Your politics are the politics of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim, and--yes--Hitler. Those men are collectively responsible for a hundred million murders in the twentieth century, which averages out to almost two deaths per minute, every minute, for a hundred years.
This is what you support. This is what you want.
No one cares what race you are but the fact that you're a marxist is more than enough reason to consider you less than human.
Meanwhile the marxist in question is whining that "They stole my narrative!"
The only thing he was in "prayer" to was the false god of marxism."He stole my narrative," Phillips said. "From the time I hit that first beat of the drum until I hit the last beat, I was in prayer. Now all of a sudden, he's the prayer guy and the passive one."Let's stop right here, Scooter. If that is your idea of prayer, you need to reconsider your religious practices. You''re lucky you got in the face of a kid who had enough respect for your age that he let you get away with what would have resulted in an ass-whipping in large swaths of America.
That latter article ends:
To a great extent paying any attention to this guy is punching down by a substantial degree, but as we''ve seen time and again, if we ignore these people they just grow stronger in the darkness. Phillips isn't a peacemaker or even vaguely interested in reconciliation. He's interested in pushing his narrative where all white people are the enemy and owe him a living and respect because of his DNA. He's intent on being the hero of his own narrative. Now that neither of those particular dogs are showing any inclination to hunt, he's angry and getting all pissy like a tween girl. Screw him. Screw his tom-tom. Screw his self-serving narrative.I agree. Yeah, "Trail of Tears", oh the white man was so cruel to the red/black/brown/green people, so much slavery and injustice! None of that happened to you, and you were born into and grew up in the most free and prosperous society in history, cue Don Henley's "Get Over It":
* * *
Go down to You'll never guess which behavior the media deemed in appropriate for society." Second picture: smirking kid in MAGA hat. First picture: naked man posing with prepubescent boy dressed in girls' clothing.
My focus for this post is on the appalling picture at bottom left, which is one of two that ran over at AOSHQ a couple of weeks ago and which I intended to use for this post but didn't save and now can't find; both appear to have been deleted from Twitter. The blacked-out part of the above pic features Degenerate Dad's bare cock, taped back over his balls drag-queen style. The sickness and depravity evident here speaks for itself; the other picture I mentioned was every bit as bad if not worse.That poor kid is going to be in therapy for life, but no one in the media appears to care about that.
Flip the script. Let's say the man is a normal heterosexual white male who does not cross-dress. Let's further say that he posed nude with a young girl, dressed similar to the crossdressing boy in the actual picture. Would the media be okay with that image, or would they all be calling for the man's immediate arrest? I think we all know the answer to that one. As the article contends, it does not bode well for our society.
And yet...and yet, this teenage boy, confronted with one of the very worst examples of the prior generations, he stands there, not moving, not giving ground, with a smile on his face. He is a rock against which the sea dashes itself.
That's the thing which most infuriates the left: his stalwart resolve, showing only in a lack of motion and a confident smile, proved stronger than his assailant's impotent flailing. He didn't flee, he didn't back down, he didn't even flinch. He stood there, strong, resolute, and cheerful...and that is why the left threatens him, calls him names, wants to see him fed into a wood chipper.
He showed us that the left only has the power that you give it.
Further, he's 17 years old. If there are more like him out there, then there is still hope for us.
* * *
Amtrak may have forgotten that trains aren't planes, but someone else forgot that trains are outmoded as means of travel. The reason Amtrak even exists in the first place stems from that very fact. If intercity passenger rail were not obsolete, there would be a profit to be made in it, and Amtrak would not have been needed, because businesses would exist to provide that service.
But there is no money in passenger rail. There is no money in it because there is no need for it.
Airplanes require less infrastructure and offer greater flexibility than trains do. A train can only go where there is track; an airplane can go anywhere there's a sufficiently long runway. Train tracks cost money to build and maintain; the air does not. It requires a vast capital investment, and the equipment moves too slowly to amortize that investment over any reasonable time frame. Where an airplane can make a dozen cross-country flights in a week, a train can make one cross-country trip--perhaps two--in the same time. And the train actually carries fewer passengers than the airplane does.
Amtrak has never turned a profit, because there is no profit to be turned.
The writer of this article seems not to understand that the days of train travel are behind us, at least in the US, because of hard economic fact. Much the same way passenger ships exist only for tourism, train travel is a tourist activity, something done for the pleasure of it rather than necessity.
And Amtrak can't charge luxury prices for luxury travel.
* * *
Some interesting insight into Brexit. England is still working out the details, but apparently the queen has signaled that she's in favor of Brexit; and further the situation now is a "no deal" secession from the EU, where England does not make any concessions to the EU and simply drops out of the stupid thing.
Parliamentary politics is kind of confusing to us rubes lving under a (nominal) Republic, but the long and the short of it is that the monarch can stand up and say, "No, we don't condone that," when Parliament gets too far out of hand...and the monarchy has effectively warned Parliament that they are getting within spitting distance of just such a refusal:
On Monday, Sir Stephen Laws, the government's retired head of constitutional law, warned that the usurpation of the legislative agenda from the Government of the Crown could necessitate the refusal of Royal Assent for the first time since the reign of Queen Anne, a time before the Act of Union with Scotland, more than 300 years ago. This is where you get the concept of a Presidential veto from. However, there is no parliamentary override vote. Having the warning issued by Sir Stephen was a discreet way of warning the Speaker, analogously to having a former Chief of the Defence Staff speak to the press to warn politicians of things that a serving military officer cannot say.Sometimes, it seems to me as if a constitutional monarchy is probably one of the most stable forms of government there is. Consider that the queen's "veto" power has not been used in three centuries, longer than the US has existed....
Still--sooner Brexit happens, the better off they'll be.
* * *
"That’s why they all are billionaires and all got elected president." Trump's not stupid, no matter how much his enemies wish that were so. And thus far he's proven to be a very effective leader, which is another reason his enemies keep deriding him.
* * *
So there's going to be a third Ghostbusters movie in the original continuity, completely bypassing the "grrl-pwer" reboot from 2016 that was such a disaster. The black one is upset about it.
Cue Don Henley's "Get--" No, we did that one. Still, I won't object if you go back and hit "play" on the video again.
Look: the movie sucked, no one but the critics liked it, and it was a huge flop. Get over it.
As for me, I can't see how the movie will be much of an improvement on the sequel to the original. Well--Bill Murray's Peter Venkman was the de facto main character of the thing, and the late Harold Ramis' Egon Spengler was really a supporting character. And Dan Ackroyd's still alive, right? And Ernie Hudson? So they can probably do it, I guess. Time will tell.
Harold Ramis had the best line ever in a comedic movie, though, as far as I'm concerned. After they've inadvertently chosen the form of Gozer the Destructor as the Sta-Puft Marshmallow man, Venkman asks Spengler if he has any ideas, and Spengler's response is a 100% deadpan, "I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought." I love that line.
* * *
Could we please dispense with the ludicrous notion that the Moon has any environment to spoil? Even if China had fed 100,000 engineers nothing but kung pao eggrolls for a month and then sent the resulting human waste to the Moon and dumped it on the surface there, it would not cause any problems or "contamination". What would happen is that the water would boil away, and the remaining matter would be blasted into complete sterility by solar radiation and cosmic rays.
If they did the same thing to Mars, it would merely take a bit longer. If they did the same thing to Venus, it would take a lot less time, only in this case the stuff would vaporize and dissolve in the planet's sulfuric acid atmosphere.
The only planet which has an environment which can be contaminated by Earth life is Earth itself.
* * *
Anti-white hoaxes. It's pure racism, nothing but.
* * *
I agree; this would be terrifying if it weren't so cute.
"Not all Australian animals will kill you. Don't get me wrong...he wants to. He just can't."
How does he live with such tiny little teeth?