejection of cultural standards are what these cucks should be addressing, not our reactions when the attacks continue.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 21, 2018 10:06 AM  

wreckage wrote:It's as simple as the old childhood lesson for the tot experimenting with violence against his peers: "How do you like it if I do the same to you?"

when Make it when I do the same to you. Don't warn 'em, show 'em.

Blogger Vlad Z. April 21, 2018 10:07 AM  

I'm not an expert on the matter, but don't several of the 10 Commandments have to do with speech.

As it was explained to me violation of these laws brings punishment from God.

Blogger Uncle John's Band April 21, 2018 10:11 AM  

Ah yes, rational observers floating above a "both sides" false dichotomy. That tired pose never stops being obnoxious. It's so clearly, objectively untrue that it has to be a deliberate effort at deception.

I guess trying to rationalize how "true conservatives" impartially adjudicate a liberal-conservative conflict could be good rhetorical practice.

Blogger Rocklea Marina April 21, 2018 10:16 AM  

"The left via post-modernism and rejection of cultural standards are what these cucks should be addressing, not our reactions when the attacks continue."

This. Defending free speech as a standard, when that speech is targeted at the very fabric of your culture, is like parachuting with a fishing net.

Blogger Johnny April 21, 2018 10:29 AM  

David French isn't a cuck so much as a clever liar. Perhaps a little less clever than usual here. The commonplace start is to deflect away from the particulars and defend some principle. Either that or a covert attack on the character of the other side.

In this case the problem is selective application. We tolerate all sorts of censorship, except when we don't as in this case.

Blogger Avalanche April 21, 2018 10:32 AM  

@6 "The rules of war must be policed by the combatants. When one side violates them, the other side must respond in kind as a punishment. Not to do so is to hand your enemy an extra weapon to use against you,"

Yessssss, this is what still ... bothers me ... (as I try to lose some more of my baseline conservative ideas) about 4GW. When I first read Lind's book (and if you haven't go do so!), I actually met with a (retired) General friend of mine to discuss my reservations: IF we are to successfully fight people who would burn a captured pilot alive in a cage, does that mean WE must become people who would do that?! He had no answer... (Logistics guy anyway, not a born-warrior?)

There is a sound basis (I think?) to 'mutually assured destruction.' But I'm not sure WE are capable of that level of barbarism (maybe our men are; I'm not one)... I hope our men are...

Blogger Brick Hardslab April 21, 2018 10:35 AM  

If they can criminalize words there is no reason we cannot reinstate obscenity, blaspheme, and decency laws.

What they don't get is that it is really a two way street. I don't feel constrained at all by their appeals to the First Ammendment. Or any law or principle the willful destroyers of civilization espouse.

Don't fire her? In a decent society we'd be discussing whether or not the good ladies of town would be asking her to leave discretely and go live somewhere where decent folks didn't have to be reminded of her shameful display.

Blogger ReluctantMessiah April 21, 2018 10:39 AM  

There's a reason you can't yell fire in a theater. Same applies for spreading lies that undermine the fabric of a nation.

Blogger MickDundee April 21, 2018 10:45 AM  

Don’t forget the Silver Rule by Fat Tony (Nassim Taleb)...

"Start by being warm, pleasant, & generous w/every person you meet;
but if someone tries to exercise power over you, exercise power over him;
& if he messes w/you, remember to keep messing w/him long after he has forgotten about it".

Blogger OneWingedShark April 21, 2018 10:47 AM  

Zaklog the Great wrote:Just a clarification: The First Amendment was originally understood to apply to the federal government alone. The separate states were free to have a state religion and regulations as they wished. I don't really know when this shifted to the current reading. I probably should.
The first amendment is even more constrained than that: it lays restrictions upon only Congress.

I can tell you the 'how' of it, if not the actual 'when' -- It all starts with the realization that the Judiciary, and the USSC in particular, have a drive to usurp power. When the 14th Amendment was passed there was a part in there about States not being able to deny rights guaranteed by the Constitution (little known fact, the Dred Scott case cited one of the reasons of denying citizenship to blacks was because this would allow them to possess firearms: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.") -- so the courts decided to come up with something that's now called "incorporation" to apply constitutionally guaranteed rights against the states.

And here's where the sleight of hand comes in, it's not merely the text that's applied but some "magical change" and then applied to the states, it's most obvious with the first amendment: if the first amendment were applied to the states there is no effect because it specifically and explicitly applies to 'Congress', and none of the states have a Congress. So then, what must happen is the courts apply some sort of alteration and then apply that... and in so doing they have given themselves the power to alter/amend the Constitution at-will.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 21, 2018 10:49 AM  

Avalanche wrote:IF we are to successfully fight people who would burn a captured pilot alive in a cage, does that mean WE must become people who would do that?! He had no answer...

Will you become the sort of person who allows mohammedans to burn people alive, or will you become the sort of person who stops them? Those are the choices. You don't get to choose ``everybody plays nicely.''



If you don't want to win, losing is always an option.

Blogger Jonathan April 21, 2018 10:50 AM  

These people need to remember the old cliche about insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result.

They've lost every cultural battle of the last half century but continue to employ the same tactics.

Blogger wreckage April 21, 2018 10:50 AM  

@43, burning someone in a cage, perhaps not; but they're more than capable of using phosphor, napalm, or incendiaries as the basis for the next attack. The message will be sent.

Blogger tiarosa April 21, 2018 11:05 AM  

Ronda Jarrar's existence is unseemly.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) April 21, 2018 11:17 AM  

hey, don't go too hard on the Crunchy-Con. at least he's not calling for the death of National Review writer communities.

Blogger Crush Limbraw April 21, 2018 11:22 AM  

My standard answer now when someone blames the Left:
Politics - the Dems would not have accomplished anything without the Pub enablers.
Culture - Conservatives and Churchians surrendered it without a fight.
Stop blaming the enemy - look in DaFreakingMirror and 'Do your job!'- if you don't know what it is - ask!

Blogger snod snodwon April 21, 2018 12:00 PM  

When simulated actors play iterated games of trust, that strategy is known as tit for tat and is the best strategy to use versus defection. You must punish before you forgive and cooperate again. Actors that don’t do this get blown out of the game as the other side just defects every round.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener April 21, 2018 12:02 PM  

As I wrote on the gun control issue we need more Chans and less conservative pose and posture over the latest "outrage porn" from the loony left.

Yes, time spent being outraged is totally unproductive. Yet being outraged is all the cuckservatives can ever accomplish.

Blogger bob kek mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) April 21, 2018 12:04 PM  

this weeks episode of 'Legion' ( season 2, ep 3 ) starts with an amusing little vignette.

they explain the concept of contagious Conversion Disorder ... and cite some historical examples.

the conclusion which i drew, and which i'm pretty sure they didn't want me to draw, is that the modern push for normalization of Homosex is the inducement of a new ( old ) Conversion Disordered populace.

Blogger Jack Amok April 21, 2018 12:10 PM  

David French isn't a cuck so much as a clever liar.

Oh, he's both. Remember his children. Let's just call him a cuckspirator.

Don't fire her? In a decent society we'd be discussing whether or not the good ladies of town would be asking her to leave discretely and go live somewhere where decent folks didn't have to be reminded of her shameful display.

In a descent society we'd assume of course they'd do that and probably be wondering why they hadn't run her off already. In a really descent society, her husband would be expected to control her if she can't control herself. I'm assuming she isn't married, being the obscene land whale that she is, and if there is a Mr. Jabba, obviously it's not to a man with any self-respect or authority.

French of course isn't a man with any self-respect or sense of authority. Women who look like Jarrar are not mentally healthy. Men who behave like French (adopting foreign children) aren't either. The rest of us are morons if we allow ourselves to be lectured to by lunatics.

Blogger Jack Amok April 21, 2018 12:11 PM  

Oh, and also, Jarrar has to go back.

Blogger Sherwood family April 21, 2018 12:54 PM  

The time to fight the enemies of decency and civilization from a stance of detached civility is long past. We must be willing to use every method at our disposal to win. Because if we do not, then no civility, decency, or civilization will be possible again for the foreseeable future.

Blogger Lovekraft April 21, 2018 1:02 PM  

@56 Mando: I'm watching that right now (on another mental plane). Alan Moore's "Providence" pushed this idea heavily - that ideas can alter perception and even reality (open 'gates')

Also, the part with Farouk telling David that his father (Charles Xavier) was a white man imposing his western views on his legitimate rule. Waaay back in the comics, all we saw was Prof X and Farouk mentally battling on the astral plane. I didn't know any backstory.

Great show. Preacher seas 3 coming soon.

Blogger DonReynolds April 21, 2018 1:39 PM  

Mr. French is dog stupid, and that is not intended as an insult to dogs. But I will give him a choice. He can choose to be stupid or he can be known as unfair.

It is UNFAIR to have separate rules for black and white. It is UNFAIR to have separate rules for Left Wing and Right Wing. It is UNFAIR to have separate rules for Men and Women. But of course, if the Left (and the Leftist Media) did not have double standards, they would have no standards at all. Hypocrisy on the hoof, talking out both sides of their mouth. Nothing but walking contradictions.

Anything that would be used to get a Right person fired from their job or forced to resign is EXACTLY the same things that should be used to fire a Left person or force them to resign. No Exceptions. No Excuses. No BS.

If we have to peacefully accept any of our people being burned at the stake for "misconduct", WE will insist on exactly the same treatment when the offender is not one of our people.

WE are fast getting to the point where the ONLY people who can be terminated, or removed from office, or forced to resign are those on the Right. This is intolerable and unacceptable....and Mr. French can go straight to hell.

Anonymous Anonymous April 21, 2018 1:48 PM  

"If you defeat your enemies, they win."

These cucks are the "conservative" version of Trudeau.

Blogger tublecane April 21, 2018 2:00 PM  

I'm not convinced French actually is a conservative, rather than an android designed specifically to annoy me.

Remember when the left was all "Up against the wall, mutha******!" a few decades ago on campus? French would have let them have their way with his mother instead of so much as raising his voice.

Blogger Avalanche April 21, 2018 2:00 PM  

@48 Will you become the sort of person who allows mohammedans to burn people alive, or will you become the sort of person who stops them? Those are the choices. You don't get to choose "everybody plays nicely."
If you don't want to win, losing is always an option.
"

Don't think that answers my question. Two VERY obviously different people: those who would burn people alive - and those who IF THEY COULD would immediately kill the people trying it. (One takeaway from The 4GW Handbook is the ... sense? ... that to beat them we must (almost?) become them. Become ... THEM?! Is that not nearly the opposite of "us"? Do we need to cease being "us" to win?)

Our soldiers will not (I HOPE!)(I think I hope?) become the kind of people who burn pilots alive in a cage. They already ARE the kind of people who would immediately kill the guys putting the pilot in the cage, spreading the gas, and bringing the match. Those two kinds of people are clearly different! (Are they not?) (Well, except -- so many of them had to 'sit out' actively stopping the rape of young boys in Afghanistan... "it's their culture." So, in that 'way' they were not the kind of people who stop atrocities.)

How not "plays nicely" do we have to go for 4GW? That's not clear and I have not yet read Lind's "Maneuver Warfare Handbook" (don't know if I ever will; such things are no longer in my bailiwick). Do we need to become ACTIVELY "evil" such as the moslems are -- or merely actively-but-defensively killers. (NO problem in the slightest with the second... real queasy about the first. NOT sure it's a clean boundary either.

Does winning require reaching a level of applied violence such AS burning a pilot alive? Beheading people alive? I'm not aski.... well, I guess, I AM asking: can we not find a balance? I'm ... not entirely unhappy about killing off not just the jihadi's but their families too. My position is: When you are fighting an infestation of lice, you must ALSO kill ALL the nits! I'm not pleased about that; I worry about the negative effects on OUR guys -- but it's easy/easier for me to sit away here and say: do it. Kill the whole damned village: men, women, children, and oxen; then salt the earth. (Gee, I wonder where THAT concept comes from...)

Blogger tublecane April 21, 2018 2:05 PM  

Can anyone tell me why we have such a thing as tenure anymore? Are universities a net contributor to society anymore? Are they not as corrupt as every other institution? Aren't they down in the muck with the rest of us, not above it all?

So long as they're going to chase money, conspire to destroy civilization, be "engaged" rather than a respite from the rest of society, let them be fired like everyone else. Or don't give them money.

Blogger wrf3 April 21, 2018 2:22 PM  

snod snodwon wrote:When simulated actors play iterated games of trust, that strategy is known as tit for tat and is the best strategy to use versus defection. You must punish before you forgive and cooperate again. Actors that don’t do this get blown out of the game as the other side just defects every round.
That's mostly right (there may be some better strategies than tit for tat, but all involve punishing defection). The question then becomes, "who administers the punishment? The individual who was defected against, or a third party?" Vox argues for the individual. But that's self defeating, the way hitting a dog is self-defeating. I would also argue that it's un-Christian (YMMV). You have to have an [unbiased] third party that punishes evil.

Blogger Steve April 21, 2018 2:35 PM  

It's interesting that even after one of their own was publicly deplatformed, disemployed, flayed, taxidermied and mounted as a fat, gay, NeverTrump trophy, the cucks still don't get it.

If the fate of Kevin Williamson didn't teach them how this game is played, nothing will. These guys are like human cattle, eagerly trotting into the slaughter chute.

Blogger James Dixon April 21, 2018 2:44 PM  

> IF we are to successfully fight people who would burn a captured pilot alive in a cage, does that mean WE must become people who would do that?!

No. But it does mean take no prisoners and kill as many as possible. You cross us, you die. That's enough. Of course, if the only way to kill them is to burn them alive, then it sucks to be them.

> In a decent society we'd be discussing whether or not the good ladies of town would be asking her to leave discretely and go live somewhere where decent folks didn't have to be reminded of her shameful display.

In a decent society, she'd be having the phone she used to tweet this removed from her the nether portions of her anatomy. Possibly just for starters, as she might enjoy that.

Blogger Uncle John's Band April 21, 2018 2:57 PM  

@ 65. tublecane

So the bold academics can traffic in "dangerous" ideas and speak truth to power, of course.

More realistically it locks in the sinecure without needing to worry about performance metrics any more. But you know this. It is ironic that tenure is what allows Jordan Peterson to continue triggering SJWs without fear of losing his job.

Anonymous Anonymous April 21, 2018 3:12 PM  

do these two gentlemen of principle and champions of free speech also counsel indifference to the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement?

They are fine with Facebook enabling sex for rent ads. David French can't wait for his wife's niglet to get older.

: IF we are to successfully fight people who would burn a captured pilot alive in a cage, does that mean WE must become people who would do that

Garroting moslems with a bacon bits covered rainbow feather boa is fine. Moslems smell even worse when burnt.
"Investigation Finds Facebook is Enabling Gay ‘Sex for Rent’ Arrangements Targeting Young Homeless Men"
https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/landlords-are-offering-free-rooms-in-return-for-gay-sex-and

Blogger DonReynolds April 21, 2018 3:21 PM  

It is difficult for people to get their mind around the nature of war. Some think it is like a sports rivalry. Some think it is like a high noon shootout, under rules that define what is a "fair fight". Almost always, it amounts to swapping licks on the playground. We take turns.

I used to illustrate the matter with a question to my class.....
How many of the ENEMY are you willing to kill to save the life of only one of your own people?

Many thought a one to one ratio would be fair. Others thought it should be 2 of the enemy to every one of your own. Almost no one guessed the right answer.... ALL of them.

You are willing to kill ALL of the enemy to save just one of your own people. That, boys and girls, is the nature of war.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 21, 2018 3:59 PM  

Christians do not punish spoken words.
Tomas de Torquemada would like a word with you.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener April 21, 2018 4:02 PM  

Here's one easy way to push back against some of the SJW madness taking hold: download backup copies of your favorite gun videos, which a certain major streaming video service is now busy deleting.

This handy little tool makes the process pretty quick and painless and gives high quality results.

https://github.com/MrS0m30n3/youtube-dl-gui

Blogger jandolin April 21, 2018 4:15 PM  

The cucks are pussyfooting around the issue. Jarrar is right in stating Barbara Bush raised a war criminal. The cucks are avoiding the issue with the claptrap about left wing activism. Jarrar, Arab/half palestinian,is advocating her ethnic interests when she voices the Arab rage against American bombing of Arab civilians in Iraq and Syria on behalf of Israel.

Blogger Lovekraft April 21, 2018 4:23 PM  

@ jandolin.

If you think anyone here will agree with this woman, I think you are in for a bumpy ride. I can argue for free speech while at the same time calling for it to be taken away from someone like her. You would have to convince me that her interests align with mine.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 21, 2018 4:25 PM  

You have to have an [unbiased] third party that punishes evil.
And if that "unbiased" 3rd party refuses to punis evil, what then?

Blogger jandolin April 21, 2018 4:28 PM  

Lovekraft,

The issue is whether Dubya is an American patriot or a war criminal? The preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that Dubya is a war criminal.

Blogger Unknown April 21, 2018 4:47 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 21, 2018 5:10 PM  

Avalanche wrote:Don't think that answers my question. Two VERY obviously different people: those who would burn people alive - and those who IF THEY COULD would immediately kill the people trying it. (One takeaway from The 4GW Handbook is the ... sense? ... that to beat them we must (almost?) become them. Become ... THEM?! Is that not nearly the opposite of "us"? Do we need to cease being "us" to win?)

It exactly answered your question: either we do everything that is necessary to stop them, or we allow them to continue. If we can only stop them by burning them alive, then we either burn them alive or allow them to continue. Those are the only choices.

Burning at the stake was a traditional remedy in Western Civ for witchcraft and heresy, so I'm not sure that we should dismiss burning mohammedans out of hand, even if it's not strictly necessary for this specific issue.

Avalanche, you are a girl, and we don't expect you to take part in these unpleasant but necessary actions. We do expect you to not impede the men fighting on your behalf.

Blogger Unknown April 21, 2018 5:11 PM  

Forget free speech. That's become another idiot distraction bloviated by the best democracy money can buy. We've entered the age of petty thoughtcrime, and both the Left and Right and everyone in-between are wagging their fingers and clutching their pearls. They also have their fingers on the shock therapy button.

From the Left, the shocks come in an intense bunch, once per outraged wagging finger, lasting until every little twit has had its push. It has to be expressed by everyone don'tcha know. It's effective only for those prone to being shamed.

From the Right, the button gets pushed once and for all, when a mighty wind passes from under the cathedral's cassock. The method is effective at controlling the masses.

From the Alt-Right, the shocks are few but are targeted to groups, stopping only when the desired condemned are roasting in their boots. It's effective for eliminating undesirable seedstock from yet another faux-Eden.

Everyone wants everyone else to live by their rules, to think and behave (and look) like they do. Ultimately, it comes down to what you are prepared to do for the society you want, and whether you can persuade others that God is with you.

People have been debating this sort of thing for centuries. Christians too: free grace, or grace given freely. The uniforms change but the battle continues. Don't expect it to end any time soon.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 21, 2018 5:16 PM  

jandolin wrote:The cucks are pussyfooting around the issue. Jarrar is right in stating Barbara Bush raised a war criminal. The cucks are avoiding the issue with the claptrap about left wing activism. Jarrar, Arab/half palestinian,is advocating her ethnic interests when she voices the Arab rage against American bombing of Arab civilians in Iraq and Syria on behalf of Israel.

War criminal? Meaningless. Bush was a traitor who sold out his nation, repeatedly. Barbara Bush was married to one traitor and raised another. May God have mercy on her soul.

None of that matters to the issue at hand, which is that Jarrar the Hut is a Leftist and a Fake American. She needs to be hounded out of her job and out of our nation. Bad-mouthing the wife of one traitor and mother of another is as good an excuse as any.

Blogger wrf3 April 21, 2018 5:28 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:And if that "unbiased" 3rd party refuses to punis evil, what then?
Then you need to spend some time in self-reflection to figure out how you managed to get into that position.

Blogger Mister Excitement April 21, 2018 5:32 PM  

Hi there David French.

We don't want to get an extreme Leftist fired over one comment.

We want the extreme Leftist completely destroyed because she's an extreme Leftist that wants to destroy our entire civilization.

And all her fellow travelers, too. Dropped from helicopters.

Her opinion on Barbara Bush is far less important.

Oh, and stop bragging about being an "Iraq War Vet." You were a JAG fobbit.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 21, 2018 5:37 PM  

On ``to beat them, you must become them:'' in the 1600s the Dutch and English regarded the Spanish as almost demonic because of their cruelty. Barely a century before that, they had completed a 700 year war to throw out the mohammedan invaders. The Spanish did not become mohammedans, but they learned from them.

We will have to harden ourselves a bit to destroy the mohammedans.

Anonymous Anonymous April 21, 2018 6:42 PM  

what David French did

is adopt a niglet

in order to virtue signal his Jew paymasters @ Nat Rev.

Blogger DonReynolds April 21, 2018 6:49 PM  

There are lots of radical professors that work at lots of different college campuses and many of them say stupid Leftist blab...every day. So I am neither surprised or dismayed that one could be found to badmouth Barbara Bush as she died.

What is important here is the journalist (and the managing editor) of the Media outlet that decided it was somehow newsworthy. It was not, even (especially) on the occasion of Barbara Bush's recent passing. It was a tasteless dig and insult, we would normally associate with the Westboro Baptist Church at the graveside services of American dead military. They have come to mock the dead and insult the living.

(In my own family, they would have been provoked to pull axe handles from their cars and discuss the matter with the protesters up close and painful. That sort of pushback is coming.)

Blogger Mister Excitement April 21, 2018 7:39 PM  

"(In my own family, they would have been provoked to pull axe handles from their cars and discuss the matter with the protesters up close and painful. That sort of pushback is coming.)"

The good ol' axe handle.

My dad had one in his truck, too.

Blogger James Dixon April 21, 2018 7:40 PM  

> You are willing to kill ALL of the enemy to save just one of your own people. That, boys and girls, is the nature of war.

Exactly. People who don't understand this don't understand war.

> The preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that Dubya is a war criminal.

Then try him in the International Court of Justice. We're not signatories but that won't matter for the symbolism. But you can't be bothered to do that because it would require some kind of evidence, wouldn't it?

Blogger James Dixon April 21, 2018 7:44 PM  

> In my own family, they would have been provoked to pull axe handles from their cars and discuss the matter with the protesters up close and painful.

That is the correct course of action in a case like this, yes.

If Bush the elder want to burnish his image with alt-right, he could simply go visit the woman (and I use the term loosely) in question and put the cane he undoubtedly carries up aside her head.

Blogger van helsing April 21, 2018 7:48 PM  

i agree that we are past the "just ignore them" stage, and the left needs to be whacked hard repeatedly for every offense. and french is past being a cuck. BUT... i see no reason to exert much if any energy to defend any bush. if french wants to, let him "lead" that counter attack. the muzzie jabba the hutt prof needs a long fatshaming. and she has to go. the timelines on those two can... merge. and if ya start digging... old babs has some fairly interesting forebears herself. and that "beautiful mind" comment is a lot to live down. a pox on the prof, babs and french.

Blogger tz April 21, 2018 9:39 PM  

They don't even have Jefferson:

“Mr. Jefferson proposed, the children of Israel in the wilderness led by a cloud by day, and a pillar by night—and on the other side, Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs, from whom we claim the honor of being descended, and whose political principles and form of government we have assumed.” 

From An article in AmConMag

It isn't reason or philosophy, but tribal knowledge and mythology

For Jefferson, though, Hengist and Horsa represented the great republican tradition of the Germanic tribes sitting under the oak trees, deciding what was common law and what was not, speaking as representatives of their people in the Witan, and living as free men, bound to no emperor. To the American founding generation, Hengist and Horsa were as real as Cincinnatus, the Roman republican who threw down the sword, refused a permanent dictatorship of the city, and walked into the country to spend his life as a farmer. In the long scheme of things, the accuracy of the founders’ understanding of history matters little. They believed in Cincinnatus, Hengist, and Horsa, and they acted accordingly.

Blogger MickDundee April 21, 2018 10:03 PM  

The preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that Dubya is a Deep State f**got and I’ll be glad when his whole crooked family is cold in the grave.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 21, 2018 11:01 PM  

Then you need to spend some time in self-reflection to figure out how you managed to get into that position.
So, no response is allowed, only self-crtiçism.
Cuck.

Blogger Quilp April 21, 2018 11:04 PM  

I still see people defending the Gorsuch decision earlier in the week based on Cucking. It goes something like this: The law (which is trying to undo a lack of immigration enforcement by the left) is too vague, Gorsuch was entirely right , correct, and most of all conservative to strike it down. CONGRESS needs to fix it! Pip pip and all that.

Congress aint fixing shit, and everyone knows it. So what we end up with is Conservatives once again allowing leftist abuse of the law, the system, America, to stand...because they find the correction too vulgar. One more time for those still hanging on to "conservative principles" - leftist abuse stands, criminal Aliens cannot be deported, but by God you conservatives didn't allow a potentially abusive law to stand, and stuck to your principles!

Blogger Dos Voltz April 21, 2018 11:47 PM  

"Actually, it's what people who are not free, but would like to be free, have to do."

This struck me instantly as a lightning rod concept. Worthy of development.

A title like "Ten Commandments for an Unfree People."

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2018 12:08 AM  

TOO has an article on the mores of a baseball game that demonstrates the stupidity of the conservatives. "Yea, he high cleated me, but I am better than that". "We cut our best pitcher because he dished out some payback on their guy.Completely against our principles as a team. that's. not. who. we. are!" "We can only win games when we teach our opponents to play by our rules, otherwise all is lost".

"Maybe next year!"





Blogger By My Greybeard! April 22, 2018 8:23 AM  

MickDundee,

The last, ‘...keep messing...long after...’,
is simply too time consuming and poor use of resources!

It is much better to, after a single warning, go “nuclear” and destroy the source of irritation than to continually allocate resources|efforts|attention to the critter attempting unrighteous dominion.

Of, everyone needs a hobby. If one finds a particularly irritating Proggie, tagging the torment the particular Proggie, or even an entire faction, “a hobby” is well within bounds. That puts it beyond the “careful allocation of scares resources” (e.g.,effort and attention) "decision block" and into the "necessary (for mental hygiene) unwinding and fun block" on the Resources Allocation sheet.
;-D

On a personal note:
I get great satisfaction out of “making a hobby” of subjecting several particularly annoying local Proggies to continuing in-kind repayment.

It helps me keep my outlook cheerful b|c I know these particular specimens of dregs aren't getting off from their shenanigans scott-free!

Sincerely,
–BmG

Blogger By My Greybeard! April 22, 2018 9:12 AM  

Noah,

Agreed!

It also helps discharge, or discharges the motivating and energizing (righteous) Anger the hoi-paloi of those who self-identify as “conservative”... acting as a type of "governor" on their ability to respond.

At a guess, (not an educated one), more than seventy-percent of the hoi-paloi of the so-called "conservative movement" would have actually “conserved” 1950's America if they hadn't been "managed" by these faux-adversaries of the Progressive movement. In my more than five decades of being politically active, I've often seen situations where the rank-and-file were boiling with righteous indignation at a Proggie action but the “thinking heads” and Washington General members of both Houses have siphoned-off the energy that would have corrected the matter.
[aside] The hoi-paloi rose in anger more often in the past... I think they're finally succumbing to weariness.

Until recently, a prime way was for the Washington General members of either or both Houses to promise and swear to act.

They'd then drag their feet until the outrage had burned itself out.

Whenever they were forced to actually do something, it would be obviously insufficient in some way.

For example: the legislation didn't address the actual problem that aroused people, but a "related" non-problem.

By "related", I mean a problem one could, if they were convinced (or assumed) the legislators were blithering idjits, see those legislators mistaking as the threat to the Republic.

Or, the legislation would be obviously legally flawed and easily struck-down; or obviously unenforcible.

There are many other ways they dampened the hoi-paloi's enthusiasm for participation in self-govenment.

Wow! I didn't realize I'd run so long! I better end here.

Blogger Lovekraft April 22, 2018 9:42 AM  

@77 Jandolin:

Your issue is for another day. We're talking about a feminist/muslim (any difference, really? They both want to weaken/destroy western masculine Christianity) sticking her pudgy foot in her mouth and being called out for it.

You can agree with her message, but don't come here and think we are going to give that 'educator' a free pass. People like her have spent decades undermining social norms and now reels when that same society doesn't treat her like the weak female she (vaguely) appears to be.

As for the Gulf War/911/Saudi connection:

I remember watching the buildings go down and shed a small tear for the fact that my life from that day onward wouldn't be the same again (meaning live the comfortable head-in-sand materialistic and shallow life). I would thereafter have to take a hard position and leave many comforts behind.

Then to this day my position is: we in the west are linked to the ME because we purchased their rotten organic matter. Wish it weren't so. The muslim world used this to spread breeding colonies throughout our western nations and have incrementally advanced their caliphate via unspeakable horrors.

My position is complete repatriation of muslims, destruction of all mosques, energy independence, cancellation of all debt owned by Israelis/other ME states) and treat anyone calling for future connections with the Middle East and muslim world as insurrectionists/traitors.

That good enough for you?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 22, 2018 10:01 AM  

Lovekraft wrote:My position is complete repatriation of muslims, destruction of all mosques, energy independence, cancellation of all debt owned by Israelis/other ME states) and treat anyone calling for future connections with the Middle East and muslim world as insurrectionists/traitors.

That good enough for you?


Why stop there? Once we have complete energy independence, we can nuke the mohammedan cities in the Middle East and smash their oil fields, and make a good start on ending mohammedanism.

Blogger Argus Bacchus April 22, 2018 1:10 PM  

Looks like the fat degenerate sometimes loves her some white dick.

We're shocked.

Check out what the buttery blob has to say starting at about 48:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdLog6r4iFY&ab_channel=Zookmann

The only thing she would hate more than the white patriarchy is being deprived of the right to live in a country founded by and populated by white patriarchs with white dicks.

As expected.

I wonder why these degenerates would disallow comments for this video.

I can't think of a single reason.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 22, 2018 2:07 PM  

@77 jandolin

The issue is whether Dubya is an American patriot or a war criminal?
---

No, the issue is whether we should allow some #FakeAmerican sh!tholer to badmouth any Americans or spout off their foreign garbage.

Xhe should be #ChainDeported immediately.

Nobody would care what she says from her sh!thole of origin.

Blogger wrf3 April 22, 2018 3:40 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:So, no response is allowed, only self-crtiçism.
That's not what I said. But if there is no unbiased third-party to come to your defense what kind of response will you -- beset and alone -- give that you think will be effective?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 22, 2018 4:24 PM  

wrf3 wrote:That's not what I said. But if there is no unbiased third-party to come to your defense what kind of response will you -- beset and alone -- give that you think will be effective?
That is precisely what you said:
1) Run to complain to amenable authority
2) If amenable authority refuses to act, then look to your own behavior.

How about we destroy them instead?

Blogger wrf3 April 22, 2018 6:11 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:That is precisely what you said:

1) Run to complain to amenable authority

No, I said that there has to be an unbiased authority that punishes evil. An unbiased authority isn't necessarily amenable to one's cause.
2) If amenable authority refuses to act, then look to your own behavior.
Yes, I said that if there is no authority to which you can turn for redress, then you have to examine yourself to see why that's the case. Beset and alone is no way to live one's life.
How about we destroy them instead?
There's a lot to unpack there. One can destroy enmity to killing an enemy or converting them. Are you proposing the former or the latter? Live by the sword, die by the sword, someone famous once said. Too, what do you mean by "we"?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 22, 2018 6:15 PM  

wrf3 wrote:No, I said that there has to be an unbiased authority that punishes evil. An unbiased authority isn't necessarily amenable to one's cause.

I said that if there is no authority to which you can turn for redress, then you have to examine yourself to see why that's the case. Beset and alone is no way to live one's life.


God alone is the unbiased authority. THERE IS NO OTHER . There never has been and never will be.
I don't intend to wait for the particular judgement to protect my people.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 4:02 AM  

What's the traditional Sharia punishment for mouthy women who don't know when to shut up?

Tongue cutting?
Acid dumped on her head?

We need to be informed on this...

Ah, screw it, just burn her house down.

Blogger Dirk Manly April 23, 2018 4:14 AM  

@27

"I think the Right needs to rethink Liberty. IMO it is a fine concept but today I seem to have fewer liberties than the protected classes, and seemingly David French is ok with that."

Well, he's Canadian.
Liberty actually IS a foreign idea to him.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts