Degenerate #BLM storms stage to censor Milo; security does NOTHING

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

So, Milo Yiannopoulos was speaking at DePaul University in Chicago (big fucking surprise), when the talk was hijacked by BLM scumbags blowing whistles and threatening violence:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2800&v=Pw-MnRyIoQY

It starts at around 46:40.

They effectively ended the event, because paid security did nothing. They then tried to go down to the President's office to complain, but weren't allowed in.

Anyone who thinks that the culture war against SJWs is some minor issue is dead wrong. Look at what these people are doing just as civilians, then imagine what's going to happen when they start to get in to office. There is no bigger issue today than the state of the culture.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

I'm probably going to have to vote for Trump, as Hillary will encourage the left even more, and I personally don't feel like being lynched in the next 4 years.

[angelatc]

I must commend the College Republicans for being far more sane than I am. I would have clubbed someone. If there's gonna be a war, then let's get it on.

Side note, according to Tom Woods, not only did they pay for the venue, they were charged a last minute security fee of $1000. They should get their money back.

[Spikender]

1000 for security?

Money well spent.

[timosman]

School ratings on FB tank, over 5K reviews left in the last 24 hrs - https://www.facebook.com/DePaulUniversity/reviews/


As a gay refugee from socialist Europe, I felt radically unsafe when college authorities allowed a bigoted and homophobic religious preacher to physically threaten me, despite my polite but admittedly slightly camp entreaties that I should not be subjected to threats of violence for the crime of expressing sexual interest in an ethnic minority man. Speaking as a prominent member of the global LGBTQQUFHEBXJSBBF$:&:&; community and member of perhaps the most endangered and marginalised group in society -- gay conservatives -- I demand that the DePaul college authorities immediately rename its accommodation blocks after Ronald Reagan, Ayn Rand and Donald Trump. I refuse to sit idly by as the mechanisms of hate speech undermine my right to make jokes about hideous blubbery train wreck lesbian feminists and obnoxious and petulant Black Lives Matter terrorists. Enough is enough, DePaul. No more safe spaces -- it's time for Shitlording 101 to take its rightful place in the liberal arts requirements and for mischief, irreverence and misbehavior to be restored to the curriculum. PS no one is trans, it's a brain disease.

https://www.facebook.com/milo.yiannopoulos/posts/10206403008009521

[angelatc]

And...doubling down in the bullshit we have the President of the university, likening the #BLM protestors to the Normandy invaders:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/milo-yiannopoulos-protesters-likened-to-d-day-troo/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/25/depaul-president-compares-campus-protesters-to-d-day-soldiers/


Holtschneider begins not by chastising the DePaul protesters, but instead by spending multiple paragraphs attacking Yiannopoulos, who’s “unworthy of university discourse.” Only after this does he finally say it was unacceptable for protesters to invade and disrupt the event.“Yesterday’s speaker was invited to speak at DePaul, and those who interrupted the speech were wrong to do so,” he says. “I was ashamed for DePaul University when I saw a student rip the microphone from the hands of the conference moderator and wave it in the face of our speaker.”

Holtschneider then also praises the anti-Yiannopoulos protesters for having convictions similar to the men who were killed at Normandy.

“Here in Normandy, I expected to be moved by the generosity of those who gave their lives on the beaches early on June 6, 1944,” he writes. “I did not expect, however, to be shocked when I realized that most of the soldiers were the same ages as our students today. The rows on rows of white crosses in the American cemetery speak to the selflessness of the human spirit at early adulthood to lay down their lives for a better world. I realize that many of yesterday’s protesters hold similarly noble goals for a more inclusive world for those traditionally held aside by our society.”

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Origanalist]

Says the guy supporting alt-right hero Milo Yiannopolous. There were no winners at that party.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to cajuncocoa again.

So , we're supposed to care about one freak show attacking another.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Says the guy supporting alt-right hero Milo Yiannopolous. There were no winners at that party.
Yeah, I'm defending the guy who is for unfettered free speech and against leftist mob tactics. You know, the guy who came up with the term "cultural libertarian". Why am I not surprised that you would find a problem with that?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

So , we're supposed to care about one freak show attacking another.
You're supposed to care about leftist mobs running roughshod over people they disagree with, yes. You think it's going to stop with Milo? The left won the culture war by dominating academia and media.

It's amazing I even have to explain that. You just don't like Milo because he's a Trump fan, and you're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[osan]

Well, they've done nothing to assuage black stereotypes.

ETA: That black stooge-woman gets up on stage and immediately starts "dancing". How textbook is that? And she wonders why "I ain't be git no rispick frum yow krakiz."

You can't make this stuff up.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

"unfettered" free speech, as long as it's spoken by a right-wing (preferably alt-right-wing) white male. Yes, we know.
(mod edit) He has never once said that free speech should be restricted to any race or ideology.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I've read some of Milo's stuff on Breitbart. Typical alt-right racist/sexist nonsense. You're not fooling anyone.
"Dats waaaycis! Dats secksiss!"

I can see why you don't care about leftist mob tactics. Under the right circumstances, you'd be one of them!

You're still a craven liar. Regardless of whatever "racist" or "sexist" thing he's said that offended your tiny, pathetic little mind, he's never said that free speech is only for whites or rightists or any group,

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Isn't it incredible that RPF is embracing the same tactics that smeared Ron Paul as a racist back in 2012? Progress indeed! So glad that minority-voter coalition is going to swoop Rand right in to the White House! Oh wait...

[Wilf]

You are a craven liar. He has never once said that free speech should be restricted to any race or ideology.
She is talking about the alt right, not Milo. Also, you are glorifying Milo as if restricting set by universities free speech is an extremely new thing. People, who have not bought into state propaganda, should realize that universities have been restricting long before most people were being born.

[Wilf]

Isn't it incredible that RPF is embracing the same tactics that smeared Ron Paul as a racist back in 2012? Progress indeed! So glad that minority-voter coalition is going to swoop Rand right in to the White House! Oh wait...
So you don't support criminal justice reform?:mad:

[cajuncocoa]

//

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

She is talking about the alt right, not Milo.
She was clearly talking about Milo. The alt-right is pretty "fundamentalist" when it comes to free speech, other than the 1488 crowd, and they're mostly decried as entryists.


Also, you are glorifying Milo as if restricting set by universities free speech is an extremely new thing. People, who have not bought into state propaganda, should realize that universities have been restricting long before most people were being born.
It has absolutely never been as bad as it is now. Or did you miss the debacles at Yale and Mizzou?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

So you don't support criminal justice reform?:mad:
It depends entirely on what that means.

[Wilf]

Also, isn't DePaul private?

[Wilf]

It depends entirely on what that means.
Depends how it is being potrayed by the media?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Thank you for proving my point so well.
You mean your lie that Milo only wants free speech for right wing whites? How did I prove that, exactly?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Depends how it is being potrayed by the media?
????

No, it depends on what that means. Exactly what I said and not hard to grasp.

[Wilf]

It has absolutely never been as bad as it is now. Or did you miss the debacles at Yale and Mizzou?

What about the 1970s and the World Wars.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Also, isn't DePaul private?
It's private. He was invited by the College Republicans, had to pay for security out of his own pocket, and a bunch of degenerates ruined their event, and the security that they paid for ​did nothing.

[osan]

I've read some of Milo's stuff on Breitbart. Typical alt-right racist/sexist nonsense. You're not fooling anyone.

Huh? Oh, please do elaborate.

[osan]

It's private. He was invited by the College Republicans, had to pay for security out of his own pocket, and a bunch of degenerates ruined their event, and the security that they paid for ​did nothing.

That is why we have lawyers and Angie's List. :)

[Wilf]

????

No, it depends on what that means. Exactly what I said and not hard to grasp.

If the media turns it into a race-biting issue would not the alt-right oppose it?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If the media turns it into a race-biting issue would not the alt-right oppose it?
What are you babbling about? When has the media turned criminal justice reform into a "race baiting" issue, other than maybe to chastise the system of "white supremacy"?

What is the policy being discussed? "Criminal justice reform" is meaningless if you don't specify just what it is you're talking about.

[Wilf]

What are you babbling about? When has the media turned criminal justice reform into a "race baiting" issue, other than maybe to chastise the system of "white supremacy"?

What is the policy being discussed? "Criminal justice reform" is meaningless if you don't specify just what it is you're talking about.

I am talking about the militarization of the police system.

[dannno]

http://media.independent.com/img/croppedphotos/2016/05/26/Fem-is-Cancer-Banner-by-Vivian-Bui-ONLINE-3_t479.jpg?ad14627618f647f3902aa65ed5ac8237c798b1e f

http://www.independent.com/news/2016/may/26/feminism-cancer-banner-sparks-heated-debate/

‘Feminism is Cancer’ Banner Sparks Heated Debate

UCSB Demonstration Held Ahead of Thursday Lecture by Breitbart Journalist
Thursday, May 26, 2016
By Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs for the Daily Nexus


Shortly after students unfurled a banner above Pardall Tunnel on Tuesday afternoon declaring that “Feminism is Cancer,” passersby congregated around the tunnel at UC Santa Barbara, forming several pockets of heated arguments.

Members of the student group Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) held the 16-by-4 banner above the tunnel for about two hours because university posting rules forbid fixing a banner of that size to the wall.

The banner’s text is the name of an upcoming lecture by Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, who said on Twitter that his UCSB event “will blow your minds.”

The lecture is at 7 p.m. on Thursday in Corwin Pavilion and is sponsored by YAL.

Students and faculty walked and biked under the tunnel, many stopping to shout at the students holding the banner, either in support or disgust.

“You have more balls than I do,” said one man as he patted a YAL member on the back. Another man said he supported the group’s message but feared being associated with them publicly.

Dozens of students stood on the Isla Vista side of the tunnel, arguing over issues including abortion, rape statistics, and the definition of feminism.

YAL President Dominick DiCesare, a second-year computer science major, said the group hoped to spur a conversation about feminism on campus.

“What came from [the banner] is seven or eight groups of people having their own productive discussions,” DiCesare said. “I will admit it is Machiavellian by all extents, but the fact that it gets people discussing academically on campus is most important for me.”

DiCesare said Yiannopoulos is a “provocateur,” and so “it makes sense that the event’s advertisements would be as provocative as the event.”

Beneath the tunnel, many students disagreed that the banner resulted in constructive conversations.

“These people aren’t trying to have a productive conversation in any way,” said a third-year zoology major who declined to give her name. “There are two different groups that are having this conversation and they’re both just yelling at each other.”

Maria Velez, a second-year political science and feminist studies double major, said she planned on going to Yiannopoulos’s event to show her disagreement. Velez said comparing feminism to cancer is distasteful.

“I just finished being a team leader for Relay For Life, where the university raised thousands of dollars for cancer, and now [YAL] is using the term so lightly,” she said.

Several UCSB students responded to the banner on Twitter.

Jason Garshfield, a fourth-year political science major and former YAL vice president, yelled to passing students from the top of the tunnel as he held a corner of the banner.

“Dr. Milo is giving out free cancer vaccines,” Garshfield said. “I can tell some of you have a strong case of feminism.”

While Garshfield said cancer is “not a perfect analogy” for feminism, he said that feminism “is something that spreads rapidly and is a parasitical movement.”

Garshfield said there are forms of feminism he agrees with, like legal equality for men and women, but he believes that the majority of feminists at UCSB are propagating false rape statistics and infringing on men’s due process rights.

“Before YAL came to campus, there was only one opinion that you could say,” Garshfield said. “Now, there are two. Moderates might say, ‘I don’t agree with those YAL people, but I do have problems with feminism.’”

One UCSB student encouraged bystanders to walk to the area above Pardall Tunnel and speak with the YAL members holding the banner.

“They’re not as crazy as they seem,” she said.

[dannno]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcidBo3TIUM

[LibertyEagle]

So , we're supposed to care about one freak show attacking another.

Yes. That is, if you want anyone to care when your own self is attacked.

What about the concept of free speech? Last I knew, liberty-lovers defended that.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[dannno]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcidBo3TIUM

Does this video get chopped to shit right around 34:10 when he comes on for anybody else?

Seems to clear up around 36:00..

[LibertyEagle]

Are these people in college?

"We good". "Whatchoo got to say"?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I am talking about the militarization of the police system.
I'm opposed to that. I'm also opposed to the rampant criminal degeneracy that comes mostly from poor, minority neighborhoods that make said militarization such an easy sale.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Feminism is a range of political movements (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement), ideologies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologies), and social movements (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement) that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality) political, economic, personal, and social rights for women (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights).[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Hawkesworth-1)[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Beasley-2) This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. Feminists typically advocate (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy)or support the rights and equality of women.[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-hooks-3)In spite of what the 20-somethings on this board think feminism is, or what some are trying to make it out to be, the real definition is laudable, and is not comparable to "cancer" in any way -- except, maybe, to cavemen.
If you actually knew anything about Milo, you'd know his problem is with 3rd Wave feminism. He's done numerous talks with Christina Hoff-Summers, who is a 2nd Wave feminist. I don't buy that you've read anything by him. I was absolutely right to lump you in with those leftist degenerates. Go home to them. They'll accept you, as long as you grovel to minorities and he-shes.

[heavenlyboy34]

Feminism is a range of political movements (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement), ideologies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologies), and social movements (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement) that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality) political, economic, personal, and social rights for women (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights).[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Hawkesworth-1)[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Beasley-2) This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. Feminists typically advocate (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy)or support the rights and equality of women.[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-hooks-3)In spite of what the 20-somethings on this board think feminism is, or what some are trying to make it out to be, the real definition is laudable, and is not comparable to "cancer" in any way -- except, maybe, to cavemen.

Like "liberalism", the original semantic of "feminism" is long lost. Sorry, you're probably not going to get that one back either. :(

[heavenlyboy34]

Does this video get chopped to shit right around 34:10 when he comes on for anybody else?

Seems to clear up around 36:00..
It does for me. :P

[angelatc]

Feminism outlived its usefulness as soon as we got the vote. Now they're all about special rights, not equal rights.

Oh, and not slut shaming.

[dannno]

Feminism is a range of political movements (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement), ideologies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologies), and social movements (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement) that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality) political, economic, personal, and social rights for women (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights).[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Hawkesworth-1)[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-Beasley-2) This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. Feminists typically advocate (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy)or support the rights and equality of women.[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#cite_note-hooks-3)

In spite of what the 20-somethings on this board think feminism is, or what some are trying to make it out to be, the real definition is laudable, and is not comparable to "cancer" in any way -- except, maybe, to cavemen.

If you watch the video I posted where he just gave a talk, he said that feminism was originally good when they were for equal rights many times, but that it has outlived its usefulness and now it is hurting men. He thinks women would be happier if they lived conservative lifestyles, had kids and helped raise a family but that it is important that they are treated equally.

[PaulConventionWV]

1000 for security?

Money well spent.

Yeah... uh, not when the security is worth $0.

[GunnyFreedom]

I must commend the College Republicans for being far more sane than I am. I would have clubbed someone. If there's gonna be a war, then let's get it on.

Side note, according to Tom Woods, not only did they pay for the venue, they were charged a last minute security fee of $1000. They should get their money back.

Yeah, no kidding. Security was a joke. Clearly they didn't get anything like what they paid for.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm withdrawing all previous comments of mine from this thread, not because what I said is incorrect, but the thread is not about feminism and no one gets it anyway. You can't ask women to go back to "conservative lifestyles" where all we do is pump out kids and mop the floor and expect that, without feminism, men will just magically continue to treat us equally (what could go wrong? That worked so well in 1952, right?) Whatever. Reply if you want. Flame away. I've said all I want to say.

[tod evans]

I must commend the College Republicans for being far more sane than I am. I would have clubbed someone. If there's gonna be a war, then let's get it on.


Ready, willing and able.......:cool:

[osan]

You can't ask women to go back to "conservative lifestyles" where all we do is pump out kids and mop the floor and expect that, without feminism, men will just magically continue to treat us equally (what could go wrong? That worked so well in 1952, right?) Whatever. Reply if you want. Flame away. I've said all I want to say.

Pump out kids? You cannot be serious.

Since when did that define "conservative"? I can recall no time in the past 60 years of my life that this has been the case, not even in the 50s. You seem to harbor some misbegotten belief that women were oppressed, which they were not in any pattern that could be credibly labeled as "general". If so, then how is it that I missed it all? I saw no woman in any household I knew who had been forced into marrying, "pumping out" kids, doing housework, and so on. This was the culture at the time; people did this of their own free will, by and large. Nobody was kidnapping women and making them take the vows at the end of muzzles.

Live the way you see fit. That is your prerogative - the basis of your freedoms. Nobody today, save perhaps a Muslim (1/2 :) ) is going to reduce you to the status of a servant.

Jesus... get serious here.

[osan]

She was clearly talking about Milo. The alt-right is pretty "fundamentalist" when it comes to free speech, other than the 1488 crowd, and they're mostly decried as entryists.

Phuk a brick... what in hell are you talking about? I have no idea what any of those things means.

Is is me, or has there lately been something of an explosion of new jargon in the world? Sometimes I feel as if I no longer speak English... like Rip Van Winkle having just awakened after a 500-year nap. "Trigger", "microaggression", "safe space", "cis-gender**".



** Seriously, what in copulating hell is that supposed to mean? It is waved about by these angry lesbo-trannies as if it were some sort of grave insult. The world no longer makes the least sense to me.

[osan]

If there's gonna be a war, then let's get it on.


I will not say war is anything for which anyone should champ, but I do share the impulse. The pall of non-resolution of all these pending issues revolving around the vast landscapes of stupidity that have replaced the most basic rational sanity have become a source of fatigue to many good people, and even a few bastards such as myself. At this point I am ready to see this brought to a conclusion, come what may. There are many things I would yet like to do in life - to accomplish - but if the choice is placed before me to fight or submit to a reduction in status to that of serf, I hope to God I have the courage to eschew the latter.

The violent doggerel of the regressive-left loonies is now quite enough, and yet they are now piling it on ever higher. This is no way to live, and to be honest I feel that stupidity this brazen with hubris and conceit deserves the consequences for which it so insistently begs on all fours like a dog. This nation needs some of that little bit of revolution to which Jefferson once referred because the stupidity in question now poses a clear and present threat to good and sane people all over the land. My cruel hope is that when this dam breaks, the torrents will sweep every last one of these mentally and morally retarded people into the Stygian pit. They no longer constitute a body of mere and innocent ignoramuses, but rather that of a very dangerous adversary who would literally see all with whom there is disagreement, killed. The violence in their thinking and explicitly expressed sentiments makes clear the need to deal with them sans equivocation. The relationship has swung far from that of mere differences of opinion and right into the lap of malevolent intention, replete with their hope that the "authorities" will act to deliver unto them the world for which they demand with such venomous hankering.

[angelatc]

expect that, without feminism, men will just magically continue to treat us equally (what could go wrong?


Yeah. "We're" definitely the weaker sex - delicate fucking flowers who need government to level the playing field because "we" can't compete seriously on "our" own merits.



http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/020/395/takeyourhatespeechoutofthiscampus.gif

[Tywysog Cymru]

Milo is supposedly the face of the new right-wing. It's a depressing thought.

[Origanalist]

Phuk a brick... what in hell are you talking about? I have no idea what any of those things means.

Is is me, or has there lately been something of an explosion of new jargon in the world? Sometimes I feel as if I no longer speak English... like Rip Van Winkle having just awakened after a 500-year nap. "Trigger", "microaggression", "safe space", "cis-gender**".



** Seriously, what in copulating hell is that supposed to mean? It is waved about by these angry lesbo-trannies as if it were some sort of grave insult. The world no longer makes the least sense to me.

No, it's not just you. It's like watching a bad old sci-fi movie, but it's real. I guess.

[Origanalist]

Milo is supposedly the face of the new right-wing. It's a depressing thought.

"I didn't leave the right wing, the right wing left me".

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Phuk a brick... what in hell are you talking about? I have no idea what any of those things means.

Is is me, or has there lately been something of an explosion of new jargon in the world? Sometimes I feel as if I no longer speak English... like Rip Van Winkle having just awakened after a 500-year nap. "Trigger", "microaggression", "safe space", "cis-gender**".



** Seriously, what in copulating hell is that supposed to mean? It is waved about by these angry lesbo-trannies as if it were some sort of grave insult. The world no longer makes the least sense to me.
Alt-right-An umbrella term that refers to to right wing contingents not represented by the GOP, the UK Conservative party, and most other mainstream "right wing" parties and organizations. It includes, but is not limited to: white nationalists, paleos, traditionalists, reactionaries, neoreactionaries, monarchists, national-market anarchists and the European "New Right".

1488-Neo-Nazis. 14 represents a white nationalist slogan called "the 14 words", and 88 means "Heil Hitler".

Entryists-Refers to people who join organizations or movements in order shift them in a particular direction. A tactic used mostly by leftists in the mid-20th Century.

So, most of the alt-right is pro-free speech, except the neo-Nazis who are mostly seen as entryist infiltrators.

It's true that political discourse has become very lingo-heavy, but terms like "entryist" are pretty old at this point.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Milo is supposedly the face of the new right-wing. It's a depressing thought.
You like Sargon of Akkad, but not Milo Yiannopoulos? Rather odd, considering Milo is way more libertarian than Sargon is.

[dannno]

I'm withdrawing all previous comments of mine from this thread, not because what I said is incorrect, but the thread is not about feminism and no one gets it anyway. You can't ask women to go back to "conservative lifestyles" where all we do is pump out kids and mop the floor and expect that, without feminism, men will just magically continue to treat us equally (what could go wrong? That worked so well in 1952, right?) Whatever. Reply if you want. Flame away. I've said all I want to say.


Nobody is asking them to do anything, he is saying that women are happier that way and that is what the science shows and women should be aware of the science rather than being told lies. They should be equal. Milo applauds feminism for making women equal and applauds early feminism. What we are saying is that the things you disagree on are not points to disagree on because there is total agreement there between you and Milo, except for the part where you deny the science that having children and raising children makes women happier.

[Tywysog Cymru]

You like Sargon of Akkad, but not Milo Yiannopoulos? Rather odd, considering Milo is way more libertarian than Sargon is.

Milo Yiannopoulos does do some good things, for sure. But I dislike his fanatical support for Donald Trump. He seems to think that being against political correctness is the only thing that matters, which I strongly disagree with. I'm much more concerned with limiting government and withdrawing from foreign conflicts. He also uses the word "cuck."

I also don't like how he presents himself. I've probably watched close to 100 Sargon of Akkad videos but I can't make it through any of Milo's videos that are longer than 10 minutes. Sargon comes off as a much more intelligent and likable person.

[angelatc]

I also don't like how he presents himself. I've probably watched close to 100 Sargon of Akkad videos but I can't make it through any of Milo's videos that are longer than 10 minutes. Sargon comes off as a much more intelligent and likable person.

I hate video in general which is why I probably am not really very familiar with either of those two people, but Milo is definitely a provocateur, a showman, intentionally over the top. I think we live in a video age where that cult of outrageous personality sells better calm intellectualism. Not that HRC is an intellectual, but Trump's ascension is indicative of my theory.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I hate video in general which is why I probably am not really very familiar with either of those two people, but Milo is definitely a provocateur, a showman, intentionally over the top. I think we live in a video age where that cult of outrageous personality sells better calm intellectualism. Not that HRC is an intellectual, but Trump's ascension is indicative of my theory.

This is probably true. Sargon of Akkad is the intellectual type and will have respectful debates with his opponents.

[silverhandorder]

I dont like how he says cuck either lol.

About being a showman it's funny but he sometimes breaks character and talks intellectual to you. Especially towards the end of Q&As.

I personally appreciate him because what he is doing is not easy and he has to deal with a lot of hate.

[osan]

Yeah. "We're" definitely the weaker sex - delicate fucking flowers who need government to level the playing field because "we" can't compete seriously on "our" own merits.



http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/020/395/takeyourhatespeechoutofthiscampus.gif


Jesus Angela... have some mercy on our eyes.

Bleeding retinas aside, if this grease-whale worked that hard at a gym, she'd be down to three or four tons in no time.

Sheesh.

[dannno]

I hate video in general which is why I probably am not really very familiar with either of those two people, but Milo is definitely a provocateur, a showman, intentionally over the top. I think we live in a video age where that cult of outrageous personality sells better calm intellectualism. Not that HRC is an intellectual, but Trump's ascension is indicative of my theory.

He makes a pretty good point that any rando who started saying the stuff he says would automatically be labelled racist, homophobic, misogynist, prude, etc... but for his character, that shit just doesn't stick, nobody can label him those things and so he has sort of a bullet proof vest when it comes to telling the truth on stuff like this.

[osan]

Milo Yiannopoulos does do some good things, for sure. But I dislike his fanatical support for Donald Trump.

Well then disagree with him on that point and don't judge him based on that disagreement. Shoot - I will acknowledge any valid point someone make and will always give credit where due, no matter how it is. Hell, if Obama declared the sky was blue, I'd agree with him.

I have a difficult time understanding how it is that some people (not implying you're one of them) will damn a man to hell for holding one or two positions with which he is in disagreement - depending on the issue, of course. But in this case, this Milo fellow says valid things about contemporary "feminism"... you know, such as it's cancer. A more direct and elegantly true statement about it would be difficult to contrive.


He seems1 to think that being against political correctness is the only thing that matters2, which I strongly disagree with.

1: Keyword there, SEEMS. Doesn't seem that way to me, but then I don't watch much of what he does, just a thing here and there, so you may know more on it that do I.

2. From my admittedly limited perspective, I get no such impression from him. I do, however, get the message that he thinks this is a really important issue, and I wholly agree with him. PC is far more dangerous than many appear to perceive. We could discuss this for days on end, for all the tentacles this cancer spreads into every corner of life.


I'm much more concerned with limiting government

Dismantling PC is one of the most singularly significant steps toward realizing this valid concern you hold.


He also uses the word "cuck."

Is that bad?


I also don't like how he presents himself. I've probably watched close to 100 Sargon of Akkad videos but I can't make it through any of Milo's videos that are longer than 10 minutes. Sargon comes off as a much more intelligent and likable person.

You don't have to like him. But what does your apparent distaste for his manner have to do with the question of the validity of the points he makes?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I also don't like how he presents himself. I've probably watched close to 100 Sargon of Akkad videos but I can't make it through any of Milo's videos that are longer than 10 minutes. Sargon comes off as a much more intelligent and likable person.
Nicer? Maybe. That's mostly subjective anyway. More intelligent? No way.

Milo has prove himself when debating feminists, both on television and in formal, academic settings. I've never seen him lose a debate. It's true that he has a flamboyant persona that he plays up, but he has it where it counts, intellectually. Sargon on the hand, is bad at debating SJWs. Really bad. He debated Kristi Winters very recently, and he got smacked around. While watching it, my mind was flooded with counter-arguments to what she was saying, that Sargon never brought up. It was a sad sight.

Sargon is a 2nd Wave feminist, as are most MRAs, MGTOWs and so-called "anti-feminists". They're still buying into social justice narratives and claim to fight for "equality". This applies to Milo too, but not anywhere near as badly. This is why people to the right have had such a hard time debating with leftists; they cede pretty much all of the narrative, and just try to debate the conclusions. Milo isn't there yet; he's only about half as right wing as I am, but at least he debates the presuppositions instead of just trying to get to a different place from the same starting point.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Oh by the way, a sociology professor resigned over this. She said free speech is "delusional" and that "objectivity reinforces inequalities".

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/27/depaul-sociology-professor-angrily-resigns-following-milo-visit/

This is Stalinism with a human face. Nothing less. Yeah, but lets go back to talking about how annoying Milo is :rolleyes:

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fely6gd2Q-k

[Tywysog Cymru]

Well then disagree with him on that point and don't judge him based on that disagreement. Shoot - I will acknowledge any valid point someone make and will always give credit where due, no matter how it is. Hell, if Obama declared the sky was blue, I'd agree with him.

I have a difficult time understanding how it is that some people (not implying you're one of them) will damn a man to hell for holding one or two positions with which he is in disagreement - depending on the issue, of course. But in this case, this Milo fellow says valid things about contemporary "feminism"... you know, such as it's cancer. A more direct and elegantly true statement about it would be difficult to contrive.

Is Milo the only person to do that though?


1: Keyword there, SEEMS. Doesn't seem that way to me, but then I don't watch much of what he does, just a thing here and there, so you may know more on it that do I.

2. From my admittedly limited perspective, I get no such impression from him. I do, however, get the message that he thinks this is a really important issue, and I wholly agree with him. PC is far more dangerous than many appear to perceive. We could discuss this for days on end, for all the tentacles this cancer spreads into every corner of life.

I'll have to watch some more of his videos but I haven't gotten the impression that he cares about much of anything besides triggering feminists.


Dismantling PC is one of the most singularly significant steps toward realizing this valid concern you hold.

Would dismantling PC help end the wars, would it make privatization easier? Don't get me wrong, I hate what PC is doing to North America and Western Europe, but it's not the most pressing concern.


Is that bad?

"Cuck" is a childish insult.


You don't have to like him. But what does your apparent distaste for his manner have to do with the question of the validity of the points he makes?

He does make many valid points, but then again so do a lot of other people I don't care for.


Nicer? Maybe. That's mostly subjective anyway. More intelligent? No way.

Milo has prove himself when debating feminists, both on television and in formal, academic settings. I've never seen him lose a debate. It's true that he has a flamboyant persona that he plays up, but he has it where it counts, intellectually. Sargon on the hand, is bad at debating SJWs. Really bad. He debated Kristi Winters very recently, and he got smacked around. While watching it, my mind was flooded with counter-arguments to what she was saying, that Sargon never brought up. It was a sad sight.

I saw that debate and I thought Sargon won.


Sargon is a 2nd Wave feminist, as are most MRAs, MGTOWs and so-called "anti-feminists". They're still buying into social justice narratives and claim to fight for "equality". This applies to Milo too, but not anywhere near as badly. This is why people to the right have had such a hard time debating with leftists; they cede pretty much all of the narrative, and just try to debate the conclusions. Milo isn't there yet; he's only about half as right wing as I am, but at least he debates the presuppositions instead of just trying to get to a different place from the same starting point.

I understand that a lot of people think that the solution is to simply reject everything associated with modernity (like the alt-right), but I disagree with that.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Is Milo the only person to do that though?
He's one of the most effective. Perhaps the most.




I'll have to watch some more of his videos but I haven't gotten the impression that he cares about much of anything besides triggering feminists.
That's an added bonus. Someone who gets up on the podium and dryly reads facts won't resonate with people the way Milo does.



Would dismantling PC help end the wars, would it make privatization easier? Don't get me wrong, I hate what PC is doing to North America and Western Europe, but it's not the most pressing concern.
Wars, maybe not. Privatization, absolutely. Are you unaware of what SJWs think of the free market? They describe the West as a "White supremacist, cis-hetero-normative capitalist patriarchy" FFS.





I saw that debate and I thought Sargon won.
I don't see how anyone can think that. He was on the defensive the entire time, pretty much.




I understand that a lot of people think that the solution is to simply reject everything associated with modernity (like the alt-right), but I disagree with that.
That's not what the alt-right does, you're thinking of NRx. Even then, most neoreactionaries (and I do self-identify as one) don't hate things like capitalism and science. No one fully rejects "modernity" in its entirety.

What's being claimed is that the much-touted "social progress" of the last two centuries was either scientific or economic progress in disguise, or flat-out societal decay. "Social progress" is a myth.

The way to debate SJWs is to realize and defend the following:

-Equality of any kind is a lie
-Organic hierarchy is a good thing, on the whole
-Patriarchy is also a good thing
-Tradition is necessary to a functional, sustainable and free society
-Aristocracy is inevitable and desirable
-Civilizations worth living in will always be male dominated
-Gender and race are real biological categories, not social constructs

MRAs will always lose, because they're still trying to create societies based on fantasy and wishes, not cold hard reality.

[osan]

Is Milo the only person to do that though?

No grok question.


I'll have to watch some more of his videos but I haven't gotten the impression that he cares about much of anything besides triggering feminists.

He does a lot of that and I say that it is a good thing. These women would be amusing, were they not so dangerous. They need to be called out at ever turn and their nonsense exposed and destroyed without mercy because this is precisely the sort of thing that, if left unchallenged, eventually normalizes. The next thing you know, legislatures are voting bills into law and courts are upholding them, those laws toeing the line of demands of these mentally deranged women.


Would dismantling PC help end the wars, would it make privatization easier?

It might. PC is straight out of "1984", which is to say that it centers largely around the dismantling of normality. When people are trained away from the concepts and values of "right" and "wrong" such that they no longer believe in such things, the "state" can then foist damned near anything upon them because they have no frame of reference from which to assess and given proposition. This is a central objective of the tactic called "PC".


Don't get me wrong, I hate what PC is doing to North America and Western Europe, but it's not the most pressing concern.

I must disagree. When the mental landscape of the average man is razed into a flat, bland, undifferentiated plain that stretches for as far as the mind can reach, the tyrant has enabled his ability to make any commandment reasonable in their minds.

Do not discount the salience of PC to the goals of power. It is fundamental in paving the way for those who would seek compliant serfs.

[heavenlyboy34]

No grok question.



He does a lot of that and I say that it is a good thing. These women would be amusing, were they not so dangerous. They need to be called out at ever turn and their nonsense exposed and destroyed without mercy because this is precisely the sort of thing that, if left unchallenged, eventually normalizes. The next thing you know, legislatures are voting bills into law and courts are upholding them, those laws toeing the line of demands of these mentally deranged women.



It might. PC is straight out of "1984", which is to say that it centers largely around the dismantling of normality. When people are trained away from the concepts and values of "right" and "wrong" such that they no longer believe in such things, the "state" can then foist damned near anything upon them because they have no frame of reference from which to assess and given proposition. This is a central objective of the tactic called "PC".



I must disagree. When the mental landscape of the average man is razed into a flat, bland, undifferentiated plain that stretches for as far as the mind can reach, the tyrant has enabled his ability to make any commandment reasonable in their minds.

Do not discount the salience of PC to the goals of power. It is fundamental in paving the way for those who would seek compliant serfs.

Indeed! PC is as destructive to language and rational thought as Newspeak. If the State and various connected institutions/interests can control language, they can control debate and policy parameters-and thus leave those of us with dissenting opinions Shit Out Of Luck.

[Jamesiv1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fely6gd2Q-k
ok, I was getting a kick watching a bit of Milo here and there, but I think I just became a full-on Milo fan.

This guy has license to talk shit about E V E R Y B O D Y ! ! ! ! ! ! LOLOL

9:05 didn't know he is Jewish on his mother's side (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=is+milo+yiannopoulos+a+jew)

[Jamesiv1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fely6gd2Q-k
19:10 "Bringing this all back to Trump"

Well-spoken bit explaining the Trump phenomena - it's not a political revolution, it's a cultural revolution.

That's why nobody gives a damn about Trump's policies, or that he is inconsistent about his policies.

lol

Good point too, about why Bernie ain't gonna win (Bernie is 20 years too late - and his revolution is political, rather than cultural = boring)

[r3volution 3.0]

-Equality of any kind is a lie
-Organic hierarchy is a good thing, on the whole
-Patriarchy is also a good thing
-Tradition is necessary to a functional, sustainable and free society
-Aristocracy is inevitable and desirable
-Civilizations worth living in will always be male dominated
-Gender and race are real biological categories, not social constructs

That's all well and good, but I don't see what it has to do with the goal of reducing the size and scope of government (that's still our common goal?). The sort of culture that these alt-right culture warriors are promoting is not incompatible with most of the objectionable things the government is doing. That is, a populous which accepted those principles you list would not necessarily reject socialism (it would just be a blood and soil type of socialism, rather than a proletarian type). Basically, in its vulgar form (which is to say the only form which you can reasonably expect to become widespread), it's the culture of the Third Reich. To be clear, I'm not saying that this culture entails national socialism, only that it doesn't preclude it. And, if that's the case, what good is it?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Guess the audience and panel were trying to take the high road, but it was a little embarrassing when pretty boy and the host didn't at least take their microphone back from that little Marmoset.

Oh well, that's what happens when you leave the gate open at the zoo.


https://media2.giphy.com/media/tSPTPoc1oggZq/200.gif

[dannno]

ok, I was getting a kick watching a bit of Milo here and there, but I think I just became a full-on Milo fan.

This guy has license to talk shit about E V E R Y B O D Y ! ! ! ! ! ! LOLOL

9:05 didn't know he is Jewish on his mother's side (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=is+milo+yiannopoulos+a+jew)

Ya, I'm not voting or supporting Trump because of his policies, but he is probably the 2nd best thing that could have happened to the GOP this primary.

That was a pretty good video - I really liked his speech and QA at UCSB too, even though he said he wants to deport me on at least two counts :p

[Tywysog Cymru]

That's an added bonus. Someone who gets up on the podium and dryly reads facts won't resonate with people the way Milo does.

That is true, but that's because people have low attention spans and gravitate towards the loudest speaker.


Wars, maybe not. Privatization, absolutely. Are you unaware of what SJWs think of the free market? They describe the West as a "White supremacist, cis-hetero-normative capitalist patriarchy" FFS.

But that isn't the main argument given by the left for it's fiscal policies. The main argument is that the right hates the poor.


The way to debate SJWs is to realize and defend the following:

-Equality of any kind is a lie

Equal protection under the law is a good thing I would say.


-Organic hierarchy is a good thing, on the whole

What exactly is organic hierarchy?


-Aristocracy is inevitable and desirable

Why?


-Gender and race are real biological categories, not social constructs

Gender yes, race no.



He does a lot of that and I say that it is a good thing. These women would be amusing, were they not so dangerous. They need to be called out at ever turn and their nonsense exposed and destroyed without mercy because this is precisely the sort of thing that, if left unchallenged, eventually normalizes. The next thing you know, legislatures are voting bills into law and courts are upholding them, those laws toeing the line of demands of these mentally deranged women.

But is it our number one concern?


It might. PC is straight out of "1984", which is to say that it centers largely around the dismantling of normality. When people are trained away from the concepts and values of "right" and "wrong" such that they no longer believe in such things, the "state" can then foist damned near anything upon them because they have no frame of reference from which to assess and given proposition. This is a central objective of the tactic called "PC".

I must disagree. When the mental landscape of the average man is razed into a flat, bland, undifferentiated plain that stretches for as far as the mind can reach, the tyrant has enabled his ability to make any commandment reasonable in their minds.

Do not discount the salience of PC to the goals of power. It is fundamental in paving the way for those who would seek compliant serfs.

But most people who support our government's horrible policies do it not out of political correctness. Support for big government comes from a misguided compassion for the poor. Support for wars either comes from nationalism or fear.

[osan]

But is it our number one concern?

How does one quantify/prioritize such things? Regardless, it is very high on the list precisely because of that which underpins it, which is the real but latent problem.


But most people who support our government's horrible policies do it not out of political correctness. Support for big government comes from a misguided compassion for the poor. Support for wars either comes from nationalism or fear.

I agree, but point out that this is only a partial answer. The cancer that is PC is undergirded by the most strident and merciless authoritarianism imaginable. It is cold like a fish in that there is nothing sacred that stands between it and its objectives. It destroys human normalcy in order to gain leverage over human action. That is as rankly evil as anything one might care to name.

[parocks]

This PC has been going on since the late 80s - at least. It seems more awful than ever before.

Everything - across the board - is more awful than ever before.

The PC arguments that the angry feminists and their allies were using in 1986 are the same as today, but those college students now have jobs, and the media across the board is behind the PC arguments at this point. Whether this PC stuff is important, I don't know. Everything is awful, worst ever, across the board. Every President is certain to be the worst President ever, and the US is the worst country in the world, next to Israel. Whatever chance there was for things to get better is gone, and it's just all about watching what new bad stuff there are.

Men win some war between men vs women in a context of less government, and lose in a context of more government. Women need government to impose their wishes on others. Where's legalized prostitution? Shouldn't that be something that happened already? Screwing - not ok? Crazy people mutilating their genitals and forcing themselves into any bathroom they want - perfectly normal.

Prostitution and marijuana - what are the arguments against? Morality? Bible? We live in a gay marriage and she-male world. Morality and Bible as arguments weren't able to win against gay marriage and she-males, Prostitution aren't the craziest newest freakshow, but getting high and getting laid are things that people have been doing for thousands of years. World's oldest profession - weed in Egyptian tombs. Completely normal behavior which is banned on morality grounds vs completely nuts behavior, considered far more awful by traditional morality, is now considered ok. The people in charge of almost everything completely suck and are getting worse. That's what we have.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

That's all well and good, but I don't see what it has to do with the goal of reducing the size and scope of government (that's still our common goal?). The sort of culture that these alt-right culture warriors are promoting is not incompatible with most of the objectionable things the government is doing. That is, a populous which accepted those principles you list would not necessarily reject socialism (it would just be a blood and soil type of socialism, rather than a proletarian type). Basically, in its vulgar form (which is to say the only form which you can reasonably expect to become widespread), it's the culture of the Third Reich. To be clear, I'm not saying that this culture entails national socialism, only that it doesn't preclude it. And, if that's the case, what good is it?
Several things. First of all, that wasn't supposed to be a complete list of my opinions or values, it was specifically a list of truths to counter SJW narratives about gender, race and society at large. If they were discussing economics, then criticisms of government intervention and anti-capitalist rhetoric would be forthcoming.

Moreover, I don't think aristocracy or organic hierarchy actually is compatible with national socialism. There's nothing organic about totalitarianism or state-socialism. One could even argue that the nation-state itself is inorganic. Both Nazis and Italian fascists were opposed to traditional German and Italian aristocrats. The Nazis killed revolutionary conservatives on The Night of Long Knives.

[parocks]

How does one quantify/prioritize such things? Regardless, it is very high on the list precisely because of that which underpins it, which is the real but latent problem.



I agree, but point out that this is only a partial answer. The cancer that is PC is undergirded by the most strident and merciless authoritarianism imaginable. It is cold like a fish in that there is nothing sacred that stands between it and its objectives. It destroys human normalcy in order to gain leverage over human action. That is as rankly evil as anything one might care to name.

Israel is pretty much "rankly evil".

[r3volution 3.0]

Several things. First of all, that wasn't supposed to be a complete list of my opinions or values, it was specifically a list of truths to counter SJW narratives about gender, race and society at large. If they were discussing economics, then criticisms of government intervention and anti-capitalist rhetoric would be forthcoming.

From you?

Sure

From the average alt-righter?

Nope, they're about as anti-capitalistic as the average progressive.


Moreover, I don't think aristocracy or organic hierarchy actually is compatible with national socialism.

The underlined, in its vulgar form (see first post), just ends up as power worship.


There's nothing organic about totalitarianism or state-socialism. One could even argue that the nation-state itself is inorganic

Yes, I agree, but what you're talking about is not what the alt-right and Milo's general audience is thinking.

If they ever take power, you will be lined up against the wall and shot, right after I am. :)

P.S. Think about the relationship between the German aristocracy and the NAZIs. Initially, many were keen on the NAZIs as a bulwark against the revolutionary communists. Later, they found themselves in Auschwitz or fleeing for their lives across the border. Populist nationalist movements are incompatible with the Old Order, despite some superficial similarities (mostly consisting in shared hatred of the egalitarian left). Kuehnelt-Leddihn had the right idea about this, drawn from personal experience.

In short, never encourage a howling mob, no matter what they're howling at the moment.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

That is true, but that's because people have low attention spans and gravitate towards the loudest speaker.
I don't think that's why. Someone who can present facts with flair and panache will always keep the attention of the people more than someone who presents it straight. That's what HL Mencken did. I don't think that making a good argument with a bit of showmanship takes away anything from the argument or the arguer.




But that isn't the main argument given by the left for it's fiscal policies. The main argument is that the right hates the poor.
And they hate the poor because they're privileged straight white cis-males. It's a huge reason millenials oppose capitalism; they think it's a system that only helps the privileged.




Equal protection under the law is a good thing I would say.
It depends on what that specifically refers to.

"One law for the lion and ox is oppression"-William Blake




What exactly is organic hierarchy?
Hierarchy that emerges from free association. An intact family, a church, a mentor and student and a private business are all examples of organic hierarchy.




Why?
All societies will inevitably serve aristocratic interests who can make their way to the top of the civilization through whatever means they can. It's better to have an open and clear aristocracy and not a covert, hidden one. That way, their incentive structure can be a healthy one and who they are can be out in the open.



Gender yes, race no.
Race yes. Younger scientists aren't affected by the ridiculous race taboo, and scientists in China don't give a single fuck about Western political correctness. The evidence that's incoming will make the reality of race absolutely undeniable.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

From you?

Sure

From the average alt-righter?

Nope, they're about as anti-capitalistic as the average progressive.
The alt-right is too broad to identify an average member. It is true that low-information, plebe-tier white nationalists have taken center-stage within the "movement", and they have a ridiculous penchant for ethno-socialism, in-group egalitarianism and bizarre economics theories. The kind who think "Mises was a joo0o!" is an argument. The thing is though, there's a reason why the race-focused WNs are resonating more than the more economically literate Neoreactionaries. Immigration is going to be the most important issue of the early 21st Century throughout the West, like it or not.

Plenty of others are very libertarian, very pro-capitalist and want a small government. The alt-right is an umbrella term, not a movement or an ideology.



The underlined, in its vulgar form (see first post), just ends up as power worship.
That could happen, but it could happen in a monarchy too, or any hierarchical system.



Yes, I agree, but what you're talking about is not what the alt-right and Milo's general audience is thinking.
I think Milo's general audience isn't actually the alt-right. Most of his fans are disenfranchised conservatarians, anti-progressive left wingers, classical liberals and anti-SJWs in general. The alt-right seems big online, particularly places like Twitter and 4chan and that effect is exacerbated by Trump's rise. In reality, that's not true. As Ron Paul fans should know, it's easy for a movement to look big on the internet, but that doesn't translate to the real world.



If they ever take power, you will be lined up against the wall and shot, right after I am. :)
Not too worried about that. Reddit shitposters will make lousy revolutionaries.


P.S. Think about the relationship between the German aristocracy and the NAZIs. Initially, many were keen on the NAZIs as a bulwark against the revolutionary communists. Later, they found themselves in Auschwitz or fleeing for their lives across the border. Populist nationalist movements are incompatible with the Old Order, despite some superficial similarities (mostly consisting in shared hatred of the egalitarian left). Kuehnelt-Leddihn had the right idea about this, drawn from personal experience.
That's true, but support of fascism as a bulwark against communism was a common mistake at the time. Mises himself thought that Austrian fascism was a far superior alternative to revolutionary Marxism, and he was probably right in that case. Say what you want about Mussolini, but he didn't have death camps in Italy, and Italian Jews didn't start getting killed until he became Hitler's lapdog. If Italian and Austrofascism became the main contingents of the fascist movement, it would be remembered quite differently.


In short, never encourage a howling mob, no matter what they're howling at the moment.
I agree with that, but the problem is that howling mobs can have legitimate concerns. Some would argue that Ron Paul's fanbase was a howling mob.

[Anti Federalist]

Phuk a brick... what in hell are you talking about? I have no idea what any of those things means.

Is is me, or has there lately been something of an explosion of new jargon in the world? Sometimes I feel as if I no longer speak English... like Rip Van Winkle having just awakened after a 500-year nap. "Trigger", "microaggression", "safe space", "cis-gender**".



** Seriously, what in copulating hell is that supposed to mean? It is waved about by these angry lesbo-trannies as if it were some sort of grave insult. The world no longer makes the least sense to me.

Welcome to my world.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh by the way, a sociology professor resigned over this. She said free speech is "delusional" and that "objectivity reinforces inequalities".

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/27/depaul-sociology-professor-angrily-resigns-following-milo-visit/

This is Stalinism with a human face. Nothing less. Yeah, but lets go back to talking about how annoying Milo is :rolleyes:

These people are insane.

[Danke]

These people are insane.

I hope they let the door hit them on their way out.

[ProBlue33]

You're supposed to care about leftist mobs running roughshod over people they disagree with, yes. You think it's going to stop with Milo? The left won the culture war by dominating academia and media.

It's amazing I even have to explain that. You just don't like Milo because he's a Trump fan, and you're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Hey there is even an article on that
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/11/trump-derangement-syndrome/

I think at the end of the day, many that were for Ron Paul will look at what the further reversals will be with Clinton, and then the total entrenchment of the far left, verses at least some push back from Trump to stem the tide of lunacy, on a variety of subjects..... immigration, gun control just to mention a couple.
Besides we don't know if Trumps way will fail until we try it, but we do know Clinton's way will fail, been there done that.


On that Milo video, he calls himself a Libertarian, he has some interesting perspectives on the current state of culture in 2016 and how it is effecting the rise of Trump.

[LibertyEagle]

In a message posted on Facebook, Dr. Cheng claimed free speech is a “delusional” idea rooted in “market ideology.”

I suppose in her eyes, Communism for the win, eh?

[helmuth_hubener]

You can't ask women to go back to "conservative lifestyles" Nobody "asks" anybody to do anything (successfully). Many women, on their own, are perfectly smart enough to see the truth: the conservative lifestyle is better. More joyous. More fulfilling. More wholesome. More feminine. More wonderful. And crucial for the preservation of civilization. Women are absolutely crucial.


That worked so well in 1952, right? Yes. Yes, it did, actually. These happy families with their cozy house, in their cheerful well-kept suburb, working together, playing together, happily married, guess what? They were happy!

Does anyone know the parable of the Fox and the Grapes?

[helmuth_hubener]

It's true that political discourse has become very lingo-heavy, but terms like "entryist" are pretty old at this point.
As any field becomes more advanced -- more thus more useful! -- it gets more and more specialized terminology. Metallurgy. Machining. Surgery. Rocketry. Shucks, even something like plumbing you think can't be that complicated: trying hanging out in a plumbing supply store and listen to a couple old plumbers talk their trade! Would you use a left-handed curlwhopper to unstick a beebledeegig, or prusherbate the blastyhose ghasketring with frictionsolvent?

So maybe -- hopefully! -- this proliferation of new terms lately especially by libertarians and conservatives means that politics as a science is actually pushing forward and advancing.

[tod evans]

As any field becomes more advanced -- more thus more useful! -- it gets more and more specialized terminology. Metallurgy. Machining. Surgery. Rocketry. Shucks, even something like plumbing you think can't be that complicated: trying hanging out in a plumbing supply store and listen to a couple old plumbers talk their trade! Would you use a left-handed curlwhopper to unstick a beebledeegig, or prusherbate the blastyhose ghasketring with frictionsolvent?

So maybe -- hopefully! -- this proliferation of new terms lately especially by libertarians and conservatives means that politics as a science is actually pushing forward and advancing.

I think we're just hearing incoherent babble......

But whadda I know?

[jllundqu]

WTF Did I just watch??? BLM hijacks the stage and event, then the crowd gets angry and the little girl tells them to sit down and shut up or the event will be cancelled??? (52 min mark).

Thank god I live in Arizona... shit like that wouldn't happen here. Write that place off as a lost cause to progressive socialists and move on... they are lost.

[cajuncocoa]

Nobody "asks" anybody to do anything (successfully). Many women, on their own, are perfectly smart enough to see the truth: the conservative lifestyle is better. More joyous. More fulfilling. More wholesome. More feminine. More wonderful. And crucial for the preservation of civilization. Women are absolutely crucial.

Yes. Yes, it did, actually. These happy families with their cozy house, in their cheerful well-kept suburb, working together, playing together, happily married, guess what? They were happy!

Does anyone know the parable of the Fox and the Grapes?HH, I've always assumed you were a man. Was I wrong?

[helmuth_hubener]

HH, I've always assumed you were a man. Was I wrong? You are very right, cajun, I am a man!

[cajuncocoa]

You are very right, cajun, I am a man!
Good! Then you shouldn't try to assume you know what made women happy at a time that was probably before you were born. If we were all so gosh-darn happy, there would have been no mass exodus out of our kitchen-and-laundry room Utopias. I can't help but notice that everyone offering such an opinion here on this subject is a man. Hmmm.

That well-kept suburb on the outside may have been hiding a lot of ugliness on the inside, from which women had little or no recourse and no voice. Some of those families may not have been any happier than those of today. They just couldn't do anything about their unhappiness. You may have watched too many episodes of Ozzie and Harriet. That was just a TV show.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Good! Then you shouldn't try to assume you know what made women happy at a time that was probably before you were born. If we were all so gosh-darn happy, there would have been no mass exodus out of our kitchen-and-laundry room Utopias. I can't help but notice that everyone offering such an opinion here on this subject is a man. Hmmm.
Is there any evidence that women are actually happier now? I haven't seen any. I have seen data that supports the contrary hypothesis.

[tod evans]

Is there any evidence that women are actually happier now? I haven't seen any. I have seen data that supports the contrary hypothesis.

Men are much more miserable now, surely that weighs in the equation..........

[cajuncocoa]

Is there any evidence that women are actually happier now? I haven't seen any. I have seen data that supports the contrary hypothesis.
There's no evidence they were happier before. Evidence to the contrary is there's no push to take things back to the way they used to be. Except from alt-right men.

[cajuncocoa]

Being the only woman of a certain age on a website quickly turning into a hotbed for the alt-right, I'm not going to sit here all night taking care of 20- and 30-year old men's micro-aggressions suffered at the hands of today's feminists. There's a saying "what goes around comes around." It may not be fair, but I don't make the rules, I don't have to answer for them. Too bad it turned out this way, but what we had to put up with before 1970-ish was much, much worse.

[helmuth_hubener]

Good! Then you shouldn't try to assume you know what made women happy at a time that was probably before you were born. I am actually assuming I have an understanding of both women and men at a time before I was born!

And actually, I don't care so much maybe what you're thinking of in regard to their being "happy" or not. It's a more long-term, deeper thing: Joy.

And actually, even if it they were all miserable and suffering, that's fine, too, because more important than their individual feelings is this: traditional families preserve civilization. I like civilization. Patriarchy is a powerful cultural technology lending stability and viability to a civilization. I am Pro-Civilization.

But actually, it's not the 1950s I admire and want to go back to. America was already far along the slide to oblivion and depravity then. No, they were not the "Greatest Generation". I'll take their grandparents' grandparents. Little House on the Prairie. That was the peak of our civilization, in terms of being civilized. In terms of virtue. And even they weren't doing it right, because, guess what, they were the peak. Things declined after that, evincing that they didn't raise their kids quite right, they were sowing seeds of our destruction even way back then, and now we're harvesting them.

Main destructive seed: prosperity.

Liberty, Prosperity. Pick one.

The austere life is the civilized life. That is the basis for it all. Start indulging and it all starts crumbling down.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

There's no evidence they were happier before. Evidence to the contrary is there's no push to take things back to the way they used to be. Except from alt-right men.
There is, actually. Rates of depression are higher than ever, women commit suicide more than ever, women are more promiscuous than ever, which has been linked to depression. This is all particularly striking when you realize it's at a time when women work more than ever, get married later than ever, have fewer children than ever.

The fact that there isn't a mass movement to go back means nothing. Culture is downstream from power, after all. Does the fact that there's no real mass movement to shrink government to previous levels mean that it's better when government is big? Hardly.

[helmuth_hubener]

Culture is downstream from power, after all.

What do you mean by this?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What do you mean by this?
Culture is inevitably shaped by the society's elites, at least at a certain scale. While it is true that there have been mass movements within culture, as we know, revolutions are always really in the interest of people already in power. Whether it's an aristocrat, a politician, a celebrity or the owner of a media empire, culture is the result of human will.

Lets look at a traditional society, like the Holy Roman Empire. You look at the culture they produced, what do you see? The will and aesthetic tastes of the nobles. The great works of art, the incredible architecture throughout history were commissioned by the aristocratic class. On the flipside, lets look at the modern multicultural West. Is multiculturalism a thing because of popular will? Hardly. If at any point it was put to a vote (other than perhaps very recently), it would have been overwhelmingly struck down. Cultural shifts happen because who the elites are is ever changing in a democracy.

[helmuth_hubener]

Very good points, thanks for explaining!


Lets look at a traditional society, like the Holy Roman Empire. You look at the culture they produced, what do you see? The will and aesthetic tastes of the nobles. Hmm, but was it in the interests of the elite to have the civilization decline and collapse?

[timosman]

Hmm, but was it in the interests of the elite to have the civilization decline and collapse?

They just couldn't help themselves. :)

[ProBlue33]

Well isn't it well known that at least part of the decline of the Roman empire was that the basic family unit fell apart due too morality that was never stronger than a persons individual personal conviction in a culture of orgies?

Reminds me of todays great world power..... family unit in disarray and a morality that encourages, supports and defends mental illness instead of treating it.

As you say the Roman elites couldn't help themselves, it least with Trump fighting back against political correctness, we will be able to call this madness out, as the tables will have shifted.

[yinzer38]

In a message posted on Facebook, Dr. Cheng claimed free speech is a “delusional” idea rooted in “market ideology.”

I suppose in her eyes, Communism for the win, eh?

I'd caution you away from just looking at someone's last name and painting with a broad brush - although her field of study (sociology) and words indicate that she is not a fan of free markets, the presence of a hyphen in her given name Shu-Ju Cheng suggests that her family origin is NOT from communist China but rather Taiwan.

[helmuth_hubener]

the presence of a hyphen in her given name Shu-Ju Cheng suggests that her family origin is NOT from communist China but rather Taiwan. People from Taiwan still trend far, far more leftist than the general population of America. All Asian immigrants do -- Indian, Hmong, Malay, Chinese, everybody, no matter how you break them down. They're all socialists. They all trend way, way left. Sorry!

So do professors.

The presence, then, of both parts of her name: "Dr." and "Cheng" are dead give-aways she is opposed to the free market. It's a one-two knockout punch.

[yinzer38]

People from Taiwan still trend far, far more leftist than the general population of America. All Asian immigrants do -- Indian, Hmong, Malay, Chinese, everybody, no matter how you break them down. They're all socialists. They all trend way, way left. Sorry!

More painting with a broad brush. How many people from Taiwan do you know? Your allegation that ALL Asian immigrants are socialists is categorically false and one that I would urge you reconsider. I can speak from personal experience that the Chinese American community is one that's preoccupied with making money and getting ahead - our culture is fiscally conservative and we probably hate affirmative action more than most. Go to any large Chinatown in this country like the ones in California or NYC and you'll see that local Chinese American politics are still dominated by the Kuomintang and aligned with the Republican party, a hold-over from the Cold War days. I'm certain that these people wouldn't appreciate being called socialists to their faces.

[heavenlyboy34]

Being the only woman of a certain age on a website quickly turning into a hotbed for the alt-right, I'm not going to sit here all night taking care of 20- and 30-year old men's micro-aggressions suffered at the hands of today's feminists. There's a saying "what goes around comes around." It may not be fair, but I don't make the rules, I don't have to answer for them. Too bad it turned out this way, but what we had to put up with before 1970-ish was much, much worse.
What is the "alt-right"? :confused:

[dannno]

Being the only woman of a certain age on a website quickly turning into a hotbed for the alt-right, I'm not going to sit here all night taking care of 20- and 30-year old men's micro-aggressions suffered at the hands of today's feminists. There's a saying "what goes around comes around." It may not be fair, but I don't make the rules, I don't have to answer for them. Too bad it turned out this way, but what we had to put up with before 1970-ish was much, much worse.

That's an odd comment considering every scientific study has shown that women were much happier pre-1970s.

[dannno]

What is the "alt-right"? :confused:

There are probably a lot of definitions, it should technically be anybody on the right who doesn't like the Fox News garbage or most of the big time conservative radio hosts - but in reality I think it is more of the drudge and breitbart crowd, conservatives who get their news and views from the internet rather than the establishment. They tend to be a little nationalistic and anti-SJW, so while there is some crossover and overlap it isn't really the libertarian crowd per se.

[Danke]

What is the "alt-right"? :confused:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDbCGgN8Dv8

[helmuth_hubener]

More painting with a broad brush. How many people from Taiwan do you know? Doi bu chi, ching gwhen, ru gwa ne bu jia ee: Why didn't you ask me how many professors I know? You've got no righteous outrage for me painting them with a broad brush, eh?

Broad brushes brush. That's why they call them broad brushes. They work. They're true. You can paint your whole house with them, nice and quick.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/09/1f/b8/091fb8f3747d57f0f9370d74c74e4612.jpg

Me: That house is blue.

You: What, how dare you! What about all that trim? Have you ever even been inside that house? I happen to know the people inside that house love yellow way more than blue. So how can you claim to know their favorite color? And look at the roof -- it's not blue.

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-74962e7349a1fe10fb4ebfae7324b5d5?convert_to_webp=t rue

http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/asian-demvote1.png

I'm friends with Asians. They tend left and vote Democrat.

You are friends with Asians, too. If you have enough of them for a good sample (and I'm sure you do!), believe me: they tend left and vote Democrat.

Facts are facts. I like to keep it factual.

But, but, the trim is white!

[yinzer38]

Doi bu chi, ching gwhen, ru gwa ne bu jia ee

Nice effort at Chinese romanization.


Why didn't you ask me how many professors I know? You've got no righteous outrage for me painting them with a broad brush, eh?

No righteous outrage for you regarding academia, as I wholly agree with you there.


Broad brushes brush. That's why they call them broad brushes. They work. They're true. You can paint your whole house with them, nice and quick.

As to painting with a broad brush, as we libertarians would not treat people merely as just members of a given group but as individuals, I don't think that it is right to slander Asian immigrants as a whole as "socialists."


I'm friends with Asians. They tend left and vote Democrat.

You are friends with Asians, too. If you have enough of them for a good sample (and I'm sure you do!), believe me: they tend left and vote Democrat.

In my n=1 experience regarding Chinese Americans, our parents and grandparents were anticommunists and voted Republican. My generation is Americanized, and we tend to vote the same way as other Millennials do. If you really, really want to paint with a broad brush, don't blame the immigrants, blame us native-born Americans!


Facts are facts. I like to keep it factual.

For what it's worth (due to low voter turnout, questionable sample size, etc.), polling data indicated that Asian American voters actually favored (just barely) the Republicans over the Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections.

[angelatc]

That's an odd comment considering every scientific study has shown that women were much happier pre-1970s.

And she certainly isn't the only woman over the age of 30, or 40, or even 50 on these forums.

[Danke]

Nice effort at Chinese romanization.



No righteous outrage for you regarding academia, as I wholly agree with you there.



As to painting with a broad brush, as we libertarians would not treat people merely as just members of a given group but as individuals, I don't think that it is right to slander Asian immigrants as a whole as "socialists."



In my n=1 experience regarding Chinese Americans, our parents and grandparents were anticommunists and voted Republican. My generation is Americanized, and we tend to vote the same way as other Millennials do. If you really, really want to paint with a broad brush, don't blame the immigrants, blame us native-born Americans!



For what it's worth (due to low voter turnout, questionable sample size, etc.), polling data indicated that Asian American voters actually favored (just barely) the Republicans over the Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections.

my experience with Asians, they are overall conservative.

[Devilish]

What is the "alt-right"? :confused:

Founder of the alt-right:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SgLSV9Mgfw

[timosman]

my experience with Asians, they are overall conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_government_and_politics#Voting_ trends

[Danke]

Zzz

[helmuth_hubener]

ThePaleoLibertarian: "Lets look at a traditional society, like the Holy Roman Empire. You look at the culture they produced, what do you see? The will and aesthetic tastes of the nobles."

Hmm, but was it in the interests of the elite to have the civilization decline and collapse?

I don't know what direction you would have taken this in a reply, ThePaleoLibertarian, but here is where I was going with it:

These Romans, they were smart guys. They could see what was happening, many of them. Work ethic declining, discipline declining, morality declining, even willingness to have children -- the basic building block of, well, continued life! -- had fallen off a cliff. I do not think that's what they wanted. You can read their books and speeches lamenting the disaster they saw unfolding.

So why couldn't they stop it?

They did not know how. And "how" isn't political anyway. It can't be stopped by political changes. Even had Murray Rothbard (or Hans Hoppe, if you prefer) been put in charge and instituted anarcho-capitalism, that would not have been enough to turn things around. I have come to believe: It's Biological. The fall of civilizations is biological. Elites don't cause it. Biology does. Elites can't stop it. Biology could (In theory. It never has before.).

There are disastrous epigenetic consequences from having too much food, too much sex, too much recreation, too much plenty. So the seeds of the civ's destruction are planted by its very success. So OK, maybe if Hans was able to effect some revival of traditionalism, family values, etc., -- and he's a traditional guy, he probably would try at least -- in addition to libertarian reforms, that might have some hope of working.

I highly recommend to you the book Biohistory:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/418o-Z8DnnL._SX355_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (https://www.amazon.com/Biohistory-Decline-Fall-Jim-Penman/dp/1443871303/)

It will only increase your Paleolity that much more! :cool:

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I don't know what direction you would have taken this in a reply, @ThePaleoLibertarian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=60921), but here is where I was going with it:

These Romans, they were smart guys. They could see what was happening, many of them. Work ethic declining, discipline declining, morality declining, even willingness to have children -- the basic building block of, well, continued life! -- had fallen off a cliff. I do not think that's what they wanted. You can read their books and speeches lamenting the disaster they saw unfolding.
I'm assuming in this context you mean the Roman Empire and not the Holy Roman Empire. The latter fell because of world order after the French Revolution was so toxic to traditional societies. What would the world be like without that pesky revolution? Alas, we will never know...


So why couldn't they stop it?

They did not know how. And "how" isn't political anyway. It can't be stopped by political changes. Even had Murray Rothbard (or Hans Hoppe, if you prefer) been put in charge and instituted anarcho-capitalism, that would not have been enough to turn things around. I have come to believe: It's Biological. The fall of civilizations is biological. Elites don't cause it. Biology does. Elites can't stop it. Biology could (In theory. It never has before.).

There are disastrous epigenetic consequences from having too much food, too much sex, too much recreation, too much plenty. So the seeds of the civ's destruction are planted by its very success. So OK, maybe if Hans was able to effect some revival of traditionalism, family values, etc., -- and he's a traditional guy, he probably would try at least -- in addition to libertarian reforms, that might have some hope of working.

I highly recommend to you the book Biohistory:


It will only increase your Paleolity that much more! :cool:
That is an interesting theory, and I will take a look at that book when I find the time. I can't address the specific claims in the book, but it there's just a few problems that come to mind when proposing a biological explanation. If it is due to wanton sex, recreation etc. what is the answer? Neo-Luddism? I do want to see a more traditional society with clear hierarchy and the like, but I also want that same society to have nanotechnology, AI and quantum computers. Is that possible? Maybe not, but the synthesis of traditionalism and futurism is one of the reasons I find Neoreaction so interesting. I admit it could be an impossible dream, but I'm not ready to call it yet.

Of course, the possible Luddite implications don't refute the theory, or have any bearing on its truth value.

It's clear to me that history is cyclical, but the causes behind the cycles have yet to be truly discretely defined. What's also true is that different civilizations cycle at different rates. Again, look to the Holy Roman Empire. It lasted for 1000 years if you start counting at Charlemagne. Whatever forces cause societies to collapse, the HRE was remarkably good at withstanding. It had a decentralized, but hierarchical power structure, traditional cultural norms, common law and little bureaucracy. Proto-capitalist forms of property started to emerge as early as the 13th Century, and though its economy fluctuated, it was comparatively quite wealthy. A society like that seems to me to be better at weathering the storm, wherever its origin.

In my view, entropy is a constant, throughout not just biological, but sociological and political systems. Civilization slows social entropy in the same way the sun slows entropy on Earth. Some social order slow entropy better than others, but you can't run forever.

[susano]

I will not say war is anything for which anyone should champ, but I do share the impulse. The pall of non-resolution of all these pending issues revolving around the vast landscapes of stupidity that have replaced the most basic rational sanity have become a source of fatigue to many good people, and even a few bastards such as myself. At this point I am ready to see this brought to a conclusion, come what may. There are many things I would yet like to do in life - to accomplish - but if the choice is placed before me to fight or submit to a reduction in status to that of serf, I hope to God I have the courage to eschew the latter.

The violent doggerel of the regressive-left loonies is now quite enough, and yet they are now piling it on ever higher. This is no way to live, and to be honest I feel that stupidity this brazen with hubris and conceit deserves the consequences for which it so insistently begs on all fours like a dog. This nation needs some of that little bit of revolution to which Jefferson once referred because the stupidity in question now poses a clear and present threat to good and sane people all over the land. My cruel hope is that when this dam breaks, the torrents will sweep every last one of these mentally and morally retarded people into the Stygian pit. They no longer constitute a body of mere and innocent ignoramuses, but rather that of a very dangerous adversary who would literally see all with whom there is disagreement, killed. The violence in their thinking and explicitly expressed sentiments makes clear the need to deal with them sans equivocation. The relationship has swung far from that of mere differences of opinion and right into the lap of malevolent intention, replete with their hope that the "authorities" will act to deliver unto them the world for which they demand with such venomous hankering.

You're a wonderful writer. You're alarm is not uncalled for. All of this insanity you so brilliantly described is nothing other than communism. Feminism and the feminist movement is just one of the weapons. It most definitely is a cancer.

Watch these (17 minutes total):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYu6qhd88_M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUt8iHVTO4w

There are many videos on Youtube about cultural Marxism.

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

http://www.henrymakow.com/001904.html

When liberals wanted to corral blacks on the welfare plantation (LBJ's Great Society), one of the conditions of welfare was that the father could not reside in the home. That's still the case, today.

[susano]

Alt-right-An umbrella term that refers to to right wing contingents not represented by the GOP, the UK Conservative party, and most other mainstream "right wing" parties and organizations. It includes, but is not limited to: white nationalists, paleos, traditionalists, reactionaries, neoreactionaries, monarchists, national-market anarchists and the European "New Right".

1488-Neo-Nazis. 14 represents a white nationalist slogan called "the 14 words", and 88 means "Heil Hitler".

Entryists-Refers to people who join organizations or movements in order shift them in a particular direction. A tactic used mostly by leftists in the mid-20th Century.

So, most of the alt-right is pro-free speech, except the neo-Nazis who are mostly seen as entryist infiltrators.

It's true that political discourse has become very lingo-heavy, but terms like "entryist" are pretty old at this point.

Thanks for that. It seems quite a few people try to tar all of those disparate groups to the neo Nazi faction. Self preservation is now "fascist", a slur frequently leveled at Viktor Orban as Hungary fights against being devoured in Merkel's progressive Muslim onslaught and also leveled at Putin by the Atlanticist neo liberals and other internationalists.

[susano]

I hate video in general which is why I probably am not really very familiar with either of those two people, but Milo is definitely a provocateur, a showman, intentionally over the top. I think we live in a video age where that cult of outrageous personality sells better calm intellectualism. Not that HRC is an intellectual, but Trump's ascension is indicative of my theory.

Milo isn't really my cuppa but I like him because he's confronting these disgusting SJWs using their own tactics. He's perfect for the audience and environment he's targeting.

[susano]

Oh by the way, a sociology professor resigned over this. She said free speech is "delusional" and that "objectivity reinforces inequalities".

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/27/depaul-sociology-professor-angrily-resigns-following-milo-visit/

This is Stalinism with a human face. Nothing less. Yeah, but lets go back to talking about how annoying Milo is :rolleyes:

Wow, her drivel is a textbook example of critical theory which has replaced critical thinking in what used to be places of higher learning. It said she deleted the FB post and I wonder if that was just a hissy fit/SJW crybullying or if she really resigned. She sure as hell should.

For that kind of indoctrination, students are going 100K in debt. Haha, f**k 'em.

[susano]

19:10 "Bringing this all back to Trump"

Well-spoken bit explaining the Trump phenomena - it's not a political revolution, it's a cultural revolution.

That's why nobody gives a damn about Trump's policies, or that he is inconsistent about his policies.

lol

Good point too, about why Bernie ain't gonna win (Bernie is 20 years too late - and his revolution is political, rather than cultural = boring)

Wow, that's it! I've not watched the video but will. He nailed it. That explains, for me, why I thought the most important thing Trump ever said was about ending political correctness. There's so much I cringe at with him but when he said that, I was all in. Culture has never been more important to me and it's a big reason I hold Putin in such high regard. I'm sorry it's Donald Trump and not someone of the caliber of Putin or Orban but nobody in US politics has stepped up on this issue, which I see as a matter of survival.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcD__8qynoQ

[susano]

WTF Did I just watch??? BLM hijacks the stage and event, then the crowd gets angry and the little girl tells them to sit down and shut up or the event will be cancelled??? (52 min mark).

Thank god I live in Arizona... $#@! like that wouldn't happen here. Write that place off as a lost cause to progressive socialists and move on... they are lost.


Due to who it is that controls the higher 'education' system, were Milo to visit some AZ schools, I think you would be shocked to see it happen there, as well.

[susano]

Good! Then you shouldn't try to assume you know what made women happy at a time that was probably before you were born. If we were all so gosh-darn happy, there would have been no mass exodus out of our kitchen-and-laundry room Utopias. I can't help but notice that everyone offering such an opinion here on this subject is a man. Hmmm.

That well-kept suburb on the outside may have been hiding a lot of ugliness on the inside, from which women had little or no recourse and no voice. Some of those families may not have been any happier than those of today. They just couldn't do anything about their unhappiness. You may have watched too many episodes of Ozzie and Harriet. That was just a TV show.

I'm a woman, born in 1954, and I agree with him. Your assertions about women being virtual slaves, forced to pop out babies and mop floors is baloney. My mom, in the early 60's, started her own own very successful employment agency and was a respected businesswoman in the community.

Yes, there are always people who have miserable lives, are abused and don't have a way out but that's just as true now as ever - maybe even more with the poverty that comes with broken families.

Feminism was one of the tools used to destroy the family. It lauded the single mother lifestyle as superior to having both parents in the home. It made necessary not taking care of one's own babies by dumping them in daycare with strangers so mom could work. It demonized men, even going so far as to deem them unnecessary. What the social engineers did to black families they would like to do to all families. The main goal was and is replacing the family with the state.

Strong families make strong communities which are an obstacle to the anti life NWO ruling elites and their filthy minion commie foot soldiers.

[susano]

Very good points, thanks for explaining!

Hmm, but was it in the interests of the elite to have the civilization decline and collapse?

It was and is in the interest of communist Jews who are envious, resentful and HATE what they see as the Christian west. I don't necessarily mean religious when I say Christian but I mean cultural. I'm not religious, hold spiritual views that are eastern (India) but am culturally Christian (raised in a Catholic family). Jews have had it in for Christians since Jesus Christ walked the earth. Then they got run out of over 100 countries, mostly Christian, and they're still pissed about it. Then things didn't pan out in Russia, as they would have liked, and that's why there is this war (economic, propaganda, demonizing, starting wars on their borders, surrounding with NATO, etc) against Russia. Obviously, I'm not talking every individual Jew but cosmopolitan international leftist Jewry. This isn't just me saying this. They've said it themselves and Israeli born ex-Jew, Gilad Atzmon has written and warned about this, extensively. Yes, they have plenty of non Jewish co-conspirators, but it's a Jewish agenda.

[susano]

I'd caution you away from just looking at someone's last name and painting with a broad brush - although her field of study (sociology) and words indicate that she is not a fan of free markets, the presence of a hyphen in her given name Shu-Ju Cheng suggests that her family origin is NOT from communist China but rather Taiwan.

Sheesh, it's not her name it's what she SAID. She's a Marxist. LibertyEagle called it as it is based on her words.

Why did you assume it was because of her name when she made her twisted ideology so clear?

[timosman]

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/10/depaul-black-coalition-present-demands-to-university/


10 Jun 2016

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/05/milo-yiannopoulos-depaul-university-protesters-2-640x480.jpg

The DePaul University Black Leadership Coalition has released a five-page statement regarding Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos’ visit to the college in May.
The Black Leadership Coalition, which represents black students and faculty members at DePaul, is apparently not satisfied with the university president’s grovelling attempts to placate them, and is now engaging in the age-old progressive tactic of a diversity shakedown — give us what we want, or we’ll call you racist.

Because the college allowed Yiannopoulos to speak on campus, the Coalition is now calling for:


A new position of V.P. for “Diversity and Inclusion”
Administrative positions (“Diversity Advocates”) at each DePaul college
A new “African-American Center” for black students and faculty members
A defined role for “affinity groups representing diverse communities” whenever the university “makes a major decision,” including the hiring of Provosts and Deans.
Modification of enrolment strategies and admissions criteria to increase the number of students of African descent.
A new representative structure that acts as a “conduit” between DePaul’s black community and the university president.
Dismantling of the President’s Diversity Council, the current body tasked with managing diversity at DePaul.
Bi-annual town hall meetings between the DePaul Black Leadership Coalition and the Board of Trustees


“The community of African descent at DePaul is deeply offended and disappointed with the manner in which President Holtschneider has handled the controversy both preceding and subsequent to the Yiannopoulos campus visit” reads the statement. “DPUBLC strongly believes that the Yiannopoulos event is merely the tip of the iceberg and symptomatic of larger racial tensions at DePaul.”

The statement goes on to express frustration at the lack of support for students suffering from “microaggressions” and “racial profiling” at the school, before also complaining about chalk signs on the campus that said “Build the wall” and “Blue Lives Matter”, a popular slogan used to defend police officers killed in duty.

“It was in this charged atmosphere that the DePaul College Republicans decided to host the “Dangerous Fagg0t: Feminism is Cancer” tour, featuring Milo Yiannopoulos, “a popular media figure who routinely uses his platform to engage in violent, sexist, transphobic, and racist rhetoric”” claims the statement, calling Yiannopoulos “violent” despite his calm and peaceful reaction to the event which was interrupted by two Black Lives Matter activists who stole the moderator’s microphone before threatening to assault Yiannopoulos.

The Black Leadership Coalition then goes on to blame college president Holtschneider, citing his failure to refuse Yiannopoulos entry to the college.

President Holtschneider’s failure to effectively interpret likely events exposed faculty, staff, and students of African descent, as well as members of other marginalized groups, to threats of physical harm, animus, and hostility. Perhaps most troubling and potentially damaging, in the aftermath, the administration has engineered a clever reframing of events that ignores its culpability, disregards the longstanding racial tensions on campus, and places blame on the African American protesters. Although framed as a free speech issue, the event was in fact a safety issue. There is no right to free speech that justifiably places members of the DePaul community at risk.

We, the members of the DePaul University Black Leadership Coalition (DPUBLC), believe that Father Dennis H. Holtschneider is disconnected and out of touch with issues facing DePaul’s community of African descent, and we are not confident in his ability to effectively resolve problems affecting it.

Instead of standing up for Yiannopoulos’ right to freedom of speech and the First Amendment in general, Holtschneider grovelled to the far-left protesters shortly after the event, claiming “There is no precept of free speech known to the law, to morality, or to common sense, that required marginalized communities of students to sit quietly as supplicants while the campus that their tuition, grant and loan dollars fund was deployed as a sounding board for their own belittlement based on their race, gender, and sexual orientation”.

Holtschneider also claimed that students “were still shaking from the frightening effects of the hate speech they experienced” in his statement that attempted to win back protesting students to no avail.

The Black Leadership Coalition finished their statement with a list of eight demands, which include more specialised diversity staff and an “African American Center for students, faculty, and staff of African descent” before doubting the leadership of President Holtschneider.

[RandallFan]

It's ironic the attacks on Tea Party & Trump supporters as not being the best and brightest.

This is probably the most articulate black activist on campus and he's a fucking idiot. "Dump the Trump".

[r3volution 3.0]

The alt-right is too broad to identify an average member. It is true that low-information, plebe-tier white nationalists have taken center-stage within the "movement", and they have a ridiculous penchant for ethno-socialism, in-group egalitarianism and bizarre economics theories. The kind who think "Mises was a joo0o!" is an argument. The thing is though, there's a reason why the race-focused WNs are resonating more than the more economically literate Neoreactionaries. Immigration is going to be the most important issue of the early 21st Century throughout the West, like it or not.

I appreciate the distinction between the Molbuggian elites and the ethno-nationalist rabble.

My only problem with the former is that they are encouraging the latter - intentionally or otherwise.

I guess they think they can lead them.

I don't, I think they're feeding a wolf pup that's going to grow up one day and eat them.

[susano]

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/10/depaul-black-coalition-present-demands-to-university/


It's not as bad as when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were shaking down their targets. It's a thousand times worse.

Where is this going? Will it take an actual war to end this commie insanity?

[helmuth_hubener]

Nice effort at Chinese romanization. Hey, I don't write it, I just speak it! Even then, Wa shwoe da boo how.


No righteous outrage for you regarding academia, as I wholly agree with you there. And yet, it's just as broad a stereotype. I have family members in acedemia, and they are not leftists! I am now offended and victimized! How dare you agree with me on that, you collectivist slanderer?! ;)


As to painting with a broad brush, as we libertarians would not treat people merely as just members of a given group but as individuals, I don't think that it is right to slander Asian immigrants as a whole as "socialists." Not right? Why not? Is it "not right" to write the following: less than 20% of Chinese tend Republican, while over 60% tend Democrat. That is, after all is said and done, a fact.

Are some facts simply forbidden to be uttered?

The answer seems to be yes. That is, in fact, the genesis of this thread. And you seem, in fact, to be on the wrong side, the side of the hoodlums trying to forbid certain facts and call people racists.

Not a good place to be! Re-position!




In my n=1 experience regarding Chinese Americans Umm, I don't know if you are familiar with science and statistics, but if not let me politely say: here's the thing, Yinzer. n=1 is not a valid sample size. Nothing can be concluded from this, except that the incidence clearly is not completely impossible for the population of which Mr. "1" is a member.

Guess what, I have an n=1 sample size, too, and it says that people with Chinese ancestry can be anarcho-capitalists. But what it doesn't say is that they all are, or that many are, or that most aren't socialists. Because (fanfare): they are!


If you really, really want to paint with a broad brush, don't blame the immigrants, blame us native-born Americans! I am not "blaming" anyone! What a truly pointless, impotent thing to do that would be!

Reality. Facts. Awareness of the facts. These are important. Immigrants are humans. Humans have children. Whether it's the first generation disproportionately voting for socialists or the second and all the rest, whatever. Doesn't matter in the long term. The second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. to eternity generations are what matters long term. It should not be entirely unpredicted that immigrants would have children. This is not exactly an impossible result to foresee. Immigrants are humans. Humans have children. Surprise!

Now luckily Asians do not have particularly a lot of children, and so they are projected to hold steady at 10% of the population. They aren't the demographic threat. Extra 10% for the Democrats (or whoever the more socialist party happens to be) from now to eternity. Annoying, but not insurmountable. It's the Hispanics that will destroy our future. They're going to 30%. Then 40%. Then 50%. They will not stop.

[erowe1]

It's not a good sign when a thread title here can just say the first name, "Milo," and it's expected that people automatically know who that POS is.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm assuming in this context you mean the Roman Empire and not the Holy Roman Empire. Yep, you got it. When speaking of Romans, I mean the unholy kind. ;)



I can't address the specific claims in the book, Why is it so rare to read a reasonable statement like this on the internet? How very refreshing. You're tops in my book, TPL.


what is the answer? Well, it's science, not politics, so it doesn't come with an answer. Maybe there is no solution. Maybe all successful, creative civilizations are destined to become prosperous and then to collapse. They all have so far!

That's the bad news.

The good news is: mankind already has come up with lots of solutions. Otherwise, we would never have risen this far. See, it really doesn't take nanotechnology and quantum computers to reach a toxic level of prosperity. Crop rotation is plenty more than enough. But humans have developed cultural technologies that combat our natural tendencies and avert reversion to bare subsistence.

Got to back up and lay out the basic theory.

Look at gibbons. They live in a highly food-restricted environment. So they have developed a temperament suited for that. Unlike other primates, they work hard. Even when they're not hungry, they keep working. They are constantly gathering food. They're the Calvinist Work Ethic poster children of the animal world. They have few children, they spend tons of time raising them. Family values, no day care for them. The food restriction -- not famines, just a constant low-level hunger -- activates these behaviors.

It also activates similar behaviors in humans. Hard work, conscientiousness, family orientation, respect for importance of property (territorial). These behaviors are the basis for civilization.

We humans have some very powerful cultural technologies that emulate this food restriction environment. Restriction of sexual activity is one extremely important one. Restricting that has essentially the identical effect on temperament as food restriction. Also, many religions have a technology called "fasting" which is nothing but food restriction itself. There's a little bit of a feedback loop, too, in that doing the things that food restricted people do -- working hard, being disciplined -- makes one more inclined to restrict his food intake on his own, just naturally. Not powerful enough to be stable, but there's a little bit, and so social pressure to work hard, looking down on and shunning lazy people (even if they're rich and powerful), etc., does help.

Anyway, without all these cultural technologies -- mostly religious in nature or at least origin -- we in the West would have been fat and lazy and reverting back to horribly low living standards back hundreds of years ago. You don't need robot slaves -- windmills would have done it.

But now we have become so rich, our prosperity has at last out-run our cultural technology. Our cultural technology is good, but not that good. It just is not strong enough to counter-act the mountains and mountains of obscene, overwhelming wealth that our brilliance has created.

So the solution, if you're asking me, would be to further buttress and reinforce and harden our cultural technology. In down to earth, practical terms: you've got the dough, doesn't mean you have to spend it. It's just that simple. You don't have to buy a dishwasher -- force your kids to do them every night by hand. You don't have to get a robotic lawnmower, or even a motorized one -- do it manually. No one is forcing you to turn on your A/C, no one is forcing you to buy new clothes instead of teaching your daughter to patch the ones you've got, and most importantly no one is forcing you to have a TV to infest and tear down your home with its degraded and degrading anti-culture.

We should look to Scrooge as our hero. Well, not in his personal relations, we'd want to be a more cheerful, vibrant Scrooge, but as far as living far, far, far below his means: that's the ticket. Or to Sam Walton. Here's a billionaire, but he drives the same beat-up truck 'til the day he dies. He's got it, he just doesn't spend it.

It's OK to earn it (fantastic and virtuous to earn it!), but you just can't spend it. It's the spending that kills you. And especially kills your kids. Take away your kid's cell phone/tablet. Replace it with a shovel, and put them in charge of the coal mine you're opening in your back yard. "You load 15 tons, whaddaya get? A society that won't collapse inta oblivion."

So austere living. OK. The second important factor to solve the problem is: parenting. We need to exercise a much higher degree of control over our kids. We temperamentally don't want to, not nearly enough, but we need to. We need to set down rules and make them behave. Doesn't sound very libertarian, I know, but tight control of children is actually essential to turning out the right kind of people to make a libertarian society possible.

Austerity. Disciplinarianism. Not exactly going to win any popularity contests, those two, but implement them in your family and there's at least the seeds of the beginnings of the hope of a solution.

[timosman]

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/13/depaul-president-step-facing-backlash-milo-event/


by TOM CICCOTTA, 13 Jun 2016

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/maxresdefault-640x360-1-640x360.jpg

Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider has announced his plans to step down from his role as the President of DePaul University following pressure from radical left-wing activists in the wake of Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos’ recent visit to campus.
Holtschneider came under fire in late May for the University’s handling of a lecture given by Yiannopoulos, which was interrupted and shut down by DePaul students. Despite Yiannopoulos being threatened by one of the protesters, DePaul administration, under Holtschneider’s direction, refused to allow security to intervene during the event.

In response to the backlash over the mishandling of the event from students, alumni, and the general public, Holtschneider issued a lukewarm apology but failed to apologize to Yiannopoulos. As a result of the incident, the University’s Facebook page received a barrage of negative reviews and complaints, which dropped the school’s average rating overnight to below two stars out of five.

The apology only caused more problems for Holtschneider, however. The DePaul Black Leadership Coalition, representing black students and faculty members on campus, have put relentless pressure on the President ever since he apologized to the college Republicans, and called for his resignation. After attempting to placate them with a grovelling statement backtracking on his previous apology, Holtschneider has now revealed that he intends to resign.

In his resignation letter, Holtschneider claimed this decision is the best for the University moving forward. “I believe, therefore, it’s best for DePaul if I step aside in the summer of 2017 so that a new leader can assist the institution to name and ambitiously pursue its next set of strategic objectives.”

Holtschneider also claims that this decision was made several months ago, as part of a transition plan for the University.

http://i.imgur.com/4lU2PxJ.png

The entirety of President Holtschnieder’s resignation letter to the faculty can be read below.


My dear colleagues and friends,
Last Christmas, I spent the days before the New Year on retreat, reflecting on all that has been accomplished at DePaul. Many of the goals we set at the outset of my presidency for DePaul’s enrollment, finances, academic quality, new academic programs, facilities, alumni organization, national reputation and, most importantly, its Catholic and Vincentian mission have been achieved. We’ve done this together through two, six-year strategic plans.

My intent had always been to conclude my service with the end of my contract in 2019. I realized, however, that this does not time well with DePaul’s planning cycle. We have work still to accomplish on Vision 2018, yet within a year it will be time to prepare the next set of university goals. Strategic plans are six-year affairs at DePaul, and the campaigns that fund them are often longer in duration.

I believe, therefore, it’s best for DePaul if I step aside in the summer of 2017 so that a new leader can assist the institution to name and ambitiously pursue its next set of strategic objectives. This way, momentum will continue unabated. To do otherwise would put the university in the position of having one president define the next strategic direction for another president to manage or, if we waited until 2019, put the university into a holding pattern until then.

My decision to step aside as president has been underway since my Christmas retreat. In late January, the provincial of my Vincentian congregation gave permission for this transition. I informed DePaul’s board leadership in March, at which time we decided to share this news more broadly at the conclusion of the academic year. The Office of the Secretary and board leadership interviewed and hired a search firm in early May.

Please know I am not leaving for another position. While I will remain open to assignments after 2017, my present plan is to return to DePaul in my tenured faculty position following a year away from the institution to give the new president the breathing room he or she deserves.

The leadership of the board of trustees will write the campus later today to describe the search process and invite the broad involvement that is DePaul’s custom. In the meantime, we have one more year together. I intend to use it aggressively not only to advance the Vision 2018 goals we set together several years ago, but also to work on the new goals emerging from our conversations about race and speech taking place these past weeks.

I know I will look back on my years leading DePaul with overflowing gratitude. This is an extraordinary university by any measure, and that is primarily because of the people who make up this institution. St. Vincent often attributed the developments in his life to God’s providence, and that is the only category that can encompass my experience of having been invited into the DePaul community twelve years ago. As we enter into the “baker’s dozen” year of my presidency, know how proud and grateful I am to work alongside you every day.

God bless you,
Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M.

Tom Ciccotta writes about Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity for Breitbart. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or on Facebook. You can email him at tciccotta@breitbart