BANNED USER: waging culture war repeatedly after multiple bans and warnings
Lepidus
No bio...
User ID: 1547
Banned by: @Amadan
Part 1: Da Jooz totally did it (Negro communism edition)
Prologue: David Cole Stein has a wonderful post on how conservatives do best when they 'notice': "Hey look at all the deranged homeless people screaming at you on the subway", but are limited by their own stupid tendency to also promote grand theories for why things happen: "The dems are brainwashed by Chinese communist propaganda". When you combine an observable and undeniable fact, with even a plausible but unprovable theory (and for the record I think CCP propaganda theories are psychotic), you provide people with a social license to dump it all in the trash. Some (Kevin McDonald cough) might find that a small price to pay to be considered Sherlock Holmes. Well, Motters, I'm not gonna let you get off that easy.
Thesis: Jewish elite overrepresentation in destructive cultural movements is not explained by their higher intelligence. It is also a critical factor, perhaps the critical factor in setting these off and shaping the direction these take. When Jewish elites act, they are representing the values of Jews in particular, not merely elites generally. Jews are always willing to go further than general elite opinion.
The Jewish Public vs. The Comparable Gentile Public
The civil rights movement immediately led to a continual orgy of violence and mayhem (the OG summers of Floyd), and that the American public begged someone to put an end to it. This was Nixon's silent majority. Here are the voting patterns of Whites with college degrees - at the time corresponding roughly in IQ to the average Jew, and Jews:
WHITE COLLEGE GRADUATES - NIXON - 80 - 82% ___ VS ___ JEWS - HUMPHREY - 81%
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-voting-record-in-u-s-presidential-elections
The harmful role of Jewish Elites
- The Abolition of freedom of association (Shelley V. Kraemer)
In 1948, The US government joined a black plaintiff and their black lawyers in suing to abolish restrictive covenants, which limited the sale of homes to Blacks. Note critically, that restrictive covenants were private agreements between private homeowners; and thereby entirely outside the scope of any plausible interpretation of the constitution. Of course, by US government I mean; Jewish solicitor general Philip Elman, four Jewish lawyers and not a single gentile lawyer. This great dose of Jewish overrepresentation was obscured on the advice of Arnold Raum (take a guess) who said:
It's bad enough that [Solicitor General Philip] Perlman's name has to be there, to have one Jew's name on it, but you have also put four more Jewish names on. That makes it look as if a bunch of Jewish lawyers in the Department of Justice put this out."
The Supreme Court sided with the US Government, and the only mechanism protecting tens of millions of Americans, including 80% of homes in Los Angeles and Chicago; from the carnage that was to follow, was rendered unenforceable. This was single most important battleground of the civil rights movement, and it was won by the enemy before people knew the war was going on.
RETRACTION NOTICE
Boy have I screwed the pooch here. As @Gdanning notes, Cohen was actually arguing for the company's ability to conduct IQ tests, not against it. He also alleges Jewish support for opposing racial quotas in Bakke v. California. I'll verify and update accordingly.
- School segregation and the other standard civil rights cases**
Here Jewish representation tends to be more balanced, corresponding well to their representation in the American elite generally. Critically however, Jewish lawyers never appear on the anti-civil rights side of a case.
- The murder of IQ testing (Grigg's v. Duke Power Company)**
Here again, the US government joined the black plaintiff in requesting that the Court establish the precedent that promoting based on intelligence tests would be like providing equality of opportunity "merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox." In other words, presumptively discriminatory unless you could prove otherwise.
Perceptive readers will note that by US government, I mean Lawrence M. Cohen speaking in the name of the US Chamber of Commerce.
Response to Objections:
Readers may note that all of these decisions required the cooperation of a majority gentile supreme court. This is a fair objection but I would note that SCOTUS judges are immunized from repercusions by their lifelong tenure and high status. No one was gonna turn down offering a job to any SCOTUS judge afterwards, regardless of what he did. A lawyer who forcibly integrated your neighbourhood, was a different matter. I don't doubt that there were a few non-jews in the office of the solicitor general who supported Shelley, but only the Jews had the sheer guts to pursue it.
Lepidus
1yr ago
The multi-century near universal practice of footbinding amongst the most educated and intellegint strata of society (but going down far lower) is definitionally not anecdotal. Footbinding represents a fundamental qualitative deviation from any widespread european practice and was continued up to the peak of independent Chinese civilizational development. Unless you reject HBD entirely, it is exceedingly stupid to claim that it cannot be cited as evidence of differing innate genetic dispositions.
HENRICH's MIRRORS, KENYANS and invincible ignorance
Joseph Henrich, the Harvard professor of evolutionary biology who coined the term WIERD to describe Westerners, and wrote the book on the cultural differences between us and them recently went on Hanania's podcast where he insisted that the Kenyan advantage in running records was... purely a matter of cultural psychology. Having introduced the bizzare lengths to which knowledgeable Academics will go to lie about the most obvious things; and knowing that these taboos have been the sacred in the West for so long, I'd like to propose the possibility that even committed HBDers have only scratched the surface of how far biological differences may go.
With that in mind, let's consider the matter of Kenyan children and mirrors. What matter you may ask? Well, one that might prompt the following, again from Heinrich, et al.
"It is possible but unlikely that these children, up to 72 months of age, did not recognize themselves in the mirror. Although the data presented here do not directly address the question of why they did not show signs of self-oriented behavior, we speculate that these are false negative responses..."
You read that right, standard self recognition testing does not detect self recognition in Kenyan children, a whole three years after it does so in European toddlers, and who knows how much longer.
Now, you'll have noticed that a 5 years of age, even dumb children can be asked questions. Yet for some reason, the study in question shows no sign that these children were ever asked anything about what they saw. In fact the study makers decided to go for another round elsewhere, and leave it at that. Thousands of psychologists are aware of this study, it was even published in Scientific American, and yet no one has publically tried to run it again. If there is even the slightest possibility that this means what It might mean, we are talking about the most important replication attempt in modern history, and it's not even close.
If put on tape, this is the final shot in the HBD wars, and one which even the normiest normie can understand. Any takers? My own prediction is 20% non-recognition, 30% fraud, 20% innate psychological differences in responding to mirrors, and 30% abusive parenting.
Lepidus
1yr ago
Whitey bad, white woman racist cuz she won't look at me. Whitey did slavery, he lied and put papa in jail, he owes me money. This is not complicated, and doesn't require acceptance of some batshit academic theory. Your insistence that this kind of thinking is not common among blacks is utterly baffling to me. Have you ever been near lower class blacks; talking amongst themselves about racial issues?
Furthermore, specific racial contempt is hardly relevant given how they treat each-other without needing any ideological excuses for it. The question is can my child walk the streets in a neighbourhood where they are around without fear of being hurt. I don't care why someone threatens me and those I care about, just that they do.
Lepidus
1yr ago
Christians and the Killing of abortion doctors:
I'm well aware that a strong case can be made for absolute Christian pacifism or more moderately for employing violence only with the consent of the ruling authority. Yet these positions are clearly not majority ones. Imagine if I posed to the average Christian the following hypothetical:
Tomorrow, the government passes a law declaring that blacks, being subhuman, are no longer entitled to any protection under the law. While the law allows you to kill a person who threatens the life of a regular person, killing a person who threatens a black is now murder. Mark 1.0 disagrees. While he is not black himself and has no special relationship with blacks, he consider them to be regular humans entitled to defense. As such, he goes to a black extermination center and kills a few of its exterminators. Are Mark 1.0's actions morally justified?
I think the vast majority of Christians would say that Mark was not only acting justifiably but commendably. If he started a revolution that overthrew the government, they would celebrate him as an example of Christian courage and dedication. If, however I replace Black with fetus, and exterminationist with abortion doctors, fundamentalists suddenly discover the value of 'giving unto Caesar', talk about how their belief in the sanctity of life is incoherent with killing abortion doctors and condemn Mark 2.0.
Once again, my claim is that there is no deontological theological justification that allows for Mark 1.0's actions, but not Mark 2.0's. Thus, when Christians claim to disown anti-abortion violence on religious grounds they are almost always either making a best methods utilitarian calculation (which given 60 Million abortions since Roe v. Wade seems rather specious) or demonstrating that their worship of the flag, trumps their commitment to God.
Lepidus
1yr ago
The use of Reaganite as a slur on the racial front bugs me. He tried to kill disparate impact theory (ie. the theory under which the government enforces affirmative action) but was overriden by congressional republicans, tried to stay friends with apartheid South Africa (the party led by McConnell I believe, overrode him again), and had some pretty based quotes. "To see those monkeys from those African countries - damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Then again, he did screw up on amnesty for illegals but that seems more justifiable.
Lepidus
1yr ago
Near universal participation in an activity amongst the upper classes in an activity is by definition not equivalent to selective posting regarding cardiologists. You can claim that it doesn't imply what I think it implies, but pretending it's selective is just open rank dishonesty.
A single instance of mass participation in an activity (mass cannibalism in the absence of famine) engaged in by no other modern society; is also entirely fair, in the same way it would be fair to suggest a deeper biological roblem if America was the only country where people had ever raped children.
As for the Yang Yue case or it's many counterparts, The Chinese themselves don't deny that they have a major crisis of callous indifference, they just blame it on modernity or if outside the CCP's jurisdiction, communism. Am I not allowed to interpret it differently in light of evidence of longlasting cruel tendencies?
Regardless of whether you agree that there is a meaningful link between cruelty to one's children and callousness to strangers', it's fundamentally against the spirit of this forum for you to threaten to ban me for it.
Charles Murray, and the based NPC question
The romantic view of a dissident involves a person who is simply temperamentally repulsed by the kind of bullshit others peddle, and courageously commits himself to it's refutation. But there is another less romantic, if still mildly endearing version. It's of the person who is fully programmed by what is said explicitly, but somehow deficient enough socially to completely miss the modifiers; the soviet diplomat who hears "Stalin values all legitimate criticism" and is oblivious to the meaning of "legitimate" so he writes him a letter on how communism must end. Hardly a Yudina.
This brings me to Charles Murray. Two days ago, Hanania published his magnus opus on Asian overperformance where he suggested that given the absence of a shared culture; asian overperformance must come from elsewhere. He then intuited that the cause must be a global Kendiist stereotype threat; powerful enough to penetrate North Korea, and maybe even the space time continuum to transform the Chinese before they were stereotyped.
Charles Murray reads the post and responds:
"I was so dumbfounded by this that I read it again to make sure that he really doesn’t mention genes. I’m still not absolutely sure that it isn’t an elaborate put-on. But if he’s serious…wow." Luckily, Ross Douthat was there to clarify things, replying "It's an elaborate put-on". Now think of how bizzare it is that literally the top player in the HBD sphere, is only mildly suspicious that a person positing psychological timetravel with chinese characteristics (admittedly as a potential detraction), might be speaking in jest.
Now you can imagine this guy hearing about freedom of speech from the moment of his birth, genuinely believing that everyone is on his side, and then publishing the bell curve without the slighest idea that it would be controversial. Now, kind of going in another direction - What if similar social deficiencies are present throughout the social science world, and much of what we think of as obvious woke censorship is actually complete social illiteracy?
This of course would complicate my understanding of the issues raised in my prior post. Maybe Henrich upon hearing that 6 year old Kenyan kids don't seem to recognize themselves in the mirror; consciously decides to not dig any further to avoid the gaze of the cathedral. Or maybe, he just doesn't understand that six year olds can answer questions. https://www.themotte.org/post/421/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/78627?context=8#context
Lepidus
1yr ago
I don’t even know why i’m bothering to ask this, but have you ever been to China?
No. I have not.
Think the cultures fit well together and we could each learn a lot from each other.
Please, Name one aspect of Chinese culture that you would like to see implemented here given the option between it, and the similar version of it present in Western countries before the 1960s.
Lepidus
1yr ago
-
I not only don't care about them, I fundamentally don't understand why people do.
-
(Obviously this is not to say that I want those people removed -- that sets a dangerous precedent because who decides?)
In any society containing modern progressives (ie. postwar ones), you don't exactly get a choice on the matter. These people represent enemy civilians at best and enemy soldiers at worst, in a zero sum war against your basic rights and interests - to stop half way at indifference is to declare the bizzare position of neutrality towards yourself.
Lepidus
1yr ago
Believe it or not, Journos ride the subway. They are personally threatened by criminality on a regular basis. Does this stop them from advocating for the [honorable citizens], who prey on people there?
I don't think Stupidity is genuinely the issue here. Instead, I think the Republican party is an engine for managing the gradual and peaceful surrender of it's base to intolerable conditions. If you say, look the Democrats have openly violated all the rules on which the country is based and they won't stop, then there is little else left to do but to fight. It's a cross the Rubicon or perish moment and the GOP base still has a shot at prevailing in open conflict. Instead, the party tells it's people that if we can just catch them pulling off this criminal conspiracy, then the system can be saved. At the end of the day, party operatives would rather lead their base to irrelevance than to allow for a war which would hurt their class allies. It's why we get all this talk about Hispanics or Blacks as natural conservatives, as the party abets the dilution of it's own loyal voters... etc.
Lepidus
1yr ago
Yes. Here's the review: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/just-like-home/.
The Uvalde police actually appear to be entirely latino, of varying levels of distinctly visible native admixture. It's border patrol that is half-non latino.
And that’s before asking if 40% vs 11% chance of trust could actually make the difference. I can think of a lot of other reasons a man might do his job—or fail to do it.
I really don't know how to bridge the inferential gap here. If anyone else can, please be my guest.
Lepidus
1yr ago
This one should be relatively easy to solve. What percentage of the institutionalized was black?
Lepidus
1yr ago
They are and I don't entirely blame them. Liberalism contains most of the smart and capable people in the white race, while conservatism contains many of the dumbest. People are failing because they are being discriminated against by evil people/systems at least makes some sense. Conservatives' "blacks are natural conservatives, but are kept degenerate because liberals give them too much shit" borders on the most batshit take imaginable. It's hard to blame someone for choosing a consistent ideology that's blatantly wrong on the facts, when any moment that they look around to get the other side, they get insane ramblings and a reification of those blatantly wrong facts.
Lepidus
1yr ago
Why would it be? Garrett Jones makes a compelling case that even European immigrants only assimilate about half-way, generations after they've forgotten even their original language. There is a considerable IQ gap between mestizos and white europeans. Why shouldn't our prior be an absence of complete integration?
Also, the idea that American citizenship means much when you can obtain it without knowing the language is prima-facie absurd. Even if you are a Civ Nat it should be obvious that we are a long way away from anything resembling integration conducive conditions.
Lepidus
1yr ago
Peter Singer has made a name for himself over the past few decades describing this as "speciesism" and comparing it directly to racism as a means of convincing people his view of universal utilitarianism is true -- I prefer just to bite down hard on that bullet and say I am not a racist for the same reason I AM a speciesist. All humans are superior to all other things, full stop. Human supremacy forever.
This is not biting the bullet. In fact it is the exact opposite of biting the bullet, and a perfect illustration of why the right looses. You don't want to admit White superiority because doing so has become taboo, but then you have no basis for human superiority other than 'because I feel that way'. Well, 'because I feel that way doesn't cut it' just in the same way that the 'whites and blacks are totally equal, I just think they should remain separate' copout of the segregationists who didn't want to offend their black housekeepers didn't cut it. Unless you are willing to draw your sword, cut down your enemies, and draw the line based on your sheer brutality and force of will, it has to be based in something anyone who matters can recognize. Failing to do so doesn't make you better off, it makes you look callous and pointlessly cruel.
I value specific features of the human experience that set us apart from animals is that position. By discarding it you haven't bit the bullet, you've shot yourself in the face.
Why is it so hard to admit that It was wrong to tear down the earlier hierarchy?
Actually I think the Jewish problem is mainly socially constructed, and that the only genetic aspect to it is their high IQ. Imagine if you will, the Irish suddenly becoming 15 points smarter and a million of them migrating into the UK while obtaining a corresponding share of the Irish elite. You think the part where the key factor in Irish identity is their oppression, mostly real but sometimes fictional by brits is somehow gonna be forgotten? You think they might not sympathise and ally with every other resentful anti-British group ion the planet? Then what should Brits do?
I think Moldbug's categories don't really apply well here. Republicans had generally been pro-some civil rights but drew the line at private property. Democrats hadn't been too concerned with private property, and were pretty statist, but as I noted elsewhere their version of progress circa 1918 was 'eugenics, self determination for competent races and segregation'.
There were pro-civil rights brahmins and anti-civil rights brahmins, pro-civil rights optimates and anti-civil rights optimates. New catholic elites, which don't really fall under either group, but I guess we can call them Brahmins provided we don't foget this is ahistorical were the only other group consistently allied with Jews and blacks.
Yes, obviously the blacks (not many yellows back then) play their role as stormtroopers, but no sane person imagines blacks pulling off the conquest of large chunks of metropolitan America on their own. White Catholics are an important part of the story, but at least their participation on the enemy side was temporary self interest while they integrated and a good half of them if not slightly more are now on the right side. Jews are the permanent Lieutenant and above staffing force for the permanent revolution, and it's not obvious that there are any concessions that could pacify them.
even if your thesis is true, so what? If the civil rights movement is indeed a destructive plot by triple-parens them, I can't get myself to think this is particularly immoral given that they have a pretty solid case for retaliation/self-defense in destroying whatever it destroys.
What did we ever do to them? This is the only country that let Jews in without discrimination, restricting their immigration only when Jewish revolutionaries began rampaging through eastern europe. They've made fortunes here. And now, a country that has done so much for humanity must have all it's cities turned into open air sewers because? Seriously, what have we done that justifies this?
And if what you mean is that Jews are entitled to do whatever it takes for them to feel safe even in the absence of a casus belli, why should we not feel the same way and act accordingly?
I think so far I've been a net beneficiary even taking into account all of its failings and wrong turns and local negatives.
And how is that? Furthermore, shouldn't your reaping benefits from this country engender some kind of gratitude and desire to defend it?
The lack of empathy you observe in mainland Chinese culture is in large part due to the cultural devastation unleashed by communism over the past century, which has created a far more atomized, materialistic, acquisitive, and sociopathic society than existed previously or that can be seen in ethnic Chinese communities that did not undergo the twin calamities of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
Do we have any reason to believe that this is true? People living with the shame of being part of an inescapably horrible society are not exactly going to be immune to fabricating the idea of a brighter past.
Consider this quote from, Ralph Townsend a US Consular official writing before the war and before the Communist takeover.
"Almost any veteran foreigner who has traveled up and down the rivers of China will be able to recount one or more cases where he has personally observed a man
drown without efforts to save him by other Chinese a few feet away on shore or in a boat. "
His experiences disgusted him so much that he published a book called "ways that are dark, the truth about China", and went around the U.S claiming that the Japanese were actually the good guys (getting arrested and charged with the Manafort offense - acting as an unregistered agent). That, or he was on their payroll from the start and made shit up, I guess we can never know for sure.
Having read it, I can say that the Wikipedia summary in no way understates the allegations he makes:
Through a large number of personal and second-hand anecdotes, Townsend argues that the Chinese may be the only people in the world who are completely unable to comprehend the basic human impulses of sympathy or gratitude toward other people. Because the Chinese feel no empathy toward others, they behave in an unbelievably sadistic and cruel fashion toward one another, and they view altruistic foreigners as targets to be mercilessly taken advantage of.
Lepidus
1yr ago
''' It may beggar belief, but some humans are capable of extending empathy--even charity!--beyond their racial group. '''
People are also capable of extending charity outside of their family, yet the norm for most people, most of the time, is to extend far more empathy and charity to family members than to outsiders. In fact, most people would seriously distrust a person who told them, hey I care about family members and non-family members equally.
''' Again, you assert that Jews must be unusually malevolent, yet do not provide your evidence. '''
Once again, I think that every elite group is tempted to feel contempt for those it rules, and that the vast majority of it's capacity for benevolence towards those ruled stems from ethnic identification with those ruled.
Lepidus
1yr ago
It was not me. I’d bet on your Jew recognising himself in the mirror though.
Lepidus
1yr ago
Let me indulge this theory, like a person with basic curiosity might except for German genetics:
Bordering on the Suiones are the nations of the Sitones. They resemble them in all respects but one - woman is the ruling sex. That is the measure of their decline, I will not say below freedom, but even below decent slavery. - Tacitus on a German Tribe
The dowry is brought by husband to wife, not by wife to husband. Parents and kinsmen attend and approve the gifts - not gifts chosen to please a woman's fancy or gaily deck a young bride, but oxen, a horse with its bridle, or a shield, spear, and sword. In consideration of such gifts a man gets his wife, and she in her turn brings a present of arms to her husband. This interchange of gifts typifies for them the most sacred bond of union, sanctified by mystic rites under the favour of the presiding deities of wedlock. The woman must not think that she is excluded from aspirations to manly virtues or exempt from the hazards of warfare. That is why she is reminded, in the very ceremonies which bless her marriage at its outset, that she enters her husband's home to be the partner of his toils and perils, that both in peace and in war she is to share his sufferings and adventures. That is the meaning of the team of oxen, the horse ready for its rider, and the gift of arms.
- Tacitus on Germans generally
Wait, what? A society where men gift their brides swords?
But wait, there's more...
"The Naharvali proudly point out a grove associated with an ancient worship. The presiding priest dresses like a woman."
Ok, fastforward roughly 1900 years.
From Wikipedia:
[1908!] A transvestite pass (German: Transvestitenschein) was a doctor's note recognized by the governments of Imperial Germany and the Weimar Republic – under the support of sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld – identifying a person as a transvestite. Transvestite at this time referred to all individuals whose gender identity and preferred clothing was discordant to that associated with their assigned sex, and so included both crossdressing and transgender people.
Karl M. Baer (20 May 1885 – 26 June 1956) was a German-Israeli author, social worker, reformer, suffragist and Zionist. He came out as a trans man in 1904.[1] In December 1906, he became the first transgender person to undergo sex reassignment surgery.
1931 – In Berlin in 1931, Dora Richter became the first known transgender woman to undergo vaginoplasty.
I don't know I'm really starting to think there might be some genetic link here... Unfortunately, none of this explains the current problems of the anglosphere. It's not like we have any German DNA or anything [/sarc].
W.H, liberal morality, and why co-existence is undesirable
A little while ago, I read a story of a recent scandal which I think conclusively shows that the Dems have finally gone too far. You see, the state legislature of Massachusetts passed a prisoner rehabilitation weekend pass program, in which prisoners with good behavior could obtain leave to spend time unsupervised in society and then return to serve their sentences. Unfortunately they forgot to exclude first degree murderers serving life without parole sentences who, for obvious reasons, could not be trusted to return. As such, the court said they must be allowed to participate unless the legislature specifically excluded them. The legislature passed a new bill to do so, but the Massachusetts governor vetoed the bill.
Enter inmate W.H, who with his 2 friends got bored robbing a cooperative teenage clerk, so they stabbed him 18 times and threw him in a dumpster. Sentenced to life without parole, he was furloughed from prison and escaped. But normal life was of course boring. So predictably, he broke into a woman's home with a pistol, tied up her boyfriend, stabbed him, and then raped her in front of him.
Perceptive readers will have guessed by now that by recent, I mean 36 years ago. You see W.H is Willie Horton, the governor was Michael Dukakis and this was the scandal that helped sink his campaign for president. or as the Times covered it back then:
"Foes accuse Bush campaign of inflamming racial tension": https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%253A//www.nytimes.com/1988/10/24/us/foes-accuse-bush-campaign-of-inflaming-racial-tension.html#site-content
Now, as much as i'd like to dunk on the Times they didn't cherrypick random nobodies. Their sources for the accusation of "inflaming the nation's racial fears", Dukakis' running mate, Jesse Jackson and the future DNC chair, Dona Brazille. And of course, if you look up Willie Horton today, basically every non-conservative source including your high school teacher will tell you about the "infamous"... ad, which unlike unleashing rape and murder on your innocent citizens violates the sacred values of our Democracy or something. Some degree of deliberate unrestricted warfare is going on here, but I don't think this fully explains it. I'm reminded of Amy Biel who went to South Africa to fight apartheid, only to be pulled out a car by a black mob which slaughtered her despite the protests of her black friends that she was on their side. And then her parents flew into the country to testify a the "truth and reconciliation committee" in favor of releasing her murderers. They then started a foundation and hired these murderers.
Hlynka, I'm sure, will find a way to call them hypocrites. Moldbug will ask, 'but don't these elves eat great food'? As for me, I neither desire nor expect cooperation with these people, whatever their thought process or culinary habits. I wanna see the conservative movement* draw a clear unambiguous moral line between us and them, accept those that will cross over, and to crush the opposition permanently and with the same concern they feel for their pets' victims.
Added:
*Of course they are more concerned with saving the enemies' feti.
Added:
Here are the two ads Bush ran on the issue.
Willie Horton ad https://youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y
Revolving door ad https://youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y Note how in the second one, the campaign goes out of it's way to find white criminals for it's footage.
This is it.
WELL THIS IS IT BOYS. I've been Permabanned. I appeal to the other mods not for "a second chance" but for an outright acquittal, as I believe this charge to be a travesty. Paging @naraburns, @ZorbaTHut, @TracingWoodgrains
Commenters who are tempted to draw conclusions from this ban should... do exactly that. Seriously, read @Amadan's rationale and try to defend his integrity. There are people who place no value on your life, and others who, whatever their pretensions to the open discussion of ideas and others who find pointing this out intolerable. The outer party lives on, laundering gross atrocities into respectability by demanding that you not be outraged by them. And so, in this eternal re-run of the scene from "politics and the english language" releasing monsters to slaughter innocents becomes, "a policy that resulted in a criminal doing some crime." Depicting the criminal becomes "racialized imagery", and the promise of open discussion becomes, "I'm not sure how you'd make it relevant today without being pure "boo Democrats,"...
More options
Context Copy link