BeyondFedUp
Hall of Famer
Walmart selling Antifa Fan Gear:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/01/walmart-selling-antifa-fan-gear/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/01/walmart-selling-antifa-fan-gear/
We Are Living In A Cartoon
- Thread starter foobar75
- Start date
Rebajlo
Mentor
Dixie -
Forget assignment to the outhouse or nuthouse. The pervert should be consigned to landfill...
werewolf
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 5,995
Wow! But the light of day made the vampires retreat, for the time being:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-gear-no-longer-available-on-walmart-website/
BeyondFedUp
Hall of Famer
Twitter to Neo-Nazis: You have until Dec. 18th...
(Btw, it's also the date Bloomberg's Twitter-based News Network launches, also the date Apple's most powerful ever i-Mac Pro launches, and none other than Joseph Stalin's birthday. And oh yeah, Steven Spielberg's birthday. I'm sure all of this is just coincidence):
http://mashable.com/2017/11/17/twitter-hate-speech-symbols-december-18/#im_bRbG27OqW
(Btw, it's also the date Bloomberg's Twitter-based News Network launches, also the date Apple's most powerful ever i-Mac Pro launches, and none other than Joseph Stalin's birthday. And oh yeah, Steven Spielberg's birthday. I'm sure all of this is just coincidence):
http://mashable.com/2017/11/17/twitter-hate-speech-symbols-december-18/#im_bRbG27OqW
Claimjumper
Mentor
is there anything cuckier than a straight white male standing down to kebab removal orders?
I get young shiksas getting swindled into “Refugees Welcome” via emotion dialogue at universities and the lugenpresse but not this
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lots-refuse-carry-out-deportations/918496001/
I get young shiksas getting swindled into “Refugees Welcome” via emotion dialogue at universities and the lugenpresse but not this
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lots-refuse-carry-out-deportations/918496001/
Self-Righteous Violence
by Jim Goad
If you’re even barely intelligent and mildly educated, you’d realize that ideas such as “guilt by association” and “two wrongs make a right” are commonly accepted logical fallacies. One needn’t be particularly bright, nor even fully pubescent, to grasp this.
But for growing swaths of the pro-globalist—and therefore the unwittingly pro-corporate, pro-capitalist, and pro-banker—radical left, even “two wrongs make a right” is no longer sufficient. For them, it’s now “Commit the first wrong based on the theoretical possibility that a second wrong will be committed if you don’t hit first.”
Such is the “thinking” of Antifa—a portmanteau of “anti-fascist”—a loosely associated gaggle of far-left malcontents and trust-fund babies who justify their totalitarian tactics by claiming that if they don’t shut down speech and crush skulls, people whom they’ve tagged as “fascists” will do so, and no decent person would tolerate people shutting down speech and crushing skulls, which is, naturally, why they have to shut down speech and crush skulls first. Since these “Nazis”—who usually don’t identify as Nazis but are never even permitted to have that discussion—dehumanize others, they must be preemptively dehumanized and destroyed. Or so goes the “reasoning,” which is not reasoning at all but rather a cowardly, self-exculpatory dodge.
After all, those Nazis killed—what was it?—six million? Twenty million? Naturally this had nothing to do with competing economic superpowers who had massive armies—and the bankers who supplied their bombs and greased their gun barrels—fighting over land and resources, because we all know war never has anything to do with competing elites trying to seize raw power. No, it’s because their ideas were allowed to flourish.
And never mind the inconvenient truth that those who adhered to Marx’s ideas piled up far more corpses than the Nazis ever dreamed of doing. Many of those in the media and academia who endorse Antifa’s tactics are open Marxists; it’s that they’re unwilling to make the same inexorable connection between ideas and death with Marxism that they do with fascism, however they define the latter. Even though Marx’s ideas led to far more deaths than Hitler’s ideas, at least Marx’s ideas were for a good cause, and sometimes when you make an omelet you have to break 100 million eggs. It doesn’t even matter if the omelet was never made—it was the thought that counted. To a fanatic who mostly lives inside his head, it is thoughts that are either objectively good or evil, while actions can be praised or condemned solely on the thoughts that spurred them. Therefore, kicking in someone’s head isn’t seen as universally malicious and harmful—it all depends on what thoughts were inside the head being kicked.
These types will often invoke John Brown and the abolitionists’ notion of “righteous violence”—that if you’re slitting a slave owner’s throat, that’s not nearly as bad as the fact that he may have whipped one or two of his slaves. Even though throat-slitting is objectively worse than whipping, it’s always the thought that counts to these people.
In my endless sojourns through the ideological wastelands, I have yet to come across an alleged “Nazi” who says that Marxists, blacks, lesbians, trannies, Jews, Muslims, or anyone should be denied the right to speak. OK, maybe you’ll get one rabid commenter here or there—almost always an anonymous one, of course, so they may just be plants—who says such things, but I’ve seen nothing remotely equivalent to the broad brush of “hate speech” that the globalist/corporate left now wants to use to smear and silence anyone who doesn’t toe their delusional and historically disastrous line.
In my years, my weary eyes have come to conclude that there’s no one more dangerous than someone who’s blindly convinced that they are fighting for an irreproachably good cause, because such fanatics are therefore able to justify behavior that would almost universally be condemned if it were stripped of ideology and shown to be the naked, bald, sadistic, dehumanizing violence that it is.
What’s most troubling is that the media and academia are indulging this egregious double standard when it comes to Antifa. Since the group defines itself in negative terms—they don’t really claim to stand for anything so much as they’re against fascism—if one even mildly criticizes their tactics, one invites being called a “fascist.” It’s a very clever strategy for winning over the stupid.
Last week, without a droplet of irony, The New York Times published an article called “What to Wear to Smash the State.” The essay refers to Antifa as “anti-fascist activists” rather than, oh, “communists” or “anarchists” or “violent and emotionally stunted masked street thugs who are entirely intolerant of opposing ideas.” And, yes, the article is roughly as dumb as its title—it’s a largely superficial guide to looking sharp when you take to the streets to punch “Nazis.” It approvingly mentions an October article called “The Femme’s Guide to Riot Fashion.”
The Times article also refers to Mark Bray’s recent book Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook as “incisive.” Bray—who doesn’t look quite ready or able for street battle, although these types rarely do—is a lecturer at Dartmouth and a former organizer of the insipid Occupy Wall Street fiasco. In his book, Bray argues that it’s morally acceptable that Antifa is “turning over the tables” at alleged “fascist” meetings—which in most cases aren’t even remotely “fascist”—and “giving them a good pummeling.”
Naturally, Bray was roundly condemned for endorsing political violence…right?
Nah.
The New Yorker called his book “focused and persuasive.” The Washington Post called it “enlightening” and “relevant,” applauding its “justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists.” The San Francisco Chronicle called it “incisive and cohesive.” The Los Angeles Review of Books deemed it “commendable” and praised Bray’s “well-reasoned defense of controversial tactics.” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazettegullibly slurped up Bray’s shallow propaganda and dubbed Antifa a “misunderstood group looking to keep the genocidal past from repeating.”
In another pro-Antifa puff piece in The New York Times, the objectively hideous Todd Gitlin quotes an anonymous self-described anarchist who brags about being violent in Charlottesville last August:
I fought them with the most persuasive instruments at hand, the way both my grandfathers did. I was maced, punched, kicked, and beaten with sticks, but I gave as good as I got, and usually better.
Perhaps unwittingly—he doesn’t seem very witty—Gitlin justifies Donald Trump’s roundly condemned comment that there was violence “on both sides” in Charlottesville. But the giant pillar of cognitive dissonance that we’re dealing with here is that if the violence is for a good cause, it’s not really violence. It’s like trying to distinguish between “good AIDS” and “bad AIDS.” As the thinking goes, since Antifa are the good guys, their abject dehumanization of anyone they smear as a “Nazi” is humanistic, whereas their gleeful violence isn’t really violence at all, since it prevents future violence. They are truly that full of ****.
The original Antifa was known as Antifaschistische Aktion and were formed in Berlin in the early 1930s by the German Communist Party. They claimed to be merely a reaction against German fascists, blithely sidestepping the fact that German fascists were a reaction to the German Bolshevists who’d been cracking heads in the streets ever since World War I ended. Modern Antifa members often wave the same flag—or a near-identical iteration—as the original German anti-fascist street thugs did.
Antifa’s American roots are intriguing, seeing as they involve organized crime. In the 1930s, when the German American Bund were holding fascist rallies across the US, perhaps the main person who nipped them in the bud was none other than Meyer Lansky, AKA “The Mob’s Accountant” and in many eyes the most powerful organized-crime figure in American history. Lansky claimed that influential rabbis and even an unnamed judge encouraged him and his criminal cohorts to shut down fascist rallies in ways almost identical to how Antifa operates today:
We got there in the evening and found several hundred people dressed in their brown shirts. The stage was decorated with a swastika and pictures of Hitler. The speakers started ranting. There were only fifteen of us, but we went into action….We attacked them in the hall and threw some of them out the windows. There were fistfights all over the place. Most of the Nazis panicked and ran out. We chased them and beat them up, and some of them were out of action for months. We wanted to teach them a lesson. We wanted to show them that Jews would not always sit back and accept insults.
Wouldn’t it have been more productive to argue why those “insults” were inaccurate?
Despite what Antifa and their countless enablers are insisting, speech is never the same thing as violence.
Anyone who says some things should never be discussed is someone who’d lose the argument if those things were discussed.
On top of that, anyone who endorses violence in order to shut down speech based on the flimsy premise that certain forms of speech always lead to violence is a lying sack of **** just squirming for an excuse to justify their own sadistic impulses.
I’m predisposed to trust someone who merely admits they enjoy being violent far more than someone who feels the wormy need to justify it behind the shield of a “good cause.” Because while both types are violent, the latter is also a liar.
If there are any who are wicked among us, it is certainly the self-righteous. I’d recommend hitting them, but it’d only make them feel more self-righteous.
http://takimag.com/article/self_righteous_violence_jim_goad/print#ixzz50Q2PH0cd
by Jim Goad
If you’re even barely intelligent and mildly educated, you’d realize that ideas such as “guilt by association” and “two wrongs make a right” are commonly accepted logical fallacies. One needn’t be particularly bright, nor even fully pubescent, to grasp this.
But for growing swaths of the pro-globalist—and therefore the unwittingly pro-corporate, pro-capitalist, and pro-banker—radical left, even “two wrongs make a right” is no longer sufficient. For them, it’s now “Commit the first wrong based on the theoretical possibility that a second wrong will be committed if you don’t hit first.”
Such is the “thinking” of Antifa—a portmanteau of “anti-fascist”—a loosely associated gaggle of far-left malcontents and trust-fund babies who justify their totalitarian tactics by claiming that if they don’t shut down speech and crush skulls, people whom they’ve tagged as “fascists” will do so, and no decent person would tolerate people shutting down speech and crushing skulls, which is, naturally, why they have to shut down speech and crush skulls first. Since these “Nazis”—who usually don’t identify as Nazis but are never even permitted to have that discussion—dehumanize others, they must be preemptively dehumanized and destroyed. Or so goes the “reasoning,” which is not reasoning at all but rather a cowardly, self-exculpatory dodge.
After all, those Nazis killed—what was it?—six million? Twenty million? Naturally this had nothing to do with competing economic superpowers who had massive armies—and the bankers who supplied their bombs and greased their gun barrels—fighting over land and resources, because we all know war never has anything to do with competing elites trying to seize raw power. No, it’s because their ideas were allowed to flourish.
And never mind the inconvenient truth that those who adhered to Marx’s ideas piled up far more corpses than the Nazis ever dreamed of doing. Many of those in the media and academia who endorse Antifa’s tactics are open Marxists; it’s that they’re unwilling to make the same inexorable connection between ideas and death with Marxism that they do with fascism, however they define the latter. Even though Marx’s ideas led to far more deaths than Hitler’s ideas, at least Marx’s ideas were for a good cause, and sometimes when you make an omelet you have to break 100 million eggs. It doesn’t even matter if the omelet was never made—it was the thought that counted. To a fanatic who mostly lives inside his head, it is thoughts that are either objectively good or evil, while actions can be praised or condemned solely on the thoughts that spurred them. Therefore, kicking in someone’s head isn’t seen as universally malicious and harmful—it all depends on what thoughts were inside the head being kicked.
These types will often invoke John Brown and the abolitionists’ notion of “righteous violence”—that if you’re slitting a slave owner’s throat, that’s not nearly as bad as the fact that he may have whipped one or two of his slaves. Even though throat-slitting is objectively worse than whipping, it’s always the thought that counts to these people.
In my endless sojourns through the ideological wastelands, I have yet to come across an alleged “Nazi” who says that Marxists, blacks, lesbians, trannies, Jews, Muslims, or anyone should be denied the right to speak. OK, maybe you’ll get one rabid commenter here or there—almost always an anonymous one, of course, so they may just be plants—who says such things, but I’ve seen nothing remotely equivalent to the broad brush of “hate speech” that the globalist/corporate left now wants to use to smear and silence anyone who doesn’t toe their delusional and historically disastrous line.
In my years, my weary eyes have come to conclude that there’s no one more dangerous than someone who’s blindly convinced that they are fighting for an irreproachably good cause, because such fanatics are therefore able to justify behavior that would almost universally be condemned if it were stripped of ideology and shown to be the naked, bald, sadistic, dehumanizing violence that it is.
What’s most troubling is that the media and academia are indulging this egregious double standard when it comes to Antifa. Since the group defines itself in negative terms—they don’t really claim to stand for anything so much as they’re against fascism—if one even mildly criticizes their tactics, one invites being called a “fascist.” It’s a very clever strategy for winning over the stupid.
Last week, without a droplet of irony, The New York Times published an article called “What to Wear to Smash the State.” The essay refers to Antifa as “anti-fascist activists” rather than, oh, “communists” or “anarchists” or “violent and emotionally stunted masked street thugs who are entirely intolerant of opposing ideas.” And, yes, the article is roughly as dumb as its title—it’s a largely superficial guide to looking sharp when you take to the streets to punch “Nazis.” It approvingly mentions an October article called “The Femme’s Guide to Riot Fashion.”
The Times article also refers to Mark Bray’s recent book Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook as “incisive.” Bray—who doesn’t look quite ready or able for street battle, although these types rarely do—is a lecturer at Dartmouth and a former organizer of the insipid Occupy Wall Street fiasco. In his book, Bray argues that it’s morally acceptable that Antifa is “turning over the tables” at alleged “fascist” meetings—which in most cases aren’t even remotely “fascist”—and “giving them a good pummeling.”
Naturally, Bray was roundly condemned for endorsing political violence…right?
Nah.
The New Yorker called his book “focused and persuasive.” The Washington Post called it “enlightening” and “relevant,” applauding its “justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists.” The San Francisco Chronicle called it “incisive and cohesive.” The Los Angeles Review of Books deemed it “commendable” and praised Bray’s “well-reasoned defense of controversial tactics.” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazettegullibly slurped up Bray’s shallow propaganda and dubbed Antifa a “misunderstood group looking to keep the genocidal past from repeating.”
In another pro-Antifa puff piece in The New York Times, the objectively hideous Todd Gitlin quotes an anonymous self-described anarchist who brags about being violent in Charlottesville last August:
I fought them with the most persuasive instruments at hand, the way both my grandfathers did. I was maced, punched, kicked, and beaten with sticks, but I gave as good as I got, and usually better.
Perhaps unwittingly—he doesn’t seem very witty—Gitlin justifies Donald Trump’s roundly condemned comment that there was violence “on both sides” in Charlottesville. But the giant pillar of cognitive dissonance that we’re dealing with here is that if the violence is for a good cause, it’s not really violence. It’s like trying to distinguish between “good AIDS” and “bad AIDS.” As the thinking goes, since Antifa are the good guys, their abject dehumanization of anyone they smear as a “Nazi” is humanistic, whereas their gleeful violence isn’t really violence at all, since it prevents future violence. They are truly that full of ****.
The original Antifa was known as Antifaschistische Aktion and were formed in Berlin in the early 1930s by the German Communist Party. They claimed to be merely a reaction against German fascists, blithely sidestepping the fact that German fascists were a reaction to the German Bolshevists who’d been cracking heads in the streets ever since World War I ended. Modern Antifa members often wave the same flag—or a near-identical iteration—as the original German anti-fascist street thugs did.
Antifa’s American roots are intriguing, seeing as they involve organized crime. In the 1930s, when the German American Bund were holding fascist rallies across the US, perhaps the main person who nipped them in the bud was none other than Meyer Lansky, AKA “The Mob’s Accountant” and in many eyes the most powerful organized-crime figure in American history. Lansky claimed that influential rabbis and even an unnamed judge encouraged him and his criminal cohorts to shut down fascist rallies in ways almost identical to how Antifa operates today:
We got there in the evening and found several hundred people dressed in their brown shirts. The stage was decorated with a swastika and pictures of Hitler. The speakers started ranting. There were only fifteen of us, but we went into action….We attacked them in the hall and threw some of them out the windows. There were fistfights all over the place. Most of the Nazis panicked and ran out. We chased them and beat them up, and some of them were out of action for months. We wanted to teach them a lesson. We wanted to show them that Jews would not always sit back and accept insults.
Wouldn’t it have been more productive to argue why those “insults” were inaccurate?
Despite what Antifa and their countless enablers are insisting, speech is never the same thing as violence.
Anyone who says some things should never be discussed is someone who’d lose the argument if those things were discussed.
On top of that, anyone who endorses violence in order to shut down speech based on the flimsy premise that certain forms of speech always lead to violence is a lying sack of **** just squirming for an excuse to justify their own sadistic impulses.
I’m predisposed to trust someone who merely admits they enjoy being violent far more than someone who feels the wormy need to justify it behind the shield of a “good cause.” Because while both types are violent, the latter is also a liar.
If there are any who are wicked among us, it is certainly the self-righteous. I’d recommend hitting them, but it’d only make them feel more self-righteous.
http://takimag.com/article/self_righteous_violence_jim_goad/print#ixzz50Q2PH0cd
BeyondFedUp
Hall of Famer
It's good to officially know we can damage the mental health of millennial snowflakes:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/...-them-snowflakes-damages-their-mental-health/
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/...-them-snowflakes-damages-their-mental-health/
Charles Manson and his "family" were a huge national story for years. You have to have been around then to know just how terrified the establishment was of him, after he sent some of his acolytes to Beverly Hills to kill a well-known actress/sex symbol and other members of the one percent. Even though his "philosophy" was always a bunch of mumbo jumbo nonsense, he had a lot of followers right up until his death, especially among women.
We Are All Charles Manson Now
by Jim Goad
Charles Manson, who for decades existed as an emblem of wide-eyed 60s idealism gone fatally wrong, died last week.
Within moments, leftist scribes rushed to disavow him and to insist he had nothing to do with leftism or the 1960s counterculture.
“Charles Manson Was Not a Product of the Counterculture,” claimed Baynard Woods against all evidence in a New York Times opinion piece:
Apart from the long hair and the casual sex, however, Mr. Manson, who spent much of his life in prison with a swastika carved into his head, had more in common ideologically with far-right groups like the John Birch Society than he did with the anarchic leftism of, say, the Yippies….The paranoid, racist and apocalyptic ramblings of Mr. Manson are the DNA of the reactionary alt-right.
As of this writing, Mr. Woods has not responded to my questions about when the John Birch Society prophesied a race war or, for that matter, even bothered to mention race. Thus I was unable to ask him a follow-up question about his feelings regarding this quote from Yippie leader Jerry Rubin:
I fell in love with Charlie Manson the first time I saw his cherub face and sparkling eyes on TV. His words and courage inspired us.
The increasingly desperate Newsweek—which, like most of what remains of the mainstream press, seems to exist only to defame Donald Trump and all his supporters as “Nazis”—immediately sought to link Manson to Trump. Last Monday they originally published a piece with the headline “How Murderer Charles Manson And Donald Trump Used Language To Gain Followers,” wherein female scribe Melissa Matthews interviewed a psychologist who shared the following rather obvious insight:
Our current president speaks in an emotional or affective way to large numbers of people in our country who feel a kind of alienation or disconnection from the government.
However, this time even Newsweek overplayed their hand by linking Manson to Trump. They removed the original title, changed it to “How Murderer Charles Manson Used Language To Gain Followers,” and plunged yet another dagger into their own credibility by appending a note that read, “An earlier version of this story did not meet Newsweek’s editorial standards and has been revised accordingly.”
So what remained of the piece alleged that charming people often use language to persuade others. Pulitzer-level stuff right there.
At VICE magazine—which at the moment appears to be on the verge of about 100,000 sexual harassment lawsuits, give or take a few—we are told that Manson was a “virulent racist” and that “If Charles Manson were alive and literate, he would be writing for Breitbart.”
The Huffington Post refers to the Manson Family as a “Far-Right…Cult.” It further alleges that both Charlie Manson and leaders of the modern Alt-Right such as Richard Spencer were ultimately seeking power, as if no one on the left ever cloaks their unquenchable thirst for power beneath ******** phrases such as “equality” and “justice.”
Even in India they’re trying to shackle Manson to Donald Trump and the Alt-Right. An essay in The Hindu aggressively denies that Manson was in any way a product—and especially not the reductio ad absurdum—of the 1960s counterculture:
Manson had a well-documented hatred of Jewish people, African-Americans and women. Rather than the liberal counterculture movement of the 1960s, his bigoted philosophy bears a disturbing resemblance in some respects with the far-right or alt-right brand of neo-fascism that has mushroomed in certain pockets of U.S. politics recently.
Writing for Raw Story, 85-year-old hippie icon Paul Krassner blames imprisonment and Scientology—Manson for many years claimed to be a Scientologist—rather than the 60s counterculture for molding Manson’s psychology: “Manson was never really a hippie,” he writes.
Oh, really?
Would anyone care to explain the fact that the Manson Family first took root in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district during 1967’s “Summer of Love”? What about all the orgies and long hair and LSD? Care to account for the communal living and dumpster-diving? How about the Manson Family’s rock-star aspirations and the fact that the Beach Boys covered one of Charlie’s songs? What about their vocal opposition to the Vietnam War, to “the establishment,” to “capitalist filth,” and all the inflamed rhetoric about “pigs”? What about the fact that Richard Nixon openly hated Charles Manson and vice-versa? How about Manson girl Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme’s failed 1975 assassination attempt on Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford?
What about when John Lennon approvingly noted that Manson “took children in when nobody else would” and claimed that “I just think a lot of the things he says are true”? How about the fact that folksinger Phil Ochs and Jerry Rubin visited Manson in jail? How do you explain Bernadine Dohrn of the far-left murderous terrorist group Weather Underground—and later cosponsor of Barack Obama’s fledgling political career—describing the LaBianca murders in the following psychotically exultant terms?
First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.
To claim that Charles Manson had nothing to do with the 1960s counterculture is like saying that the 100+ million killed under communist regimes had nothing to do with real communism. Anyone who isn’t blinded by ideology would easily realize that the Manson Family had far more in common with the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weather Underground than they did with the haplessly and serially misrepresented John Birch Society.
As “evidence” that Manson was a Bircher back then and would have been a Breitbart writer now, they trot out Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi’s “Helter Skelter” theory about the Tate/LaBianca murders, which occurred on two consecutive nights in August 1969. According to Bugliosi and a handful of Manson acolytes who were apparently gunning for lighter prison sentences, these murders were a deliberate attempt to frame Black Panthers and thus ignite a race war that whites would inevitably lose, only to be redeemed when blacks proved unable to govern themselves and the Manson Family—which by that point would have reproduced to 144,000 members strong after holing themselves away in a bottomless pit somewhere beneath Death Valley—would usher in a brave new all-white ethnostate where an irredeemably corrupt USA had once stood.
But according to Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil—who had been arrested for the murder of Gary Hinman in July 1969 and who’d tried to frame black revolutionaries by smearing the words “POLITICAL PIGGY” and a Black Panther-styled paw in Hinman’s blood on the walls—the Tate/LaBianca murders had nothing to do with trying to spark a race war and everything to do with pulling off a couple of copycat murders that would lead police to believe the killers were still at large and result in Beausoleil’s release.
Others point to the fact that Manson modified the “X” he’d carved into his forehead for his trial into a swastika—and later a swastika tattoo—as evidence that he was never a hippie and never could have possibly been the toxic afterbirth of the tumultuous 1960s.
Obviously few, if any, of these people have been to prison, especially in California. In places such as Folsom and San Quentin, white inmates who don’t immediately clique up with the Aryan Brotherhood don’t wind up living very long, because if the White Power inmates don’t kill them, the Black Power and Brown Power ones certainly will—or at the very least, turn them out as lifetime sex slaves.
Manson was indeed a product of the 1960s, but more than anything he was the product of a teenaged alcoholic mother/prostitute and the doomed path such a bedraggled spawning set him on. By the time of the Tate/LaBianca murders, Manson had already spent half of his life in correctional facilities of one sort or another. And if he developed negative attitudes toward blacks, it likely had far less to do with reading George Lincoln Rockwell and far more to do with being forced to interact with blacks behind bars during his formative years. He was not nearly as naive about race as so many who’d condemn him for being a “racist” are.
MLK was murdered a year before the Manson Family murders. Riots had sprung up all across the USA. As a street hustler and lifetime con, Manson had the survival instincts that so very few pampered modern leftist scribes will ever have. If he foresaw an inevitable race war in America, maybe he was nothing more than a hillbilly Bob Dylan and saw it blowin’ in the wind.
If Manson was truly prophetic about anything, though, it was why whites would lose a theoretical race war. According to Manson, when blacks came seeking blood vengeance, whites would be too hopelessly split between those with self-preservation instincts—those who are now defamed as “racists”—and the uptight, sheltered squares who thought it would be “racist” not to let black people start killing them en masse.
And it is perhaps in that sense alone, that the hugest brewing war in America is not interracial, but intra-racial—Goodwhites v. Badwhites—that Charles Manson and the Alt-Right saw eye-to-eye.
The modern sheltered left is so abjectly clueless, they fail to realize they are the primary instigators of this conceivably inevitable conflict.
http://takimag.com/article/we_are_all_charles_manson_now_jim_goad/print#ixzz50hKTOv63
We Are All Charles Manson Now
by Jim Goad
Charles Manson, who for decades existed as an emblem of wide-eyed 60s idealism gone fatally wrong, died last week.
Within moments, leftist scribes rushed to disavow him and to insist he had nothing to do with leftism or the 1960s counterculture.
“Charles Manson Was Not a Product of the Counterculture,” claimed Baynard Woods against all evidence in a New York Times opinion piece:
Apart from the long hair and the casual sex, however, Mr. Manson, who spent much of his life in prison with a swastika carved into his head, had more in common ideologically with far-right groups like the John Birch Society than he did with the anarchic leftism of, say, the Yippies….The paranoid, racist and apocalyptic ramblings of Mr. Manson are the DNA of the reactionary alt-right.
As of this writing, Mr. Woods has not responded to my questions about when the John Birch Society prophesied a race war or, for that matter, even bothered to mention race. Thus I was unable to ask him a follow-up question about his feelings regarding this quote from Yippie leader Jerry Rubin:
I fell in love with Charlie Manson the first time I saw his cherub face and sparkling eyes on TV. His words and courage inspired us.
The increasingly desperate Newsweek—which, like most of what remains of the mainstream press, seems to exist only to defame Donald Trump and all his supporters as “Nazis”—immediately sought to link Manson to Trump. Last Monday they originally published a piece with the headline “How Murderer Charles Manson And Donald Trump Used Language To Gain Followers,” wherein female scribe Melissa Matthews interviewed a psychologist who shared the following rather obvious insight:
Our current president speaks in an emotional or affective way to large numbers of people in our country who feel a kind of alienation or disconnection from the government.
However, this time even Newsweek overplayed their hand by linking Manson to Trump. They removed the original title, changed it to “How Murderer Charles Manson Used Language To Gain Followers,” and plunged yet another dagger into their own credibility by appending a note that read, “An earlier version of this story did not meet Newsweek’s editorial standards and has been revised accordingly.”
So what remained of the piece alleged that charming people often use language to persuade others. Pulitzer-level stuff right there.
At VICE magazine—which at the moment appears to be on the verge of about 100,000 sexual harassment lawsuits, give or take a few—we are told that Manson was a “virulent racist” and that “If Charles Manson were alive and literate, he would be writing for Breitbart.”
The Huffington Post refers to the Manson Family as a “Far-Right…Cult.” It further alleges that both Charlie Manson and leaders of the modern Alt-Right such as Richard Spencer were ultimately seeking power, as if no one on the left ever cloaks their unquenchable thirst for power beneath ******** phrases such as “equality” and “justice.”
Even in India they’re trying to shackle Manson to Donald Trump and the Alt-Right. An essay in The Hindu aggressively denies that Manson was in any way a product—and especially not the reductio ad absurdum—of the 1960s counterculture:
Manson had a well-documented hatred of Jewish people, African-Americans and women. Rather than the liberal counterculture movement of the 1960s, his bigoted philosophy bears a disturbing resemblance in some respects with the far-right or alt-right brand of neo-fascism that has mushroomed in certain pockets of U.S. politics recently.
Writing for Raw Story, 85-year-old hippie icon Paul Krassner blames imprisonment and Scientology—Manson for many years claimed to be a Scientologist—rather than the 60s counterculture for molding Manson’s psychology: “Manson was never really a hippie,” he writes.
Oh, really?
Would anyone care to explain the fact that the Manson Family first took root in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district during 1967’s “Summer of Love”? What about all the orgies and long hair and LSD? Care to account for the communal living and dumpster-diving? How about the Manson Family’s rock-star aspirations and the fact that the Beach Boys covered one of Charlie’s songs? What about their vocal opposition to the Vietnam War, to “the establishment,” to “capitalist filth,” and all the inflamed rhetoric about “pigs”? What about the fact that Richard Nixon openly hated Charles Manson and vice-versa? How about Manson girl Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme’s failed 1975 assassination attempt on Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford?
What about when John Lennon approvingly noted that Manson “took children in when nobody else would” and claimed that “I just think a lot of the things he says are true”? How about the fact that folksinger Phil Ochs and Jerry Rubin visited Manson in jail? How do you explain Bernadine Dohrn of the far-left murderous terrorist group Weather Underground—and later cosponsor of Barack Obama’s fledgling political career—describing the LaBianca murders in the following psychotically exultant terms?
First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.
To claim that Charles Manson had nothing to do with the 1960s counterculture is like saying that the 100+ million killed under communist regimes had nothing to do with real communism. Anyone who isn’t blinded by ideology would easily realize that the Manson Family had far more in common with the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weather Underground than they did with the haplessly and serially misrepresented John Birch Society.
As “evidence” that Manson was a Bircher back then and would have been a Breitbart writer now, they trot out Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi’s “Helter Skelter” theory about the Tate/LaBianca murders, which occurred on two consecutive nights in August 1969. According to Bugliosi and a handful of Manson acolytes who were apparently gunning for lighter prison sentences, these murders were a deliberate attempt to frame Black Panthers and thus ignite a race war that whites would inevitably lose, only to be redeemed when blacks proved unable to govern themselves and the Manson Family—which by that point would have reproduced to 144,000 members strong after holing themselves away in a bottomless pit somewhere beneath Death Valley—would usher in a brave new all-white ethnostate where an irredeemably corrupt USA had once stood.
But according to Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil—who had been arrested for the murder of Gary Hinman in July 1969 and who’d tried to frame black revolutionaries by smearing the words “POLITICAL PIGGY” and a Black Panther-styled paw in Hinman’s blood on the walls—the Tate/LaBianca murders had nothing to do with trying to spark a race war and everything to do with pulling off a couple of copycat murders that would lead police to believe the killers were still at large and result in Beausoleil’s release.
Others point to the fact that Manson modified the “X” he’d carved into his forehead for his trial into a swastika—and later a swastika tattoo—as evidence that he was never a hippie and never could have possibly been the toxic afterbirth of the tumultuous 1960s.
Obviously few, if any, of these people have been to prison, especially in California. In places such as Folsom and San Quentin, white inmates who don’t immediately clique up with the Aryan Brotherhood don’t wind up living very long, because if the White Power inmates don’t kill them, the Black Power and Brown Power ones certainly will—or at the very least, turn them out as lifetime sex slaves.
Manson was indeed a product of the 1960s, but more than anything he was the product of a teenaged alcoholic mother/prostitute and the doomed path such a bedraggled spawning set him on. By the time of the Tate/LaBianca murders, Manson had already spent half of his life in correctional facilities of one sort or another. And if he developed negative attitudes toward blacks, it likely had far less to do with reading George Lincoln Rockwell and far more to do with being forced to interact with blacks behind bars during his formative years. He was not nearly as naive about race as so many who’d condemn him for being a “racist” are.
MLK was murdered a year before the Manson Family murders. Riots had sprung up all across the USA. As a street hustler and lifetime con, Manson had the survival instincts that so very few pampered modern leftist scribes will ever have. If he foresaw an inevitable race war in America, maybe he was nothing more than a hillbilly Bob Dylan and saw it blowin’ in the wind.
If Manson was truly prophetic about anything, though, it was why whites would lose a theoretical race war. According to Manson, when blacks came seeking blood vengeance, whites would be too hopelessly split between those with self-preservation instincts—those who are now defamed as “racists”—and the uptight, sheltered squares who thought it would be “racist” not to let black people start killing them en masse.
And it is perhaps in that sense alone, that the hugest brewing war in America is not interracial, but intra-racial—Goodwhites v. Badwhites—that Charles Manson and the Alt-Right saw eye-to-eye.
The modern sheltered left is so abjectly clueless, they fail to realize they are the primary instigators of this conceivably inevitable conflict.
http://takimag.com/article/we_are_all_charles_manson_now_jim_goad/print#ixzz50hKTOv63
The feminazis and their partners in crime, big government, won't be satisfied until every White boy and man are castrated.
Ridicule as police say kissing under the mistletoe without consent is 'rape'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-say-kissing-mistletoe-without-consent-rape/
Ridicule as police say kissing under the mistletoe without consent is 'rape'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-say-kissing-mistletoe-without-consent-rape/
BeyondFedUp
Hall of Famer
Another example of cowtowing and catering to ugly as a washboard skank feminist nutjobs. At least the tweet was ridiculed, albeit not for all the right reasons.
Thrashen
Hall of Famer
Instead of worrying about the infinite epidemic of black crime in Philadelphia, the local (Democrat-run) government thinks that the bulletproof glass used to protect store owners from the viscous parasites that inevitably litter all black neighborhoods is “an indignity” to the negroes. They have created legislation to ban the “racist” glass within the city limits...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/0...lass-in-crime-plagued-neighborhood-shops.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/0...lass-in-crime-plagued-neighborhood-shops.html
I just watched a segment on NBC's nightly fake news. The claim was made that 20% of American children ages 13 to 18 are mentally ill, suffering mostly from depression. Therapy and medication were recommended. "This strikes almost every American family," the reporter intoned."If not your child, then the one sitting next to your child." End of segment, cut to commercials of people happily consuming and happily taking powerful medications with dozens and dozens of potential side effects, as one will never ever see anything on the "mainstream" media that seriously questions anything about U.S. society.
My only thought watching this was that if it's true that one in five Americans kids are mentally ill, then this is a society that is fatally flawed and needs to be discarded and rebuilt from the ground up.
My only thought watching this was that if it's true that one in five Americans kids are mentally ill, then this is a society that is fatally flawed and needs to be discarded and rebuilt from the ground up.
Freethinker
Hall of Famer
This could be a good thing. Because of ethnic nepotism most shop keeps and liquor store owners in urban crapholes like Philly are Arabs, Poo in the Loos and East Asians. Many more of these people will be robbed or killed which will lead to businesses in ghetto leaving. Also, some of these foreigners may decide to leave the country. In other instances, they may arm themselves and send a few thugs to the morgue.
This is one news story where we can watch from afar and have a hearty chuckle.
BeyondFedUp
Hall of Famer
Minn. Mayor literally begins crying after City Council member denies "White Privilege":
This is written by "Roosh," who is Iranian and Armenian and is regarded as non-White by many racialists. He started off promoting various aspects of game, but has learned the hard way through his activism about the big picture, as this article shows.
KILL WHITEY
ROOSH VALIZADEH DECEMBER 14, 2017
Roosh Valizadeh
Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh created ROK in October 2012. You can visit his blog at RooshV.com or follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Does your traditionalist family advice possibly help white women raise white children? You will be demonetized or banned from Silicon Valley’s platforms. Does your abortion organization help kill 60,000,000 babies, many of them white? You will be given government funds for literally killing whitey.
It doesn’t matter if, like me, you’re non-white—if your work can possibly help whites be stronger or more fertile, you’ll be marked for destruction. This is why a black man like Tariq Nasheed, who taught pickup advice like me, though of the “we waz pimpz” variety, is now a media hero because he can’t go an hour on Twitter without declaring someone’s couch as white supremacist.
On the other hand, if you’re a respected black doctor like Ben Carson, you will be labeled racist because your opinions may help whites run their country better.
What a let down to realize that there isn’t a crusade against men as much as white people. By publishing masculine advice to a majority white audience, I was put in the cross hairs, but if I released game guides in Urdu, Dari, or Pashto, I would get big financing and puff stories in the media about how I empower marginalized men of color whose ancestors were victims of white colonialism. You’ve seen the media attack me for being “pro-rape” based on a satirical article yet they can’t seem to get around to reporting on the insane real-rape epidemic in Sweden and Germany.
If you want to know why there is a war against white people, I would start by asking yourself who is in control of the liberal establishment, and if that group of individuals may possess a pathological hatred towards the white race. Their movement used to put a “progressive” or intellectual veneer over kill whitey, but now they don’t even bother to hide it, and because I’ve helped red pill tens of thousands of white men on women, I get the public whip.
History shows that wars and genocides happen after a period of dehumanizing a race or people. This is what’s happening to whites as the kill whitey movement approaches its final stage. I do sympathize for the individual whites (and non-whites) who have been harmed in the kill whitey movement, but I’m confident they can take care of themselves. That said, do you happen to be fluent in Arabic? There are a few game books of mine that I would like to translate.
http://www.returnofkings.com/142488/kill-whitey
KILL WHITEY
Roosh Valizadeh
Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh created ROK in October 2012. You can visit his blog at RooshV.com or follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
- For many years, I have been at the forefront of teaching men how to embrace their masculinity, maximize their potential, and sleep with beautiful women. During this time, I have come to believe that liberals have an explicit goal to crush men, primarily through the meme of feminism, but I now realize that that was only an intermediary step for a more comprehensive agenda: kill whitey. What I thought was a war against men is really a battle within a bigger war against white people.
You will only get attacked by the establishment if your advice, beliefs, or teachings can possibly help whites, regardless of your own race or sex. If your productive or artistic output could improve the status, reproductive potential, or income earning potential of whites, you will be attacked. If your output helps anyone but whites, or if you can prevent whites from being born by promoting sterility, homosexuality, or abortion, you will be declared a national hero.
Can your self-improvement advice possibly help white men become stronger and more masculine? You will be put on a hate list. Does your NFL activism raise awareness for the oppression of black men? You will be given media support for fostering unity and free speech.
Can your sex advice, written in English, possibly help white men improve their ability to reproduce? Your speech will be curtailed and your family will be doxed. Can your sex advice, translated in Arabic, help migrants reproduce with white women, diluting the white gene pool? You will be financed by the government.
Does your traditionalist family advice possibly help white women raise white children? You will be demonetized or banned from Silicon Valley’s platforms. Does your abortion organization help kill 60,000,000 babies, many of them white? You will be given government funds for literally killing whitey.
It doesn’t matter if, like me, you’re non-white—if your work can possibly help whites be stronger or more fertile, you’ll be marked for destruction. This is why a black man like Tariq Nasheed, who taught pickup advice like me, though of the “we waz pimpz” variety, is now a media hero because he can’t go an hour on Twitter without declaring someone’s couch as white supremacist.
On the other hand, if you’re a respected black doctor like Ben Carson, you will be labeled racist because your opinions may help whites run their country better.
What a let down to realize that there isn’t a crusade against men as much as white people. By publishing masculine advice to a majority white audience, I was put in the cross hairs, but if I released game guides in Urdu, Dari, or Pashto, I would get big financing and puff stories in the media about how I empower marginalized men of color whose ancestors were victims of white colonialism. You’ve seen the media attack me for being “pro-rape” based on a satirical article yet they can’t seem to get around to reporting on the insane real-rape epidemic in Sweden and Germany.
If you want to know why there is a war against white people, I would start by asking yourself who is in control of the liberal establishment, and if that group of individuals may possess a pathological hatred towards the white race. Their movement used to put a “progressive” or intellectual veneer over kill whitey, but now they don’t even bother to hide it, and because I’ve helped red pill tens of thousands of white men on women, I get the public whip.
History shows that wars and genocides happen after a period of dehumanizing a race or people. This is what’s happening to whites as the kill whitey movement approaches its final stage. I do sympathize for the individual whites (and non-whites) who have been harmed in the kill whitey movement, but I’m confident they can take care of themselves. That said, do you happen to be fluent in Arabic? There are a few game books of mine that I would like to translate.
http://www.returnofkings.com/142488/kill-whitey
whiteathlete33
Hall of Famer
Has anyone kept up with this Keaton Jones nonsense? You know the 11 year old white kid from Tennessee who was apparently being picked on. He made a facebook video with his mom and all these celebrities supposedly came to his aid. Delanie Walker, Snoop Dog, Rihanna, and Corretta Scott King. The mother made a go fund me page and collected 60,000 dollars. Then all of a sudden they post video of the father who is in prison with white supremacist tatoos. They also posted pictures of the mother and the young kid himself holding Confederate flags. All the supposed blacks that showed their support changed their minds. The black racists even went as far as saying the kid was making racial slurs in school so he was attacked by blacks. You couldn't make up a better movie script. Show a young white kid as a victim and then expose them as a racist. This is the ultimate attempt at making white people look like evil racists.
Heretic
Master
- Joined
- May 1, 2015
- Messages
- 3,261
I'm guessing he isn't "White" (by his own admission), but is Caucasian; like South Asians who are Caucasian but (obviously not White).This is written by "Roosh," who is Iranian and Armenian and is regarded as non-White by many racialists. He started off promoting various aspects of game, but has learned the hard way through his activism about the big picture, as this article shows.
KILL WHITEY
ROOSH VALIZADEH DECEMBER 14, 2017
Roosh Valizadeh
Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh created ROK in October 2012. You can visit his blog at RooshV.com or follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Can your commentary, as a gay Jew, be labeled as hate speech because it helps white men understand the forces they’re up against? You will be called a pedophile. Can your commentary, as a Muslim woman, be labeled as terrorism even if you call for Jihad and Holy War against the West? You will still maintain institutional support.
- For many years, I have been at the forefront of teaching men how to embrace their masculinity, maximize their potential, and sleep with beautiful women. During this time, I have come to believe that liberals have an explicit goal to crush men, primarily through the meme of feminism, but I now realize that that was only an intermediary step for a more comprehensive agenda: kill whitey. What I thought was a war against men is really a battle within a bigger war against white people.
You will only get attacked by the establishment if your advice, beliefs, or teachings can possibly help whites, regardless of your own race or sex. If your productive or artistic output could improve the status, reproductive potential, or income earning potential of whites, you will be attacked. If your output helps anyone but whites, or if you can prevent whites from being born by promoting sterility, homosexuality, or abortion, you will be declared a national hero.
Can your self-improvement advice possibly help white men become stronger and more masculine? You will be put on a hate list. Does your NFL activism raise awareness for the oppression of black men? You will be given media support for fostering unity and free speech.
Can your sex advice, written in English, possibly help white men improve their ability to reproduce? Your speech will be curtailed and your family will be doxed. Can your sex advice, translated in Arabic, help migrants reproduce with white women, diluting the white gene pool? You will be financed by the government.
Does your traditionalist family advice possibly help white women raise white children? You will be demonetized or banned from Silicon Valley’s platforms. Does your abortion organization help kill 60,000,000 babies, many of them white? You will be given government funds for literally killing whitey.
It doesn’t matter if, like me, you’re non-white—if your work can possibly help whites be stronger or more fertile, you’ll be marked for destruction. This is why a black man like Tariq Nasheed, who taught pickup advice like me, though of the “we waz pimpz” variety, is now a media hero because he can’t go an hour on Twitter without declaring someone’s couch as white supremacist.
On the other hand, if you’re a respected black doctor like Ben Carson, you will be labeled racist because your opinions may help whites run their country better.
What a let down to realize that there isn’t a crusade against men as much as white people. By publishing masculine advice to a majority white audience, I was put in the cross hairs, but if I released game guides in Urdu, Dari, or Pashto, I would get big financing and puff stories in the media about how I empower marginalized men of color whose ancestors were victims of white colonialism. You’ve seen the media attack me for being “pro-rape” based on a satirical article yet they can’t seem to get around to reporting on the insane real-rape epidemic in Sweden and Germany.
If you want to know why there is a war against white people, I would start by asking yourself who is in control of the liberal establishment, and if that group of individuals may possess a pathological hatred towards the white race. Their movement used to put a “progressive” or intellectual veneer over kill whitey, but now they don’t even bother to hide it, and because I’ve helped red pill tens of thousands of white men on women, I get the public whip.
History shows that wars and genocides happen after a period of dehumanizing a race or people. This is what’s happening to whites as the kill whitey movement approaches its final stage. I do sympathize for the individual whites (and non-whites) who have been harmed in the kill whitey movement, but I’m confident they can take care of themselves. That said, do you happen to be fluent in Arabic? There are a few game books of mine that I would like to translate.
http://www.returnofkings.com/142488/kill-whitey
Several days ago I was watching one of his YouTube vids...apparently the UK has just banned him like they did with Michael Savage several years ago.
Freethinker
Hall of Famer
Cuck Island, as a somewhat prominent alt-righter has begun calling it, is truly living up to its name. Every story these days coming out of the place basically belongs in this thread. For example, a municipality had banned the US President from entry because he tweeted “mean things” about Muslims. Unreal.
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Entire “family” goes ‘transformer’...& should be going straight into the looney bin (or outhouse).
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/entire-family-turns-transgender
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/entire-family-turns-transgender
Dragging the average IQ down. Forty years ago this woman would of been looked at as insane. Today, by and large, most still see her as insane or very mentally corrupted.
Notice the white man with the batman t-shirt to the right: dissimulation, irony?
The Hock
Master
Brainwashed.
werewolf
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 5,995
I think that's a woman with her breasts surgically removed. Female sex perverts are doing that now.