The adults are in charge now


Jan 3, 2019
To be fair, the former white house physician is not making a medical observation, but only saying the same thing everyone else has been saying since before the election.

Just 1/3 of Americans think he has mental deficiencies? LOL how did they sample that poll?
I'm guessing the Bailey here is that when pressed they will say they meant 1/3 of people who voted for Biden, which is more people than you think, when you factor in how many of those voters are dead.

It's kind of funny how he can erase women and put kids in cages, but when I talk to normies in my neighbourhood all they know about him is that he fell down some stairs.

If Republicans...
I'm sure there's a bunch of memes about this line of rhetoric, but I'm too lazy to search for them.

I'm starting to better understand the black pill in Eastern European terms, after Vee had a video about Romanian unification. The nobles were trying to explain to the peasants how much more powerful they would be after unifying, but one peasant didn't understand how anything had changed, because in the end the nobles were still telling the peasants what to do, as they had always done throughout history.
Jan 12, 2019
United States
> To be fair, the former white house physician is not making a medical observation, but only saying the same thing everyone else has been saying since before the election.

It's not any less true. I'm sure he's more selective of how he chooses to phrase things due to his position and credentials.

> It's kind of funny how he can erase women and put kids in cages, but when I talk to normies in my neighbourhood all they know about him is that he fell down some stairs.

Trump: *breathes*

MSM: "How the Trump Administration is contributing to dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 and why that should worry you"

Biden: *breathes*

MSM: "Leaf it to Joe -- White House house plants are set for the greenest year ever!"

Don't report on anything as it is. Hide all the bad, flood the news with inconsequential bullshit about socks, dogs, and ice cream flavors, and present sketchy polls. Normies rely on appeals to authority -- "A real network news station said it so it must be true. There's no reason they would say things that are untrue. I mean, their slogan even says 'fair and balanced'..."

> I'm sure there's a bunch of memes about this line of rhetoric, but I'm too lazy to search for them.

The memes write themselves anymore

Accept the results, Nance. You're attacking Democracy.

Jan 12, 2019
United States
Diane "Shit Streets" Feinstein proposed an "assault rifle" ban in light of the Boulder, CO shooting.

We can't let a good crisis go to waste to promote an ideological agenda, now can we...

Also, wasn't she having "cognitive difficulties" a few months ago?

Maybe deal with the issue of human feces on the streets of your city before telling the rest of the country what to do...?


10 people were killed


The shooter was a Syrian Muslim (unironically not important as we shall see) man whose brother described as "paranoid" - claiming often to be "chased" as early as 2014 - likely mentally ill to some extent, and bullied to a possibly traumatic extent, but not particularly political or religious. His Facebook feed consisted largely of complaining about Trump and incelposting about not having a girlfriend. The man's brother also said he wasn't known to carry a gun or any other weapon. His SIL said she saw him "playing" with a gun in the house(!) two weeks prior to the shooting. He was convicted of third-degree assault in 2018 for an event that occurred in 2017.

In high school, he lost a wrestling match and screamed into the locker room that he was going to kill everybody. A former classmate said she said he seemed sketchy and had anger issues.

EDIT: There's some saying the shooter was an ISIS/Islamic State supporter. I can't say for sure what he did or did not believe, but this is not a claim I immediately take seriously. Personally, I would need to see more proof that this was more than edgelordism. His relatives said he was bullied for being Muslim, and I could see a mentally unstable person bullied for being Muslim as someone who would absolutely LARP as an ISIS supporter for the sake of the edge. Apparently he was a Democrat, also, and I find this somewhat at odds with the ultra-Conservative Islamist doctrine that ISIS follows. Islamists have the doctrine of Taquiyya, so they may support whatever they think hurts their enemy, but while I've seen screens of him bitching about Trump, that's not necessarily equal to practicing Taquiyya.

To me, this looks 800% like a mental health issue. The guns would be a non-issue if he got effective help.

America fucking sucks at dealing with mental health. I don't know why, but it seems like:

- The right seems skeptical of psychology in general. The impression I get is that many think therapy consists of paying someone $100/hour to poo-poo you and tell you you're wonderful, or doctors just put you on chemical lobotomy drugs, and the poor mental health directly originates for some reason like "not getting spanked enough" or "never doing a day of hard work". Many seem to think religion solves mental health problems. That may be possible for some people, but it's probably that the person needed structure and community that religion can provide, and not God literally reaching down from Heaven and curing the problem. I think the right also thinks mental health is a private issue best dealt with in the family. That can also be true, but often the family is the problem. The cringe-fringe right opposes psychiatry out of a somewhat anti-Semitic bias because many significant contributors have been Jewish, and they think all psychiatry or psychology brainwashing to destroy White people.

- The left gets a solid 6/10 on mental health awareness. A lot of the progress regarding awareness of things like autism, recognizing psychological abuse, and destigmatization of mental illness absolutely came from the left of the spectrum. At the same time, their ideology gets in the way. They absolutely dehumanize mentally ill people who have the "wrong ideology" and blame fucked up stuff on ideology first - ESPECIALLY if guns were involved - not the person's impaired mental state. They promote some behaviors - intentional single-parenthood (typically mothers for some reason), drug use, potentially - statistically shown, again and again, to have negative impacts on mental health and related areas. The cringe-fringe left has some bizarre beliefs such as universal hormone blockers for the sake of "sparing" ALL kids from the "trauma" of puberty until they have "decided their gender", or an apparent popular idea that anything mildly inconvenient or unpleasant, within a certain scope of events, is "trauma".

- Left or right, it seems that boomers carry a strong stigma against anything related to mental illness. They seem to view it as a moral failing and doing things about it like going to therapy, being hospitalized, or taking medication is shameful and nobody should know about it. How many kids were kept from receiving treatment because their boomer parents didn't want the fact the kid is getting treatment to "reflect badly" on them and make them look like bad parents.

- The average American has no working knowledge of psychology because they don't ever get a basic education of it in school and, for the reasons above, at home either. Perhaps in prior times, codes of etiquette may have compensated for this. Now, because everything goes, and someone's acting in a red-flaggy way - like incelposting, making death threats, acting out paranoid delusions - it's very easy to say "That's just the way they are. Everyone has their flaws. I'm not perfect either, so who am I to judge?". You don't know how to recognize potential mental illness signs, and it's stigmatized so it feels like accusing someone of being A Terrible Person(TM).

So yea, once again, the left is ignoring the country's MASSIVE mental health issue for the sake of pushing gun control.


Americans own fewer guns than ever, yet mass shootings are a very m o d e r n problem.

*clutches pearls * "We shouldn't have to live in a society where school children have bullet-proof backpacks and active shooter drills at their schools!"

This is scare-mongering. For no reason at all, whatsoever, "school shooting" statistics count things like suicide in the parking lot of an abandoned school, other suicides in/near school grounds, and a shot fired from off the property hitting a school window while no one was inside as a "school shooting". I wonder why the definition is so loose like that. It could have nothing to do with any agenda...


Incorrect stat aside. The gun crime in America isn't spread out evenly across the country. It's concentrated in certain areas. If you compare a nationwide heatmap of gun crime, guns, and poverty, it's clear that gun crime correlates positively with poverty and practically inversely with the availability of guns itself. States with stricter gun control laws aren't necessarily safer than gun-lax states.

According to this chart that specifically measures gun-related deaths (which includes suicides and accidents in with actual crimes), the US is 7th but its rate of 12 per capita is in comparison to Honduras ranking first with 60, Venezuela with 49, etc.

Regarding suicides, there's some evidence that gun bans don't prevent suicide, they just cause people to use a different method.

Regarding accidents, maybe some would be prevented by going back to teaching basic shooting and gun safety i n s c h o o l s like it used to be.

Last edited:
Jan 12, 2019
United States

"'Oh, come on. I don't even think about—I have no idea. I have no idea if there will be a Republican Party. Do you?' Biden asked in response."

o rly?

First theory: Biden has no idea what he's talking about/where he is/etc.


I don't even fuckin know.

Everything about this administration feels like watching deepfakes after a $20 bong rip.

Second theory: It's all "LMAO it's the 20's again! Let's bring back Art-Deco and The Charleston!" until the 30's and 40's happen

A wise man once said, "For people who claim to hate Nazis, the Left is trying real hard to recreate Weimar"

"What's 'Weimar'? Is that, like, German Wal-Mart?"

The Weimar Republic was the liminal space between Iron Cross Germany and Swastika Germany. Its symbol was a bird. Because it made a fucking mess.

- The economy was fucked up

- The country was in debt due to WWI and reparations it continued to pay

- There was very high unemployment and people couldn't afford basic necessities

- The Versailles Treaty that ended WWI put a lot of restrictions on Germany that many thought unfair bc of the defensive disadvantage

- There was a looming Communist nation (The Soviet Union) supporting/influencing Leftist German politics

- Part of the left was trying to start a Communist revolution, part of the left were libertines, prostitutes, pornographers, etc.

- The reactionary far-right basically found the above to be sufficient justification for their existence, actions, etc. and would later come to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water

So, what does this have to do with Biden?

While we don't have the issue caused by the Versailles Treaty, we have the other 3/4 -- shit economy, political polarization, and lack of faith in/disdain for democracy.

Perhaps the Democrats are trying to re-create Weimar...Perhaps they realize the Communists' revolution failed because they had competition, and they were trying to achieve it within the democratic system. Not everything will fall in the exact same shape as Weimar - America is culturally democratic, Germany was culturally monarchic - but the economic pressure, the division, and the dissatisfaction with the status quo sets us up to accept things we, as a nation, wouldn't accept under better circumstances.

People simply do not entertain the possibility of Communism or Fascism - or anything else freakish like AI singularity, Boogaloo/Accelerationism ideology, "Eat the Bugs, Live in the Pod, Own Nothing, Have No Privacy, and Be Happy" Bezos-Gates Neo-Feudalist Plutocracy - unless their current circumstances are abhorrent. Although the economic system we live under is more like corporatism and not capitalism, and the actual governmental system is an oligarchy that provides the illusion of being "by the people, for the people", people point the finger at capitalism ("capitalism" is a Marxist word and the proper word is more like "laissez fair economics") and democracy as why their lives suck. They become susceptible to utopian ideology.

"If we get rid of all the ________, your life will be better" (fill in the blank: Capitalists, Trump voters, Jews, Blacks, Women, Men, Bourgeoisie, Catholics, Atheists, etc.)

Scrap the ideas of Fascism and Communism altogether and think outside the framework of genocide and WWII, there's no denying the tendency is toward authoritarianism. It's like there's no picking-of-battles, or any root-cause analysis or critique happening at the individual level. Every single fucking instance of "the world not being perfect" MUST be taken to the highest office in the land when you're a planarian screecher reacting to stimuli. The solutions always involve making everyone else do something -- "SOMEBODY'S GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!" *sits on couch*

The comment about not knowing if the Republicans will exist in 2024, when taken in context with the other actions from the Democrats, creates the impression that they're aiming for a one-party system. I doubt how achievable this would be. The harder they push, the harder the right-of-center pushes back. Even some Democrats have recently opposed things such as trying to dismantle the Filibuster Rule that current keeps the Pelosi-type Dems from ramrodding their legislation through, or nitpicking already-certified state elections a Democrat lost. It's possible they might alienate the old-fashioned, less-Marxist Democrats.

The Filibuster Rule and the Constitution are really the Sixth and Seventh Seals in this case.

Abolishing the Filibuster Rule would allow for further modifications that may lead to easier passing of Constitutional amendments that could lead to European-style (Chinese-style???) gun control, speech/thought crime legislation, surveillance, possible banning of certain people from voting, banning of protest, banning criticism of the government, etc. This is the extreme worst case scenario, not necessarily what I think will happen.
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2019
United States
It's time to talk about the COOF PASS

Biden is working with big tech to try and make a Coof Pass.

In trying to find out some "facts" about what this might entail, but as with most things at this time, I found a lot of "information" but I still have no idea what this will entail. It's supposed to be a "COVID Passport" that will allow holders to travel and attend mass gatherings like concerts and movies.

Right-leaning news sources (ex. InfoWars, PJW, etc.) suspect that the Coof Pass will be required - if not at first - to participate in all commerce. The word choice is evocative of Christian prophecy. The mark of the beast is said to be a number or mark on the forehead or hand which is required to participate in commerce in the time of the Anti-Christ.

Left-leaning news sources (CNN, MSN, etc.) say the Coof Pass will mainly concern travel by plane and cruise ship, festivals, movies, and concerts. Very bourgeoise concerns...This will not impact me, as I'm too concerned with my immediate material needs to travel, as well as preparing for the Cha-Cha Real Smooth with any travel-sized sums of money I happen upon.

There are some issues with the Coof Pass:

The main Left-oriented concern is how to institute it without creating new forms of inequality. If the Coof Pass takes the form of a phone app, people with flip phones, house phones, or no phones cannot participate in the activities the Coof Pass is meant to permit access to. I suppose those people could just use the physical proof of a vahhhrus test or a vac- WAIT...

If the Coof Pass was intended for airlines and cruises, how do they figure someone who can't afford a $50 gas station Android phone and a $35/month prepaid phone bill is going to be concerned with a $300-3000 plane ticket or cruise, or $400 tickets to Lady Gaga? I feel like that concern, in itself, is possible proof that the Coof Pass could be use to regulate access to necessities poor and middle-class people would need regular access to: grocery stores, public transit, employment, clinics and doctors' offices, etc. Requiring it for travel and concerts seems fairly trivial, but when it comes to requiring vaccination to do normal activities, at what point does that become coercion?

Another concern is privacy. If a phone is lost of stolen - and this is a similar concern for a physical document - the thief would have access to the owner's PHI. Even if it contains only the owner's personal info and their coof status, that is still PHI. There are strict rules about who can ask to see PHI, and the bias is in favor of the person it belongs to. If non-medical entities can demand to see someone's coof status, then does that mean some PHI is evidently less confidential than others? If the coof status is less confidential, then what would be in place to prevent scope creep? Note also that California, via its Leftist lawmakers, does not require people to disclose their HIV status to sex partners.

It's sexist. The CDC is rather open about the fact research is ongoing about whether the vaccine is safe for pregnant people, the near complete majority of which are women. If you feel adamantly about trans men, then go ahead an add "transphobic" if it helps to confuse the tyrants who exploit trans people and women to promote authoritarianism and/or Marxism. Requiring the vaccine for participation in daily life while there aren't conclusive, comprehensive, independent studies on the effect - if any - is basically gender discrimination, similar to the old custom of firing women as soon as they're visibly pregnant. I might add, I've yet to see a study specifically concerning the effect of the virus or vaccine on men's sperm counts/quality. So, hey, maybe if you're young and fit enough to reproduce, you're young and fit enough to experience the vahhhrus as a bad flu with a 99% survival rate. A lot of elderly are on wait lists for the vaccine because there are too many virtue-signaling 20- and 30-something planarians clogging up the system. Maybe stop smoking and lose 30 lbs, but that's none of my business.


It might be a waste of time. The CDC admits that not enough is known about the virus to tell how effective a Coof Pass will be. The CDC has documented numerous different variants of the vahhhrus. In other words, it has mutated within the space of less than a year. The "common cold" is another corona virus and it mutates so rapidly that it's literally impossible to create a cold vaccine. (I found out, just now, that catching the common cold can possibly provide immunity or resistance to the vahhhrus because they are so similar.) ANYWAY, the flu is also a virus and there can be multiple variants going around per year. It's common to get vaccinated for one or two variants then catch a different variant anyway. When the media says the vahhhhrus is a "permanent pandemic", that's alarmist language for saying "the vahhhhrus is endemic". That means it could be like the cold and flu at this point, constantly mutating and "going around". 24,000-62,000 people died from the flu in 2019-2020. In 2019, close to 44,000 died from pneumonia. It's possible that the massive death rate was because the virus was new to the population. The death rate hasn't stayed high -- it's decreased and stabilized, which is true in states without lockdowns and mask mandates as well as states with those measures.
Last edited:


Jan 3, 2019
To steelman the part about phones, I use a flip-phone by choice, not because I can't afford better, but because I'm a Luddite. I tried to watch a hockey game in the states one time, and the ticket vendor said you're supposed to use your smartphone as your ticket. I had to call up the stadium and arrange a paper ticket to be printed for me at will call.

So long story short, where everyone else is being told: PRESENT YOUR PHONE! ✋🕵️‍♂️ I will be told: PRESENT YOUR PAPERS! ✋👮‍♂️ (and it's a cop emoji instead of gestapo emoji because it'll happen at the border, if I don't get banned for life first for admitting to having smoked weed in the past)

with any travel-sized sums of money I happen upon
I believe that's what Cartman would call "Jew gold". Prepare for a shakedown wherever you go.

The mark of the beast is pretty apt here. Revelations is essentially a wild DMT trip (or whatever drug the writer was actually on), but as is often with shamanic visions, it describes deep patterns of societies rising and falling. The Beast is the high ideal of technology/rationalism/central control, where there is no room for anything that can't be counted and tracked, and no room for anyone who does not agree to worship the Beast, whether they want to or not. It's pretty much exactly what Alex Jones would call globalism, and this seeming drive to make every country as authoritarian as China (and as outwardly friendly as Demolition Man). You might say that things like credit cards, drivers licenses, and smartphones are early and incomplete marks of the beast, because it's very difficult to get anything done without them (but still possible). People whose minds are in the grip of globalism are always going to push for systems of greater control. They just have to be resisted, their plans rejected and booed by the masses until they are eventually withdrawn like every dystopian advert the WEF puts out.
Jan 12, 2019
United States
Russel Brand is one of the few sane Liberals that is actually...liberal and gives a shit about freedom, and he made a series of videos on "The Great Reset". I'm not going to post them all because they're accessible through this video and I highly encourage falling into the videohole.

Jan 12, 2019
United States
> To steelman the part about phones...

I tried to use a flip-phone a few years ago and found it had ups and downs. In my personal life, the only thing that was actually bad was the call quality. I barely use social media and I live with the main person I text. It sucks to be clipping and near unintelligible when I do make a phone call.

I went back to a smart phone because of work, which assumes you have a phone you can use the VoIP app through, a GPS, access to email, and to 2FA apps. I could work with a flip phone if I were very diligent about preparing everything I needed so I wasn't stuck without a client's address or phone number, but I don't think I could work at all if I had no phone, period.

I realize the need to have a phone for my job is somewhat my own fault, and if I didn't want to be involved with technology in that capacity, I should have become a welder or something like that.

Phones becoming mandatory in society is bad news. They should be less important, not more.

> I believe that's what Cartman would call "Jew gold". Prepare for a shakedown wherever you go.

I prefer to keep it in a less liquid form.

> The mark of the beast is pretty apt here. Revelations is essentially a wild DMT trip (or whatever drug the writer was actually on), but as is often with shamanic visions, it describes deep patterns of societies rising and falling. The Beast is the high ideal of technology/rationalism/central control, where there is no room for anything that can't be counted and tracked, and no room for anyone who does not agree to worship the Beast

I'm somewhat of an atheist (or a pantheist? but nothing in between), but I can't stand the "Atheist(TM) Community" and this is precisely why.

Ultimately, people are searching for things to worship. Worshiping nature or a divine archetype might be irrational, but those things, by themselves, are less harmful than what people do now. The worst aspects of organized religion - the fanaticism and groupthink - are now focused around things that are within humanity, not above or outside it. Without a definitive direction, many people who oppose irrational belief in religion turn right around and worship other people, money, "stuff", the government, fame, sex booze and drugs, etc.

I think "the beast" is the part of the human (collective and individual) that helps us survive in a natural setting, but becomes perverse and destructive when it's suppressed by peaceful, civilized, banal, civilization of polite dishonesty with no outlet. The authoritarianism and dysfunction of society is like a feedback loop of our collective brutal, greedy, violent, sexual nature that's sickened and aimed inward because it was never allowed to be utilized and mature in the correct direction.
Last edited:


Jan 3, 2019
Russel Brand is a sharp cookie. It's good to know that people like him are keeping it real while mainstream journalism can't tell a deer from a horse. And I like that he brought up Naomi Klein and the Shock Doctrine. Which when I think about it also sounds a lot like Active Measures (at least for the Crisis and Normalization stages). You could say it's not just the communists who use these tactics, but really everyone who seeks power and control. Because these tactics work. At least for a while.

I think what you're describing is the Jungian Shadow; the will to survive and take power, which needs to be properly integrated in a person or else it will manifest subconsciously in nasty ways (such as passive-aggressive behaviour). The Beast is more like the Borg hive mind; an emergent phenomenon that happens when too many people have the conceit that they can know, predict, and control everything about how the world works. It's also kind of like the Matrix. It's the drive to make order out of chaos, which gives us great technological innovation and quality of life improvements, but then goes too far and strives for perfection, and becomes totalitarian (hence, the tyrannical culture of Silicon Valley). Because the world has infinite precision and can never be fully known and controlled, the Beast always ends up having to sweep under the rug all the glitches in the matrix that keep popping up, and using violence and terror to maintain its illusion of control.

Jonathan Pageau had a recent video on this topic, which is where I'm getting most of my take (along with his earlier video from last year on the symbolism of 666).

I share your disdain for atheism as an identity. I would consider myself a Petersonian atheist, which is why I reference Jesus a lot, not because I think he'll take me to heaven one day, but because the patterns of behaviour he represents are I think the only way towards a future for humanity that doesn't result in disasters and genocide (that is, we create our own Hell when we collectively move away from the Christian pattern of WWJD).

There's something I like that Paul VanderKlay said a couple years back, when he was commenting on a position Bret Weinstein was expressing about how humanity needed to shed our evolutionary baggage (the rivalry game, Game A) to avoid a genocidal future driven by the survival of the fittest impulse armed with apocalyptic weapons, and Paul's comment was something like, "I would put it to you... that there's a religion... that has at the top of its hierarchy a man who walks into the garden, and sees people playing the same game with swords, and he says those who live by the sword die by the sword and if anybody's blood is going to be shed here, it will be mine.... and I will win the game. It makes no sense in Darwin-land... but that's what Christianity... says"
Jan 12, 2019
United States
> You could say it's not just the communists who use these tactics, but really everyone who seeks power and control. Because these tactics work. At least for a while.

The same things that abusers do to the people they abuse scale very well to large populations, it seems.

It's infuriating that people on the left can be so aware of signs of abuse on a personal level, but participate as flying monkeys on a mass scale to collective abusers. Sometimes I think it's a lot of, "At least it's not me"-ism.

You could say that, for me who has professionally diagnosed C-PTSD from abuse throughout my life, I'm actually triggered, in a clinical sense, by seeing what goes on in current events.


> I think what you're describing is the Jungian Shadow; the will to survive and take power, which needs to be properly integrated in a person or else it will manifest subconsciously in nasty ways (such as passive-aggressive behaviour). The Beast is more like the Borg hive mind; an emergent phenomenon that happens when too many people have the conceit that they can know, predict, and control everything about how the world works.

I'm defining "The Beast" relative to the interpretation of Satan as the animalistic aspect within man, which is related to the shadow only in so far as it conflicts with civilization. Not all shadow is "the beast within man" and not all of that beast is in the shadow. "The beast within man" has a lot in common with the individual's will to power - to survive, prosper, and propagate - or general self-interest.

In the source material for this point of view, Might Is Right, the ideal is described as (basically) a competence hierarchy of the ability to protect the group and its interests, with force, from other groups trying to harm them with force. The book warns against, essentially, pencil-pushers and merchants assuming the positions of power because they don't have the necessary values or competencies to be productive leaders.

The inverse of the "traditional" order of Might is Right looks nearly identical to what we have now.

Preceding the fall of Germany, the Imperial leaders almost all had military prestige. The last "warrior president", Dwight Eisenhower, coincides with what many consider to be the decline of America. Keeping in mind the differences between the German and American culture as well, the heavy infiltration of the presidency with "pencil-pusher" types coincided with the Antebellum era that I said elsewhere was the beginning of the fall of America. We didn't have the long-standing monarchy so it didn't take long for the leadership to get adulterated, but it was a slow burn, versus the sudden decline of Germany.

I think if you compare the life of someone who ascends in the military to someone who ascends the clergy or merchant class, the military person will have many more limit-experiences that will lead to their character development. That's not to say every military leader was a good statesman, but limit experiences are generally regarded as psyche-expanding, mind-opening, and perspective-changing, depending on the individual's resiliency. I'd rather trust a spec-ops person in a life-or-death situation than some rich kid who became a lawyer. One, I think, understands mortality, humanity, and the forces of nature, more than the other.

Relating to my first point, not all authority is created equal. There are leaders that simply act and others will want to support them. In a secular sense, it's kind of like the "mandate of heaven" -- if the leader is behaving in a fair way and they're acting with the group's collective interests in mind, it's natural to want to support them in good faith. Leaders who aren't fair and don't have the group's collective interest in mind have to resort to abusive tactics to gain support.

The latter is what we have a lot of now. Trump is still a pencil-pusher in the grand scheme of things, but he was traditional in that he inherited status then built upon it. A lot of Trump fans were like "FUCK YEA, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" and saw that "traditional" leader within him, to the extent to which it could be realized. Biden is also a pencil-pusher, but he didn't have the same hereditary legacy passed to him, and ultimately achieved nothing of note. A saw a lot of "Uhhh well at least he's not Trump" from the Biden "fandom".

The NWO is basically an inversion of order, I think, and "The Beast" is what happens when a bunch of neurotic pencil-pushers, devoid of limit-experiences, try to rule the world according to their overinflated egos.
Jan 12, 2019
United States
What would shitty fake "journalistic" writing be without another fucking "Arts & Culture" post

Big Money Hustlas 2000 ICP Full Movie
(A retrospective)

I'm not a juggalo, but I've known juggalos and observed them over time, on the internet, like a lolcow collective. I've listened to some Psychopathic Records music and didn't hate it.

Juggalos have gotten a lot of hate for some reason. I remember in middle/high school there being a stigma where "real punks/metalheads/goths" didn't listen to or have anything to do with Insane Clown Posse, and anyone who listened to ICP was regarded as a poser and uncouth wigger. Juggalos were below edgy farm/mountain kids who listened to nu-metal and butt rock.

Why do I know this?

Ascending in coolness was not possible for me, due to my own awkwardness and the limitations imposed by strict parents. My strategy, instead of ascending, was to focus entirely on not becoming any more uncool. I didn't worry about who was above me, I just worried about who was below me (or so I thought, which I will not elaborate on), so I definitely kept tabs on the juggalos and did a fashionable amount of shit-talking.

It's all laughable now. Teenagers are fucking dumb. Not wanting to interact directly with juggalos is understandable, but to hate juggalos is to take them entirely too seriously. If a group of people represents the image of a gangster horror clown - I know it might be controversial to say this - a large part of their ethos is based on not taking things seriously, including, and especially, themselves.

It's easy to write this movie off as having the sophistication and sense of humor of a third-grader raised by South Park, Grand Theft Auto, MTV and HBO. That assessment is 100% correct.

However...the actual bones of the movie are surprisingly good. The writing is solid yet simple, very self-aware, and finds ways to make its limitations work instead of overshooting and failing.

Modern, big-budget movies fail to have writing as cogent as Big Money Hustlas. They add "complexity" in an attempt to appear intelligent or deep, which does nothing but leave plot holes. They have main characters that don't arc; characters that have no diversity and barely affect the plot. There is too much exposition. The social commentary is ham-fisted and the movie often feels like a vehicle for the writer's thinly-veiled personal opinions. Et cetera...

The writing in Big Money Hustlas is extremely simple, but it's not lazy writing. If Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope were morons, or thought their audience were morons, they would have written a bunch of jokes about drugs and fat people randomly occurring inside an incoherent plot. Instead, we have foreshadowing, jokes with set-ups, trope inversions and lampshading, diverse characters that all do something, few plot holes, and they trust the audience to use their brains.

The costumes and sets are obviously low-effort, but it works, because they're taking refuge in audacity. It's creative problem-solving too.

If you're gonna get shitty ninja costumes anyway, get the most ridiculous ones possible and make it part of a joke.

Did you run out of actors and now need a recognizable person to play another character? Literally fucking put him in a gorilla suit.

There's social commentary but it's so subtle it doesn't feel condescending or like "GEE, SURELY SOMEONE ISN'T TRYING TO PUSH THEIR OPINIONS ON ME THROUGH A MOVIE. THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN LOL.". It's not particularly profound, mostly just references to institutions being corrupt, ways that people get stolen from and swindled, and bureaucracy standing in the way of justice. They touch the points and quickly get off of them, again assuming the audience can extrapolate a reference to a larger idea. The movie isn't here to preach to you, though. It's here to be a stupid stoner movie primarily.

The characterization was above average. I liked that the cast had body types all different from each other, which made them more recognizable but also contributed to characterization. The second is the refuge in audacity of making the costumes cartoonishly flamboyant. Everyone had a silhouette and color palette that remained roughly consistent throughout. And best of all, every character has a purpose and has a resolution of some kind. A bunch of them are killed off, but there are no characters that are introduced only to be neglected by the plot, such that by the end you're not wondering "Whatever happened to so-and-so?" This is the case for other things as well. If an item was introduced, it would later be used to contribute to the plot.

If I had to find an issue with something, it would be the 4th-wall breaking that takes place a number of times. It seems like an over-used joke or a little-too-easy way to solve certain plot problems. Then again, it's not bad, it's just used a few times too many for my taste.


Not even that guitar tone can save this weapons-grade cringe.

"Imagine is George Washington or che guevara said they 'secrete insurrection.' These people are out of touch with reality."
-- YouTube comenter

Rebellion is when you have the same opinions as the media, government, and academia so long as you swear a lot and talk about your vagina.

I wanna know how this isn't like if North Korean state-worship music were based on modern American female rap instead of Soviet state-worship music.

Oh, and...

It doesn't matter if the boots look like this
You're still licking a fucking boot
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2019
United States
I'm black y'all


Since Portland has recognized Slavs as "people of color" and Italians have been considered "n*****s" for decades, I have decided to take this opportunity to come out as a disabled AFAB non-binary person of color. That should mean I can say whatever I want without impunity because I lack privilege on at least four levels.

If White people can become "People of Color", what even is "color" anyway?

"Person of Color" started out more or less meaning "Black person". This makes sense.

Then it morphed to mean "anything but white" and became BIPOC, I suppose to recognize that there are Black people, AND ALSO Indigenous people. Mestizos and Native Americans are all Amerinds so that makes sense, and then Amerinds and East Asians have common ancestry, so that addresses everyone, right?

This is where I personally start to get lost. For one, everyone is indigenous to somewhere. Just because I'm not indigenous to North America doesn't mean I'm not indigenous to Bapidiboopi Land. Secondly, Leftoids criticized anything that claimed a "White identity" for being something that doesn't exist because "White" comprises a bunch of ethnicities that have different cultures, are genetically different, and don't necessarily share a common history.

I agree that's factually correct and we're all probably better off considering our actual ethnicities and cultures instead of general groups invented in the turn-of-the-century by people who got into a fad of classifying people based on skull measurements, and trying to figure out which ones were superior (carefully selecting the criteria to justify why it was themselves) to claim a right to colonize others or exploit them for free/cheap labor. This is also the time the upper classes got into competitively breeding physiologically fucked-up dogs, for no other reason than to prove they could.

America ruined race relations by creating the idea that someone can get a sort of "race cooties" by interacting casually with people of a different race, such as drinking from water fountains or sitting next to each other in public spaces, that someone (invariably the woman) is permanently tainted if she has sex outside her race even once, and that people of different races can't coexist while maintaining their identities -- that one of them has to adopt the customs of the other due to the dynamic of superiority vs. inferiority.

Classifying people into "colors", just in a different way, doesn't change anything. If anything, the new classification system is worse. The old system at least considered linguistics, history, and culture. The new system only classifies people based on their skin tone. "Brown" apparently includes Mestizos, Arabs and North Africans, Indians and other South Asians, and Brazilians despite those groups having radically different languages, histories, and cultures.

India alone, for example, is a HUGE country with many ethnicities. Some of those ethnicities speak a Sanskrit-based language and have an Indo-European culture that would make them more closely related to Russians. Some are linguistically and culturally more like Tibetans, and others are more closely related to Pacific Islanders, etc. Ethnicities are like a gradient across the world and they don't have nice, well-defined edges, or fit neatly into modern geo-political borders. It seems worse to look at skin color only and base everything on that. This idea seems like it comes from American, Anglocentric (even if they are opposed to Anglo-Saxon dominance, their worldview still revolves entirely around it) sociologists and/or SJW types who have studied the shit out of Marxist theory, but never even touched a book about anthropology, or history prior to the 20th century.

It has the tone of some kind of dystopian color-based caste system that will be used in the one-world government when everyone's packed into a few urban islands of glass buildings and concrete highrises, speaking Chinese, sleeping in pods, eating bugs, worshiping the corporatist state, existing under 24/7 surveillance, and every culture has been replaced with a global monoculture composed of mass media and corporate products.

The problem with classifying certain European ethnicities as "PoC" in a system that bases identity on skin color and then assigns collectivist notions of culpability for things that happened centuries ago is this:

How do you tell a Slav from an Anglo-Saxon just by looking at them?

Czech people identify more closely with Germany despite speaking a Slavic language, so where do they stand on the scale of "oppressor vs. oppressed"?

If a person has 3/4 Slavic grandparents and 1 Anglo-Saxon grandparent, and they inherit mostly Anglo-Saxon traits outwardly, are they still a PoC?

If you're a Slav and are now considered a PoC, what are you supposed to do with this information?

The entire "color" thing is absolutely fucking retarded. It's inconsistent and I can't wait til it goes out of fashion (hopefully to something that's better and not worse).
Last edited:


Jan 3, 2019
It makes a bit more sense if you look at it as the resentment of high-IQ groups by low-IQ groups (in other words, Cain and Abel). This is why they always hesitate to include east Asians in their community of the oppressed, and even within blacks they look askance at the lighter-skinned mulattos. BAME and BIPOC were constructed mainly to exclude orientals and white hispanics from the grift, because they saw that those races were successful enough already. It's also why you see all this anti-Semitism among black supremacists (partly because of their ties to radical Islam, and partly because Jews are at the very top of the IQ distribution).

If they're reaching out to Slavs now, it must be because they've discovered that most of the world hates their movement (even a lot of blacks hate BLM), and so they're looking for new allies. I don't think they will find any Slav allies, though. If any white ethnicity was the opposite of cucked, it would be Slavs. Although maybe in Oregon it makes no difference, since everyone who opposes the radical left would have already fled that state by now, or was lynched last summer. So it might be a case of, if you can't beat em join em.

It's a deal with the devil, of course. I like to think of it unfolding as... First they came for white straight males... then they came for white straight females... then they came for white gay males... then they came for TERFS... then they came for east asians... then they came for light-skinned hispanics, Arab Christians, mixed-race people... then they even came for the native americans too... and when it was finally over, the only people left in positions of power were a small cabal of very dark-skinned black trans-women named Bubbette lording over vast harems of cis-females of every race. They call their new country Wokanda, but to the rest of the world, it's just a collection of impoverished Bantustans scattered across the continent of New China.
Jan 12, 2019
United States
It's easy to take for granted how much influence the ruling class has over race relations and how much of the conflict comes from legislation and constant top-down social engineering that is designed to benefit the elites. What we're seeing isn't the equilibrium-seeking of "Ok, everyone has the same rights now, so sort yourselves out."

It's a lot of actions by government and corporations to fuck people over (race irrelevant) then shift the blame. The people who blame "White people" for systemic oppression are the same people who created the systemic oppression in the first place. They get money and power from it. Why would they want to end the codependent relationship with their support base, source of cheap labor, etc.?

East Asians are "PoC" when it benefits the elites' plans but they are "White-adjacent" or "complicit in White supremacy" when they're in the way. The only thing consistent is the flow of profits, and it's not profitable to have actual improved race relations. If race relations improve, there won't be a "problem" to fix and people will be reasonably content, and people tend to not demand government action when they're reasonably content.

Their "investments" into "fighting racism" have clearly improved race relations like dousing a fire in kerosine "extinguishes" it.
Jan 12, 2019
United States
The self-inflicted border crisis

"You know, there were warning signs that we were getting to a point of having, you know, thousands and thousands of people trying to enter the United States. I mean, you had a Trump administration that during the last two years, especially of the administration, the border was essentially shut to asylum seekers. And it's well known, well documented that these individuals have been waiting in northern Mexico for the last two years to be able to enter and seek asylum. And so I think there was laser focus on undoing the 'Remain in Mexico' program."

The first step, according to the USCIS, of becoming a refugee in the US is "Arrive in the US". USCIS's own site says that to "Arrive in the US" requires one of several types of Visa and a passport. That is extremely standard and I don't have an issue with that. It's basically how every country operates, at the bare minimum. Someone who shows up and is eventually found to not be in the country without proper documentation is typically deported. Some countries are more demanding in what they require. Some countries simply execute people who illegally enter.

Some people want open borders, i.e. the only requirement is to get your body here in one piece - no permission, no documentation, no sponsorship, doesn't matter if you jumped over the fence, hid in a pile of cocaine packages, stitched yourself into a car seat, floated through the ocean, rode a dolphin, pissed and shit in a shipping container for weeks as it was brought here, or built a trebuchet to launch yourself over the border. This would, of course, be transitioned to removing obstacles (such as The Wall or any kind of fence) that prevent free entry to the US. Why is this?

[cue depressing violin music]


















children and babies


"So would you still want all those babies and children if the majority of them grew up to vote Republican?"


Some of them do - in some states, almost half - and apparently that is an issue. Latinos keep creeping right and the Dems are freaking out.

"In places like Miami-Dade County in Florida and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, that swing spiked to over 20 points. What’s more, seven of the 14 House seats that switched from Democratic to Republican control were in majority-minority districts, many of which had large Latino populations.

As we now look ahead to the midterms, it’s likely that many close races will run through states and districts with large Latino populations. Democrats would do well to address their Latino vote problem if they want to keep control of the Senate and House."

(map of Latino vote blueness where Latinos are more than 5% of votes, 2016 election map overlayed with sanctuary city map, map of Hispanic people)

A few observations:

- Sanctuary states, and states with more sanctuary cities/counties have more blue Latino voters. This makes sense, considering how partisan the issue of sanctuary-anything is.

- I tried to find a map showing percentage of Latinos on welfare and couldn't, but if I had to guess, Latinos on welfare are more likely to vote blue than those not on welfare and, in general, vote could probably be predicted by income. Single mother on welfare, who's been "caught and released"? Blue vote likely. Married family with a construction company, native to the area or immigrated legally? Perhaps more likely to vote red.

- Cubans are the most red-voting Latino ethnicity, and they left Cuba, a Communist country, so do the math.

- People generally move to places they prefer, so it's likely that more Latinos who go to blue states and stay there agree with Democrat policies (open borders, sanctuary states, welfare, DACA, etc.), and more red state Latinos agree with Republican policies ("family values", self-employment, low taxes, pro-gun, more-or-less merit-based immigration, etc.) Mexico is also a more religious and conservative country, so apart from the overall corruption and incompetence of the government, the people who leave might be more attracted to progressive policies than those who stay.

- Not all Latinos are immigrants. The southwest part of the country was basically ceded from Mexico to the US as part of the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War. Plenty of ethnic Mexicans living there in modern times don't have relatives to bring from Mexico because they've been Americans for generations, and unless they took up the cause of reclaiming Aztlan, the immigration question does not affect them personally. I would go so far as to say it's possible some of them look at the absolute state of the Mexican government and see it as having dodged a bullet because they're wealthier and less victimized as Americans, than they would be if Mexico controlled the area.

- A significant number of ethnic Mexicans, however, believe this area is rightfully part of Mexico and do not recognize the border as legitimate, don't care what America thinks, and move across it to say "What you gonna do about it? Nothin. Thought so...". It results in a DDoS attack on the immigration many people cross the border illegally and/or let their visas expire that deporting them all has become utterly infeasible. The more people get here, who can't be deported, the easier it is to make an argument for saying "Fuck it" and granting them citizenship.

- For the most part, there's not a huge disparity in how Latinos and Latinas vote. Except in Nevada. I'm curious what caused that massive difference. My theory is that legality of sex work in Nevada and the industry around it, including stripping, escort services, and pseudo-sex work jobs like sexy bartending, go-go dancing, low-tier modeling like event promotion, "breasturants", and certain casino jobs, means Nevada is an easy place for women to make money, and they're going to vote blue because Democrats have more support for laws facilitating sex work, whereas Republicans are indifferent, at best, on the subject or outright oppose it.

As for the border, people making a dangerous journey through the desert to yeet children over the border fence is America's fault. If there weren't a significant chance that strategy could be successful, nobody would do it. USCIS, at this point, should just update their website to say:

"While we can not officially recommend it for liability reasons, the alternate way to enter the US, in lieu of a visa and passport is to do an X-Treme Tough Mudder race, at one's own risk of death or dismemberment."

Because Biden made a wink-nudge promise that anyone who crossed the border would be let in, the cages migrant facilities are overfull of people by 16 times their intended capacity. Journalists weren't even allowed inside until recently, so it's possible that it was worse at some point.

What should be done is, instead of building holding facilities and technically allowing people to illegally cross the border and remain in the country, just deport anyone currently in a facility, allocate the resources to making the immigration courts work as intended so it doesn't take 2-3 times as long for people to become citizens, provide a path to citizenship for productive people already here who pay taxes, deport any illegals caught committing crimes, finish the wall, punish companies that exploit illegals for labor, and stop arming drug cartels.

Alternatively, the US should give California back to Mexico. It would fit in great. Is this pic LA or Mexico City? I can barely tell. Actually, you can tell it's not LA because there's not a homeless tent city.
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2019
United States
Coof Pass Updoot

"I doubt that the federal government will be the main mover of a vaccine passport concept," Fauci, the nation's leading infectious disease expert, told the Politico Dispatch podcast.

He said the federal government "may be involved in making sure things are done fairly and equitably, but I doubt if the federal government is going to be the leading element of that."

That's kind of a bizarre way to say, "The federal government will not mandate use of a vaccine passport."

My breakdown of what was said here:

> I doubt that the federal government...

"Doubt" is not a word of certainty or guarantee.

> ...will be the main mover...

The statement continues to weasel. "The" instead of "a" implies that, while the federal government cannot mandate nationwide coof passes for the same reason it cannot mandate a nationwide mask order, it can still play other roles. This is supported by the choice to describe the role as "main mover".

> ...of a vaccine passport concept

I don't understand the intent of saying "vaccine passport concept" instead of simply "vaccine passport". I can't tell if this is a case of jargon, unclear communication, or further weaseling. To me, "concept" refers to the design of the coof pass, not the product's implementation -- is he saying he "doubt" the federal government "will be the main mover" of designing the coof pass, but it's possible they may be involved in its implementation?

> [the federal government] may be involved in making sure things are done fairly and equitably

I don't even know what these words mean anymore, and I don't trust other people to either, so I'm open to the possibility of the "1984"-style definitions because that's a mood.







DeSantis from Florida expressed concerns about the coof pass "creating two classes of citizens based on vaccination".

Imagine how clownfucking the world has to be where Democrats are like "Ahhahah yes, corporations should have the power to control speech, invade privacy, dictate where people can go any when, and deprive them of access to basic services if they have the wrong opinions," and Republicans are like:


> "...but I doubt..."

I diggity double ding dong doubt

> "...if the federal government is going to be the leading element of that."

Oh, so I should be prepared to pay no mind to the man behind the curtain...Gotcha...

As he goes on to say:

Fauci said in the interview he believes "individual entities," including theaters and colleges, will be the ones to make the call on passports.

"You could foresee how an independent entity might say, 'Well, we can't be dealing with you unless we know you're vaccinated,'" he said. "But it's not going to be mandated from the federal government."

The government is to corporations like a toxic Christian woman who's always saying, "Mmhmm, the man is the head of the family. But honey the woman is the neck, and the neck turns the head wherever it wants," is to her husband.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party(TM):

...which provides a nice segue to Clarence Thomas...

To Thomas, Twitter's ban of Trump exposed the potential abuses of this legal protection, noting how "applying old doctrines to new digital platforms is rarely straightforward."

Thomas went on: "As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions," Thomas wrote.

Big Tech companies Facebook and Google, Thomas pointed out, have vast and largely unchecked control over online marketplaces.

"It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail," Thomas wrote. "But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today's digital platforms, nothing is."

He's saying what I've been saying. When the Constitution says "shall not be infringed", it's referring to the whole ruling class, not just the government proper. The Constitution addresses the church and it addresses the government. There were not corporations back then but I'm pretty sure if King George were like, "I'm not taxing you, the the British East India Company just raised their prices, and they're going to take over all the printing presses in the colonies," the Founding Fathers wouldn't have been like, "Oh? East India Company, you say? Well, they're a private company that can do whatever it wants, so we don't mind at all. Unabridged free trade is the most important value to mankind. That's why it's in the Bill of Rights!"

Others applauded Thomas' remarks, including Rachel Bovard, senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute.

"The Thomas concurrence regarding Big Tech has everything: 1) legitimizing the threat of concentrated corporate power; 2) Google gatekeeping info for 90% of the world; 3) gov't outsourcing censorship; 4) justifications for common carrier regulation," Bovard tweeted.
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2019
United States
This man gets it

“In the Democratic Party of Nevada, they had an election recently for leadership, and four of the five people were card-carrying members of the socialistic (sic) party,” Lee said. “It’s not the party that I grew up with 25 years ago in this environment, and it’s not the party that I can stand with anymore.”


"Fuckin' Texans, how do they work?"

Fauci says he's not sure why coof cases in Texas are remaining low after the state re-opened.

South Dakota and Florida, iirc, are 100% open.

Florida has been hovering around 1.6% mortality

At the highest stage, Texas' mortality rate barely surpassed 3%.


A white pill in all the black

Constitutional carry - concealed carry without permit requirement for anyone legally allowed to own a gun - has expanded to two states just this year, and one more passed it last year.

Idaho - 2020

Iowa - 2021

Tennessee - 2021

The general trend is toward unrestricted carry. The majority of states in the 80s did not allow CC or were highly restricted. Now, most states have shall-issue permits, with an increasing number adopting Constitutional carry.
Jan 12, 2019
United States
What the

the fuck is wrong with this woman?

"Almost 19,000 unaccompanied minors arrived at the southern border in March, according to data recently released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The figure represents a 64 percent increase from the previous monthly record, established in May 2019 when nearly 11,500 migrant children traveled to the border in pursuit of U.S. entry. Border Patrol's monthly statistics date back to 2009."

"The country is seeing migrant arrival numbers climb this year, a trend that can be partially attributed to seasonal immigration patterns. Biden's rhetoric on immigration has apparently also played a role, as people seeking asylum from a number of Central American nations hope the new presidential administration will be less likely to reject their cases than its predecessor. The population of migrant children at the border, and held in federal facilities, has grown significantly since Biden announced a deportation moratorium that applies to unaccompanied minors."

I gotta wonder whether these auth left types genuinely even live in the same reality.

If you ask a sane person if the number of unaccompanied minors at the border trying to illegally immigrate increasing from 11k to 19k is a good or bad thing, they would probably say it's bad.

They're illegally immigrating, they should be with their parents yet they are not, their parents sent them to wander in the desert, they could be being trafficked, they're staying in overcrowded facilities, they should be going to school or playing futbol or something, etc. Fuck part of that is good?

If I try to focus my brain on assuming the mindset of someone substantially more retarded, the best I can come up with is:

The increase in unaccompanied minors is a good thing because they and their families are more confident than ever that they can come to America for a better life and they're driven to make that happen, and their parents are risking what they love most for the chance to become Americans. They are confident because Joe Biden gives them hope and they can trust in the Biden-Harris presidency to be on the right side of history and dismantle White supremacy.
Last edited:


Jan 3, 2019
Remember the story of Zhao Gao that I linked a few posts up. The Japanese word 'baka' literally translates to 'horse deer', as in someone so stupid they can't tell a deer from a horse. Nobody in politics is really that stupid. They know how many lights they're supposed to say there are, and it sure as shit isn't four.

Also interesting to note, the Qin Dynasty collapsed within a few years of Zhao Gao taking power.
Top Bottom