[Waqqle]

(01-22-2019 11:54 AM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

How can a man of his stature and life experience lower himself in this way? How on earth did he think this was remotely okay?

Clinical psychopathy and narcissism. He didn't think it was ok. He knew it wasn't and he didn't care. That's how someone behaves if they view other people as being exclusively instruments to be used for the attainment of some personal end (such as fame and status for the narcissistic psychopath) and they are incapable of experiencing the neurological phenomena of guilt, remorse, fear, shame, and anxiety.

[Renzy]

(01-22-2019 11:01 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

1984.

Pretty much. This whole debacle is the Leftist NPCs dutifully participating in their two minutes of hate after the MSM put up the picture of modern day America's Emmanuel Goldstein - a conservative Christian white male "smirking" in the face of diversity.

[EndsExpect]

(01-22-2019 11:51 AM)Waqqle Wrote:  

This is along the lines of what I said earlier and I agree with you. When you are losing, appeal to compassion.
When you are winning, either destroy your enemy completely or make an ally of them lest they re-form and re-engage you at a later point in time.
A former enemy who has been made into an ally is more loyal than an ally who has always been an ally because, unlike the latter, the former will forever feel that they must prove themselves and their loyalty lest the job of their complete destruction be resumed and brought to completion.

This is very untrue. If we look at history, former enemies are much more likely to betray you because they often do not give up their former grudges and are resentful of your power.

What makes men loyal is when they fight by your side and share in the spoils. If you seek to make an enemy into a loyal ally you must give them significant benefits.

There is no way to turn Liberals to the cause. No way to "red pill" them. They are in that group because of who they are, not what they believe. The majority of people just do and say what's popular... those people will just follow whoever is in control.

I'm just saying here that this is like Herpes. Its going to keep flaring up and the only thing that will stop it is if someone in a position of power and authority starts punishing media people for their evil.

[Waqqle]

(01-22-2019 12:03 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:51 AM)Waqqle Wrote:  

This is along the lines of what I said earlier and I agree with you. When you are losing, appeal to compassion.
When you are winning, either destroy your enemy completely or make an ally of them lest they re-form and re-engage you at a later point in time.
A former enemy who has been made into an ally is more loyal than an ally who has always been an ally because, unlike the latter, the former will forever feel that they must prove themselves and their loyalty lest the job of their complete destruction be resumed and brought to completion.

This is very untrue. If we look at history, former enemies are much more likely to betray you because they often do not give up their former grudges and are resentful of your power.

What makes men loyal is when they fight by your side and share in the spoils. If you seek to make an enemy into a loyal ally you must give them significant benefits.

There is no way to turn Liberals to the cause. No way to "red pill" them. They are in that group because of who they are, not what they believe. The majority of people just do and say what's popular... those people will just follow whoever is in control.

I'm just saying here that this is like Herpes. Its going to keep flaring up and the only thing that will stop it is if someone in a position of power and authority starts punishing media people for their evil.

Just went back and edited that to say "often." Thanks for catching it. I make typos a lot. When I referred to enemies who become allies, I don't mean people who accept subjugation under humiliating conditions after surrendering in a war like the Koreans under the Japanese Empire. I mean enemies who, after you have killed or expelled most or all of their leadership, are made allies through the provision of various benefits and privileges that they could not secure on their own and even in many cases made full citizens within the empire with all the rights and status of one of your native-born subjects.

This can be seen in the case of Scotland. Once bitterly anti-English, virtually all major population zones in Scotland voted against independence (with the exception of Glasgow) and Scots account for a disproportionately high number of both British military veterans and casualties in British wars. Since their absorption into the UK as allies, they seem to have gone out of their way (speaking generally of the nation as a whole, not individuals) to prove themselves and contribute to the UK. And why did they refuse independence? Because Scotland is a money fire. It consumes far more than it gives in terms of economics and tax revenue. The benefits it gets as a member nation of the UK are those benefits which it would not likely be able to secure on its own and, now that its people are accustomed to said benefits and the lifestyles which they afford, a great many of them will likely be willing to fight to preserve the UK should independence ever come up as a serious possibility again.

Another example of this is Puerto Rico which follows a virtually identical pattern to that of Scotland. Formerly at war with the US as part of Spain, vastly overrepresented among US military personnel, entirely reliant upon the imperial government as it is an economic basket case incapable of sustaining its current affluence independently, etc.

Like London did with Scotland, Washington made allies of the Puerto Ricans by throwing money and benefits at them, increasing the value of their travel documents, and bringing massive numbers of them into the US military. The same can also be said for American Samoa and Guam which are the two American territories which now have the highest per capita representation in the ranks of US military despite the fact that they used to be part of separate countries. They have been made allies and are now more loyal to the empire than even most white Americans born in Virginia and New York because their homelands are entirely dependent upon the empire for absolutely everything.

Another example is the Philippines where the general population tends to have a higher opinion of the US than Americans do. This is in spite of the fact that the US was horribly brutal in the Philippine-American War and did originally enter the country as a foreign invader. So why do Filipinos love America so much? Because, unlike the Spaniards (who previously ruled and never managed to fully subdue the population), the US (after killing and/or exiling most of the major resistance leaders) built schools, taught people to read and speak English, built the postal system, infrastructure, etc. and provided Filipinos with the privilege of living and working in the US where they could send money back home in amounts previously unimaginable. Virtually the entire education system of the Philippines was built by the US and still follows the American model. During the American colonial period, the Philippines had the best postal system, roads, education, and infrastructure in all of Asia (possibly just behind Japan) and they were only able to have that because of the US. On average, Filipinos have more good things to say about the US than Americans do even still today as they are no longer a colony and it is a rare individual who does not wish to visit the US at least once. This is because they were made allies and still today benefit hugely from their closeness with the US, a colonial overlord which at one time only a little over a century ago ruled them with a bloody iron fist. Filipinos are strongly represented in the ranks of the US military as well.

Examples could go on all day but that's the basic pattern: Eliminate most or all of the leadership, shower the populace (most of whom have no real loyalty or stake in the elite leadership) with benefits that they could not secure independently, and continue this until they become used to their status within the empire and/or as an ally to it. Once this pattern has been run through, it is more likely than not that the majority of the populace will be more loyal to the empire than most of the natives who originally built it because, more than the natives, they are truly dependent on it and would stand to lose much more if it should be dissolved or compromised whereas the natives are likely putting in more than they get back from their own elite ruling class to sustain the empire as well as all of its holdings and alliances.


As for liberalism as a philosophical plague, yes, it will keep popping up as we see explained in the Fate of Empires. None of this is entirely new.

[vinman]

Thanks for your concern, but I'm ok.

   

[Jetset]

(01-22-2019 12:20 PM)Waqqle Wrote:  

Just went back and edited that to say "often." Thanks for catching it. I make typos a lot. When I referred to enemies who become allies, I don't mean people who accept subjugation under humiliating conditions after surrendering in a war. I mean enemies who, after you have killed or expelled most or all of their leadership, are made allies by various benefits and privileges that they could not secure on their own.

Et tu, Brute?

[Leonard D Neubache]

(01-22-2019 12:03 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:51 AM)Waqqle Wrote:  

This is along the lines of what I said earlier and I agree with you. When you are losing, appeal to compassion.
When you are winning, either destroy your enemy completely or make an ally of them lest they re-form and re-engage you at a later point in time.
A former enemy who has been made into an ally is more loyal than an ally who has always been an ally because, unlike the latter, the former will forever feel that they must prove themselves and their loyalty lest the job of their complete destruction be resumed and brought to completion.

This is very untrue. If we look at history, former enemies are much more likely to betray you because they often do not give up their former grudges and are resentful of your power.
...

This depends on to what degree the enemies are fundamentally your own people. When the Berlin wall fell it wasn't long before everyone was just German again. The duality of the East and West still existed but nobody was at all concerned that one day they would go back to being enemies and build that wall again. I very much doubt the Germans even bother to make the East/West distincion anymore.

Meanwhile half a dozen generations later the divide between black and white Americans over historic slavery still simmers among many blacks and among the Southerners who were subjugated by the North in the process of enforcing Lincoln's rule.

Better to force your fashionable liberals to take the matter seriously now, before they end up on the other side by default. Sometimes less is more.

"Well, you make your choice. At some point soon things are going to get ugly. Side with your people or with the people that hate you. But choose soon, because that window is closing."

[Waqqle]

(01-22-2019 01:07 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

"Well, you make your choice. At some point soon things are going to get ugly. Side with your people or with the people that hate you. But choose soon, because that window is closing."

Reminds me of the thread on libertarianism from a while back.

None is more despised than he who takes no side. A conquered enemy who finally accepts defeat can be respected for his conviction and an ally can be cherished for his loyalty in the face of uncertain odds, but a neutral onlooker who is only waiting for the dust to settle before he decides which side to claim as his own will be reviled by both sides and will be alone.

However, the onlooker is very often the general of his own faction, to which he and others unseen owe their allegiance, who has instigated the conflict between the two only to prevent them from noticing his presence and that of his cohorts in their treasure rooms and armories until it is already too late for either of them to realize what has happened and they have weakened themselves and each other to the point that they can no longer resist him.

Divide and conquer. Sew malice between your foes and then wait until they are weakened and then strike decisively without mercy. Just as when Wei observed with folded arms the hostilities between Shu and Wu and conquered Shu immediately after the smaller Shu had exhausted itself in fending off an assault from the larger Wu, giving Shu no time to rest or re-organize before striking. After absorbing Shu, Wei went on to establish the Jin dynasty and conquer Sun Wu to secure its supremacy over all the lands of the Han and end the Three Kingdoms Period.

He who bides his time and strikes only after his enemies have weakened themselves by their battles with each other may be despised by both initially but, in time, the reasons for this will be forgotten by all but the most astute historians and, as the names of his foes are lost to time, his own name will come to be associated with victory and likely even with the nation that he formed from the ashes of those he deceived and overwhelmed, if it is ever known at all.

[911]

(01-22-2019 01:07 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:03 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:51 AM)Waqqle Wrote:  

This is along the lines of what I said earlier and I agree with you. When you are losing, appeal to compassion.
When you are winning, either destroy your enemy completely or make an ally of them lest they re-form and re-engage you at a later point in time.
A former enemy who has been made into an ally is more loyal than an ally who has always been an ally because, unlike the latter, the former will forever feel that they must prove themselves and their loyalty lest the job of their complete destruction be resumed and brought to completion.

This is very untrue. If we look at history, former enemies are much more likely to betray you because they often do not give up their former grudges and are resentful of your power.
...

This depends on to what degree the enemies are fundamentally your own people. When the Berlin wall fell it wasn't long before everyone was just German again. The duality of the East and West still existed but nobody was at all concerned that one day they would go back to being enemies and build that wall again. I very much doubt the Germans even bother to make the East/West distincion anymore.

Meanwhile half a dozen generations later the divide between black and white Americans over historic slavery still simmers among many blacks and among the Southerners who were subjugated by the North in the process of enforcing Lincoln's rule.

Better to force your fashionable liberals to take the matter seriously now, before they end up on the other side by default. Sometimes less is more.

"Well, you make your choice. At some point soon things are going to get ugly. Side with your people or with the people that hate you. But choose soon, because that window is closing."

The Black/White divide is mostly artificial, constructed through social engineering and the brainwashing of Blacks with a judeo-marxist culture of victimhood. Blacks lived in traditional communities in the 1950s with stronger family structures than whites. those communities weren't affluent, but they had none of the social devastation of modern Black America.

They were shipped to northern cities in an effort to destroy both their communities and those of ethnic European communities in cities like NY, Chicago, Philadephia, Detroit etc, where they took on the mantle of proxy warriors in an ongoing cultural marxist war against middle America.

This dynamic is very similar to the current one being played out in western Europe with the onslaught of islamic/African migrants being used as a weapon to destabilize the European middle class. People like David Horowitz, who in the 1960s were actively funding Black extremist groups and pulling their strings, are today funding psyop factories like Jihadwatch, using islamic fear porn to take over the right and advance their (((agendas))).

E. Michael Jones, the sharpest, most righteous American intellectual alive, has carefully documented this process:

[Buck Wild]

(01-22-2019 01:49 PM)911 Wrote:  

The Black/White divide is mostly artificial, constructed through social engineering and the brainwashing of Blacks with a judeo-marxist culture of victimhood. Blacks lived in traditional communities in the 1950s with stronger family structures than whites. those communities weren't affluent, but they had none of the social devastation of modern Black America.

They were shipped to northern cities in an effort to destroy both their communities and those of ethnic European communities in cities like NY, Chicago, Philadephia, Detroit etc, where they took on the mantle of proxy warriors in an ongoing cultural marxist war against middle America.

This dynamic is very similar to the current one being played out in western Europe with the onslaught of islamic/African migrants being used as a weapon to destabilize the European middle class. People like David Horowitz, who in the 1960s were actively funding Black extremist groups and pulling their strings, are today funding psyop factories like Jihadwatch, using islamic fear porn to take over the right and advance their (((agendas))).

E. Michael Jones, the sharpest, most righteous American intellectual alive, has carefully documented this process:

I would dispute the bolded claim. My grandparents were part of the Great Migration from the South to Northern cities. They left the South because Jim Crow had gotten to be completely ridiculous and out-of-control. They sought the protection of the law and the South, at that time, was no place to get it whereas the North was unknown and still somewhat romanticized from stories about the Underground Railroad, etc.

However, I generally agree that the black vs white conflict in this country is largely orchestrated and can't survive without constant and increasing volumes of kindling being chucked onto the fire.

[Dusty]

[url=https://twitter.com/ingrahamangle/status/1087783479247552513?s=21][/url]

[SamuelBRoberts]

(01-22-2019 02:08 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

[url=https://twitter.com/ingrahamangle/status/1087783479247552513?s=21][/url]

Someone suggested this a few pages back, and I said to myself, and almost posted, "Yeah, that's a great idea, which is why it won't happen. Trump never backs up his supporters, he leaves them out to rot."

I am so, so happy that I was proven wrong.

[Cr33pin]

My cuck father said he wanted to slap the smirk off that kids face when I asked him if he'd been keeping up with it.... then said the Indian guy went over and got in his face cause he was trying to protect the kids from the racist Hebrews. Sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree

[Cr33pin]

The Indian guy calls the kids a mob and says he was afraid the "mob would descend upon those 4 guys (Hebrews) and rip them apart"

[ChicagoFire]

(01-22-2019 11:54 AM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

I have a lot of thoughts on this and most have them have been detailed in other posts & commentary throughout the Internet.

But one under-remarked upon phenomenon I'd like to address here is the complete and utter failure of the many adults in this situation to act as such. The spectacle of a 70 year old tribal elder and war veteran using a national platform to disseminate lies about children is so unbecoming, so undignified a word like "revolting" doesn't even begin to describe it.

How can a man of his stature and life experience lower himself in this way? How on earth did he think this was remotely okay? Where is his dignity? Where is his fatherly wisdom? His stoicism? Where is his fucking manhood?

One of the most stinging indictments of our times is the fact that these MAGA kids were, by far, the most dignified and honest human beings in a too-ludicrous-to-be-believed scenario that included the following atrocities:

• The Native elder telling lies about children on national TV
• The Kentucky diocese and school officials throwing children under the bus to save themselves
• The mainstream conservative press cucking immediately
• Dishonest mainstream press jumping the gun on the story due to anti-MAGA bias and slavish need for ratings & clicks as its business model circles the drain
• Twitter mobs of deranged psychos threatening violence against children
  

This list of things actually happened. Social media, the erosion of even nominally Christian social mores, feminization and the eager embrace of victimhood culture have so degraded men and masculinity that children are now many times the most dignified human beings in a given scenario. Think for a moment about how debased and childish your mindset would have to be to do this to a group of children...and now consider that multiple institutions and thousands people actively colluded to do just that. We live in such trivial and juvenile times that to secure redress for (perceived) wrongs, adult men have to eradicate any last vestige of personal honor and dignity and position themselves as victims in the most humiliating and dishonest way possible. If this isn't a victim culture then I don't know what is.

For shame.

[Batka]

(01-22-2019 11:54 AM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

I have a lot of thoughts on this and most have them have been detailed in other posts & commentary throughout the Internet.

But one under-remarked upon phenomenon I'd like to address here is the complete and utter failure of the many adults in this situation to act as such. The spectacle of a 70 year old tribal elder and war veteran using a national platform to disseminate lies about children is so unbecoming, so undignified a word like "revolting" doesn't even begin to describe it.

How can a man of his stature and life experience lower himself in this way? How on earth did he think this was remotely okay? Where is his dignity? Where is his fatherly wisdom? His stoicism? Where is his fucking manhood?

One of the most stinging indictments of our times is the fact that these MAGA kids were, by far, the most dignified and honest human beings in a too-ludicrous-to-be-believed scenario that included the following atrocities:

• The Native elder telling lies about children on national TV
• The Kentucky diocese and school officials throwing children under the bus to save themselves
• The mainstream conservative press cucking immediately
• Dishonest mainstream press jumping the gun on the story due to anti-MAGA bias and slavish need for ratings & clicks as its business model circles the drain
• Twitter mobs of deranged psychos threatening violence against children
  

This list of things actually happened. Social media, the erosion of even nominally Christian social mores, feminization and the eager embrace of victimhood culture have so degraded men and masculinity that children are now many times the most dignified human beings in a given scenario. Think for a moment about how debased and childish your mindset would have to be to do this to a group of children...and now consider that multiple institutions and thousands people actively colluded to do just that. We live in such trivial and juvenile times that to secure redress for (perceived) wrongs, adult men have to eradicate any last vestige of personal honor and dignity and position themselves as victims in the most humiliating and dishonest way possible. If this isn't a victim culture then I don't know what is.

For shame.

+1,000,000



The only ones who come out of this with any dignity are the kids. The adults in the room need to grow the fuck up.

[Mr. D]

Already posted this in the Lounge, but still...

[dicknixon72]

(01-22-2019 11:25 AM)Waqqle Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 11:19 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

Nathan Phillips, Fake Marine
Stolen Valor at its Finest
https://quodverum.com/2019/01/22/nathan-...arine.html

He says that he is "what they call a recon ranger." I was in the Army and interacted daily with members of all other branches (minus the Coast Guard). I was not in for long and it was recent as I'm not that old but I have never heard anyone refer to any MOS/rate/etc. as "recon ranger." "Recon" is something that both the Marine Corps and the Army have but "Ranger" is the name for the US Army's elite light infantry. They are two entirely separate things from two different branches.

The fact that he thinks that there is or ever has been something called a "recon ranger" says that he not only was not in Vietnam but that he is not a veteran and has not even seriously researched the military. To anyone who has been in any branch of the US military, the term "recon ranger" just sounds ridiculous and made up.

Its properly Force Recon or Force Reconnaissance.

I know. My father was a combat Marine during Vietnam. An actual one.

[911]

(01-22-2019 02:42 PM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

The Indian guy calls the kids a mob and says he was afraid the "mob would descend upon those 4 guys (Hebrews) and rip them apart"

Looks like MSNBC pulled that vid, heh.

[getdownonit]

Fuck this media circus, it's fabricated to try to divide us. That's the difference between us and the Left: Leftists will eat this shit up, whether it's true or not and eventually eat their own. It happened in Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc...

Don't fall for it. Their fake news, PC and humiliation tactics don't work anymore. They're blowing all they've got in their death throes and it's failing miserably. MAGA

[SamuelBRoberts]

(01-22-2019 02:11 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:08 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

[/url]

Someone suggested this a few pages back, and I said to myself, and almost posted, "Yeah, that's a great idea, which is why it won't happen. Trump never backs up his supporters, he leaves them out to rot."

I am so, so happy that I was proven wrong.

God damn it, Trump. What the hell are you doing?

[url=https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/1087796636976406534]

[Cr33pin]

(01-22-2019 04:00 PM)911 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:42 PM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

The Indian guy calls the kids a mob and says he was afraid the "mob would descend upon those 4 guys (Hebrews) and rip them apart"

Looks like MSNBC pulled that vid, heh.

It's still up

A good post from the comments about the video:
"They surrounded these Black Israelites, taunted them, racial insults back and forth".

That is a lie. The video shows the kids did not surround the Black Israelites. The kids were not throwing racial insults to them. The Black Israelites were the one doing the racial taunting.

How come the MSNBC reporter isn't bringing up the Native American who told one of the students to "Go back to Europe"? This whole story is one big joke. If these kids weren't wearing MAGA hats and Trump shirts, it never would have made news.

[911]

(01-22-2019 02:01 PM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 01:49 PM)911 Wrote:  

The Black/White divide is mostly artificial, constructed through social engineering and the brainwashing of Blacks with a judeo-marxist culture of victimhood. Blacks lived in traditional communities in the 1950s with stronger family structures than whites. those communities weren't affluent, but they had none of the social devastation of modern Black America.

They were shipped to northern cities in an effort to destroy both their communities and those of ethnic European communities in cities like NY, Chicago, Philadephia, Detroit etc, where they took on the mantle of proxy warriors in an ongoing cultural marxist war against middle America.

This dynamic is very similar to the current one being played out in western Europe with the onslaught of islamic/African migrants being used as a weapon to destabilize the European middle class. People like David Horowitz, who in the 1960s were actively funding Black extremist groups and pulling their strings, are today funding psyop factories like Jihadwatch, using islamic fear porn to take over the right and advance their (((agendas))).

E. Michael Jones, the sharpest, most righteous American intellectual alive, has carefully documented this process:

I would dispute the bolded claim. My grandparents were part of the Great Migration from the South to Northern cities. They left the South because Jim Crow had gotten to be completely ridiculous and out-of-control. They sought the protection of the law and the South, at that time, was no place to get it whereas the North was unknown and still somewhat romanticized from stories about the Underground Railroad, etc.

However, I generally agree that the black vs white conflict in this country is largely orchestrated and can't survive without constant and increasing volumes of kindling being chucked onto the fire.

Point taken Buckwild, but I'm not sure if many grandparents would have made the trek north had they known the kind of desolate urban landscapes and demolished social structures their children and grandchildren would end up growing up in. Even today Blacks growing up in the rural/smalltown south are probably better off than those growing up in East Oakland, Compton or the other metropolitan ghettos.

[Jetset]

Doing some Googling, there's at least one seemingly common real-world reference out there to the phrase "recon ranger", which is in running cadences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qdwkyj4zg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyqEkG79Luc

If that was even in use when somebody could have picked it up back then, I can't guess. It's always plausible that he did serve but made up a better story and misused terms he heard.

I'm leaning toward "never served at all", though, not just because there are more fake Vietnam veterans than real ones, but because this phrase just sounds like the way people phrase things when they're lying:

Quote:

"You know, I’m from Vietnam times. I’m what they call a recon ranger. That was my role."

Quote:

"I'm not a chief or anything. But I feel like at that moment it was for me to do what I've always said in for a long time is that I'm expendable. You know, when I was in Vietnam times and when I was in the Marine Corps times, that's what I was. I was expendable. Expendable to corporate greed."

I'd think if he lived it, he'd describe it correctly in his voice instead of attributing informal terms to others, "they call" it that. (Wouldn't "we" call it that? Wouldn't he just say Force Recon?) What's with this "I'm from those times" shit? Why doesn't he just say he was in Vietnam, and in the Marines?

His brain hesitates when he tells it to construct lies and he doesn't even realize it's happening.

[911]