Judge Rules Katie Hill Nudes are a Matter of Public Concern Because She has a Nazi Tattoo

Andrew Anglin

Guest

After her nudes were released, Katie Hill posed for this provocative photo shoot, proving that she liked the idea of being sexualized by the leaked nudes. Women always like being sexualized, despite their claims to the contrary. It’s actually probably more complicated than that, because they might not like that they like it, in the same way men don’t like being addicted to pornography, but still are addicted to pornography. It’s actually probably the perfect analogy, since some men embrace being addicted to pornography, while others hate it and call for it to be banned but still can’t resist looking at it. I should add that I don’t claim to actually understand the psychology of women, and this is entirely based on observation. However, I have seen women who do not appear to be lying saying they hate that they are sexualized constantly, but they still engage in it anyway, and still no doubt get the dopamine release from men complimenting them. Of course my solution to the problem is for men to stop rewarding these women, and instead start complimenting women who do not publicly sexualize themselves, while insulting women who publicly sexualize themselves as whores. We are stuck in a feedback loop driven by our biology. Right now, embracing biological drives has become untenable – see obesity – due to the vicious nature of technological society and urbanization compounded by Jewish values.

Well, this is a relief.

I was worried that the judge was going to ban me from my daily sessions of masturbating to nude images of Katie Hill, which along with Jen Psaki ASMR, is really the only thing keeping me sane.

RT:

A judge has tossed a lawsuit by former representative Katie Hill, ruling that her nude photos that were leaked to the media amid claims she had affairs with staffers were not revenge porn, but covered by the freedom of speech.

Los Angeles Judge Yolanda Orozco sided with the Daily Mail as she ruled on Wednesday that naked images of Hill taken by her ex-husband Kenny Heslep and leaked to the paper “were a matter of public issue or public interest,” since they were indicative of Hill’s “character and qualifications for her position.”
BASED Latina natural conservative ftw.

Orozco noted that the photos in question showed Hill with a campaign aide, with whom she reportedly had an affair at the time, as well as appearing “to show [her] using a then-illegal drug and displaying a tattoo that was controversial because it resembled a white supremacy symbol.”

The judge rejected the argument by Hill’s attorney that the paper could have just limited its scoop to describing the images without publishing them, calling such reasoning “unpersuasive.”

“The fact that information to be gleaned from an image may be disseminated in an alternative manner does not equate to a finding that the image itself is not a matter of public concern,” Orozco said.

The story made headlines in October 2019, and ultimately resulted in Hill’s resignation despite the outpouring of support she received from her own party and the mainstream media that rallied to her defense. Facing accusations that she had multiple affairs on the job, including with her legislative director, Hill admitted to a relationship with one female campaign staffer, but rejected any other allegations of inappropriate behavior. She vowed to take the British tabloid, which exclusively published the images, including the one showing her smoking a bong naked and spotting what appeared to be a swastika tattoo, to court, arguing she was a victim of “revenge porn.”
It’s not a Swastika (and it’s concerning that RT thinks it is, actually) – it’s an Iron Cross.



But I’m pretty sure it is a Nazi symbol.

Maybe RT was confused, thinking that the Swastika that was featured inside the Iron Cross military award during the Nazi era was visible in the tattoo.



But it isn’t.



But I don’t know what that could be other than a Nazi-related symbol.

I don’t think if she was a fan of the Kingdom of Prussia, she would get a tattoo of a symbol that is now so strongly associated with Nazism.

What a weird story this was.

It was also interesting, because it proved that feminism trumps association with Nazism. You know, we do wonder about these things – about the order of the various grievance groups, and who trumps who.

For example:

  • We know that Moslems are above white homosexuals because Antifa has attacked white homosexuals for having a gay pride parade through a Moslem neighborhood
  • We know that blacks are above Latinos because of the prosecution of George Zimmermann for defending himself from Tray-Tray Martin
  • We know that feminism CAN in certain cases trump both Jewishness (most of metoo) and blackness (Bill Cosby) – however, this one is less clear, because blacks have gotten away with “sexual harassment” much easier than whites would in various situations
  • We know that anti-Russian sentiment trumps Nazi sympathies, as in both the Ukraine and the Baltics, neo-Nazi groups have been endorsed by the West and NATO because they were anti-Russian; in Estonia, World War II parades that celebrate Nazism (and attack Russia) have been praised by the media
  • We know that transsexual men are way above white women, as evidenced by everything, and probably, a white male transsexual is above any race of woman
  • We know anti-Semitism trumps blackness, as evidenced by attacks on Louis Farrakhan, Kanye West, Nick Cannon, et al.
  • We know that supposed historical oppression of India (colonialism) trumps global warming, as the Paris Climate Accords show and as Greta Thunberg herself has stated (that used to be true of China as well, but it isn’t anymore)
  • We know that Asians are virtually exempt from any form of grievance politics, as evidenced by attacks on Chinese racism, use of affirmative action against Asians, and others (nonetheless, the new “anti-Asian hate bias” campaign the media has launched is trying to use black attacks on Asians to attack whites)
  • We know that vaccines trump blackness, as evidenced by concerted campaigns against black anti-vaccine efforts claiming that the vaccination agenda is representative of white oppression of blacks

The fact that the media sided with Katie Hill after the printing of the nude photos proved that being a AWFL trumps associations with Nazism.

However, at the same time, AWFLs have been labeled “Karens” and attacked as anti-black racists for being afraid blacks were going to attack them, or being upset that blacks were committing various crimes.

Most infamously, a woman alone in Central Park with her dog thought a black man – who claimed to be a bird watcher – was going to rape her and called the police. (There is a Wikipedia page about this incident.)



She was disgraced as a white racist hater, despite the fact that I’m very certain she had BLM stuff all over her social media.

She really got wrecked – she was fired, and this is going to be a stain attached to her for the rest of her life (or as long as this current system lasts).

So according to current logic, if we take the Katie Hill nudes and the Central Park Karen incident alongside each other, thinking a black man is going to rape you is worse than being a Nazi.

But let’s take a step back here: just even wanting to classify this logically is probably the wrong approach. It is right-wing, white male thinking to say “give me an ordered list of who is the most and least oppressed, and whose grievances trump whose grievances.”

I don’t think any of the bulletpoints I outlined above actually represent any definitive policy or ideological belief, I think they just signal pragmatism: everything is always against heterosexual white men, but when the grievance interests collide, the rulers just choose whatever is more beneficial to the bigger agenda.

I think this is the biggest problem that right-wing people have with the left: there is no internal logic or consistency to any of it. It is all based in feminine drives and Jewishness (which is itself a feminine drive), and feminine drives are entirely based on emotionalism. There is no consistency in emotionalism, as it is entirely based on an arbitrary feelings-response to any stimuli.

The media is capable of manipulating emotional responses, completely. That is how they’ve used the empowerment of women, and the de-masculinization of men to create a system where nothing that happens has a requirement to make any sense. As long as women, and other emotional people, can be swayed by a media presentation, the presentation works.

Consensus on Irrational Nonsense


Along with making decisions based on emotions, women are obsessed with consensus. Therefore, the media is very capable of forming consensus around things that make no sense.

Anyone could have seen that the lockdowns would be much more damaging to society than the virus, based on all of the official data presented by the establishment. That was clear as soon as the hospitals were empty during the initial two week “flatten the curve” event. But the consensus formed was that it didn’t matter how many people suffered or died as a result of the lockdown, because the only thing that mattered was lives lost from the virus.

Glenn Greenwald – who is a homosexual, and thus totally paranoid about germs – was on Tucker Carlson the other day to talk about having been robbed at gunpoint at his weekend home in Brazil.


(Here is the article Glenn wrote on the topic, though I haven’t read it because save for a few special occasions, I don’t read any contemporary internet nonfiction prose as a rule, because I don’t want it to influence my own writing.)

He said that as a journalist, he didn’t like writing about himself, but decided to write about the robbery because he’d seen the video of the little Vietnamese girl talking about how her family was robbed and how she can’t sleep because she thinks the robbers are coming back.



During that robbery event, the mother of the family says that one of the black robbers whispered in her ear something to the effect of: “we’re not going to kill you or rape you, we just don’t have any money because of the virus.” That didn’t mean much, because one of the other blacks was pointing the gun at the little girl and saying he would kill her. But I guess it did mean something, because no one was killed or raped.

The video of the girl is really moving, actually.


(There is actually probably some commentary on race that could be said here, given that a white girl presumably would not be able to compose herself and speak on the event in such a straightforward way.)

If the media wanted to, this video of the Vietnamese could be used to create an emotional consensus that:

  • The lockdown is a crime against humanity
  • Black people are violent animals

It is all completely arbitrary.

If I had control of the media for one day, I could form an emotional consensus belief about all of my personal issues within a couple of hours. Then, when the media was turned back over to the Jews the next day, they could reestablish their own positions in the same timeframe.

It is all totally arbitrary.

Greenwald notes that much of the crime that is happening is a result of the lockdown, and that the consensus put a taboo on talking about the effects of a lockdown in contrast to the supposed effects of the supposed virus.

The lockdown is a part of the rising crime phenomenon, and the lockdown is doing other horrible things. But the main driver is the BLM movement. That is another emotional consensus that makes no sense at all.

Look at this:



Those murders are virtually 100% black-on-black, and they rose at such a rate because of the BLM movement.

If you were a racist, and you wanted to kill as many black people as possible, you would create the BLM movement to defund the police.

But the media has created the emotionally-driven consensus that anyone who believes the police should exist at all is an anti-black racist. Despite the fact that it is simply an objective reality that defunding the police (as well as removing cash bail and “prison reform”) has led to mass black deaths.

This brings us back to the bottom line: there is no logic in this system. You can’t unravel the logic of it, because there isn’t any logic in it. What that means in practical terms is that there is literally no purpose in attempting to push back against this system using logic. Not anymore. There was a purpose to that in 2015, because the information was not widely available, and in some cases, the arguments weren’t available at all. That changed with /pol/ and (not to toot my own horn) the Daily Stormer (which is mostly ripped off of /pol/) turning these arguments and facts into repeatable sound bites.

At this point, everyone who is capable of being swayed by logical arguments already has been. The only thing left to do now is to figure out some way to build a counter-consensus. The MAGA movement, including QAnon and others, are ripe for that, but they are flailing around, swallowing up disinformation.

Continue reading...
 

Highlander

✝️️Sword of Christ✝️️
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
I don’t think any of the bulletpoints I outlined above actually represent any definitive policy or ideological belief, I think they just signal pragmatism: everything is always against heterosexual white men, but when the grievance interests collide, the rulers just choose whatever is more beneficial to the bigger agenda.

I think this is the biggest problem that right-wing people have with the left: there is no internal logic or consistency to any of it. It is all based in feminine drives and Jewishness (which is itself a feminine drive), and feminine drives are entirely based on emotionalism. There is no consistency in emotionalism, as it is entirely based on an arbitrary feelings-response to any stimuli.
red pill: satan was actually a woman all along
 

Bernamej

French Builder of Time Machine to Save Baby Hitler
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
Escaped True Master
there is no logic in this system. You can’t unravel the logic of it, because there isn’t any logic in it.
As in any tyrannical system, laws cannot be clear and orderly. We will be accused of crimes that cannot even be clearly formulated, and it will be the job of the accused to defend himself of something “he knows” he committed (the pre trial procedure, called the “auto-anal confession”)
This should keep people in constant fear of “mistakes” of any sorts. People will completely forget to interact as humans, they’ll be like insects trying to avoid pain and follow what their primitive brains tell them to. But whereas fear of natural elements normally leads to general rules and predictability, fear of tyranny cannot be overcome (without religion), because nothing contents the feminine ruling soul and nothing relaxes the feminine slave; the dildo and the dildoed both will spiral themselves to total destruction (like any ongoing sodomy).
If Western civilization started by making written laws public in the agora, for everyone to see, we can say that it’s definitely over now; with Anal-Socialist Dildo-Homo, it’s a kind of techno return to the babylonian civilization, where order and authority are shoved and melt deep in the asshole’s tranny tyrant.
EE4F6BCD-A677-44E2-A823-511339BC9CC8.jpeg
 
Last edited:

JR_Rustler_III

🇰🇷 Gookwaffen 🇯🇵
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
The only thing left to do now is to figure out some way to build a counter-consensus.
Shouldn't this be the easiest thing in the world? The "counter-consensus" is simply the exact opposite of what the media is telling you at any specific moment in time.

always do opposite of what Jews say.jpg
 

KryptoKyke

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
This article is an absolute masterpiece of social and political analysis. The headline doesn't do it justice. But I see what Anglin did here. Sex sells. I just had to check out "Nudes" and "Nazi Tattoo." And then it was on to the really good stuff, like the hierarchy of whether trannies trump bitches, bitches trump kikes, kikes trump niggers, niggers trump slopes and faggots. It's a surreal version of the rock-paper-scissors game with civilization hanging in the balance.
 
Last edited:

Andrew Anglin

🐁 🎀 𝓂𝒶𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝑒𝒻 🎀 🐁
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
Yeah, there are some people who still wanna 'expose the hypocrisies of the Left', and who will apparently be doing that even as they are being tied to the post and shot by the Cheka.
Well, the other thing is that Shapiro, Mr. "Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" himself is actually full of shit, and will break his ideological code selectively.

He is literally talking about forced vaccinations, claiming that it is libertarianism. He says it's like pouring chemicals in a river that flows onto your neighbor's property. He even had a libertarian cult term for it, which I don't remember.

This is to say: the people behind this "expose the hypocrisies" movement have their own hypocrisies crisis: and part of it is claiming that the left has some consistent ideology. Shapiro is just an example, though probably the best example. And he is obsessed with outlining leftist ideology, as if there is a consistent system.

Ted Cruz, who is the bridge troll to Shapiro's woodland goblin, takes this to an absurd, stupid level, where dems are the real global warmers and child cagers.

Anyway: I don't really think I've done justice to the problem of ideology. That book that @Coltraine recommended, I never finished. All of this stuff is all tied up together, this issue of abstractions replacing concrete social goals, and very few people have talked about it at all, because virtually everyone is playing this game (including virtually all "white nationalists," most of whom have managed to turn Hitler's practical approach into an ideology through a cloud-reading type process).

I should be able to break this down better, in more systematic language. Right now, if someone were to ask me to describe the differences between ideology and philosophy in 150 words, I don't think I'd be able to do it. I can only do it through examples. I should have figured out some soundbyte language by now. No one else is going to do it.

I remember maybe in the late 1990s, one of the boomers in my life was saying "I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative." Lately I've been toying with the idea of "I'm not a conservative, I'm a Christian" or some such thing.

I was really struggling with the language yesterday in that piece about the Arkansas governor using Buckley to defend child trannies. I should have hit on clearer language. Saying: "these corporations aren't really private, they use tax breaks and taxpayer funded infrastructure," or saying, "Adam Smith said in capitalism the government has to regulate monopolies" doesn't really solve the issue, and in fact probably compounds it.

The whole core concept of ideology has to be unwound. I watched a judicial committee hearing and some negro was like "have you read Ayn Rand?" and I was thinking that it might almost be easier to write a 1200 page novel than to create this soundbyte.

I went all the way through the Alt-Right period, when people were actually saying interesting and novel things, and these things were being broken down into soundbytes, and no one ever cracked this ideology puzzle.

This article is an absolute masterpiece of social and political analysis. The headline doesn't do it justice. But I see what Anglin did here. Sex sells. I just had to check out "Nudes" and "Nazi Tattoo." And then it was on to the really good stuff, like the hierarchy of whether trannies trump bitches, bitches trump kikes, kikes trump niggers, niggers trump slopes and faggots. It's a surreal version of the rock-paper-scissors game with civilization hanging in the balance.
Rock, paper, scissors is something I should have thought of. I also couldn't remember the SJW term for this hierarchy of oppression. They have a term, and I've read long essays about it, and I can't remember it.

Article titles have been an ongoing controversy. It's bigger than "sex sells." The traditional model of the site is from when links were still allowed on Twitter/Facebook, and embedding a longer and more interesting thing in a current events headline was a way to get people to read the bigger ideas involved. This was reinforced by the likes/shares system.

But now, I honestly don't know. Probably yes, I went with the current events seed title because it says nude/Nazi tattoo. But I'm working with a totally new model here, where people can only access the articles from the front page. I also don't really have very good statistics on what people click from the front page, because of the way the pages are served/cached (along with a high prevalence of Tor users and script-blockers, which don't get counted at all).

Basically, I think people should click any article that is in featured stories. Of course, some days I phone it in, because I'm not super-human, and I do not take days off. So I get that I've put out a lot of minimalist material and just garbage.

Long articles are usually good, and it would be nice to only write those, maybe. But that would mean I couldn't ever phone it in, and also mean that the site couldn't be used as an exclusive news source. To this day, actually, I think you can in theory read this site and not any other site and basically know what is going on.

My plan was to hire a staff to write news bits so i could focus on longer things, but that failed, for a number of reasons, not least of which was money. The end reason was money. There was also perfectionism (ironically) and so-called verbal abuse of staff.

Right now, I'm spending too much time writing on a forum that no one reads, relative to the main site. Sometimes I write these long comments and say "I'll turn this into an article" and then just never do it. This comment in particular is now very long, and cannot be turned into an article.

I'm thinking of turning that China argument I had with that guy into an article.
 

CharlesWorthing

🙊Dog Faced🙊🦴🦴🙊Pony Soldier🙊
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
When a stupid slut in the UK was murdered recently, by an off duty cop, the vaginasphere went into a frenzy. Women were desperate to cash in on the potential for getting attention.

On a popular morning show for plebs "Jeremy Vine", a fat young Scottish presenter slut got upset when an older woman said it was OK to tell women to be careful. The young Scottish fatty told her that sympathy for her family should be the first emotion which people feel, people shouldn't be asking why the dead slut was walking home alone in the dark. Women want to live in a soap opera where they can wring out every feeling like emotional vampires.

 
Last edited:

Little Shitpost Buddha

Hortler Dod :(
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
(including virtually all "white nationalists," most of whom have managed to turn Hitler's practical approach into an ideology through a cloud-reading type process).
Yeah, it's called 'ethno-nationalism', and they too believe that there is a set of standard crisis situations with a standard, morally legit answer that can be arrived at through the application of principles. For instance, they supported Euromaidan because it is according to the principles of 'ethno-nationalism' (and because they value aesthetics over substance), even if the result is a Jew-run government that takes direct orders from State Department and CIA, sending Ukrainians to die in a war that is mathematically impossible to win. Therefore, these people are quite often both useless and harmful.

I don't think that this 'ideology' question is too dense, perhaps difficult to sum up elegantly. Ideology simply answers to the need for standardization in every domain of life. This is of course, being exploited ruthlessly. Instead of seeking out answers for themselves and embracing the risk of failure, people seek refuge in ready-made answers, and run from moral responsibility. They were being 'principled'.
 

Lauri Niskanen

WTF *this* time
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Well, the other thing is that Shapiro, Mr. "Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" himself is actually full of shit, and will break his ideological code selectively.

He is literally talking about forced vaccinations, claiming that it is libertarianism. He says it's like pouring chemicals in a river that flows onto your neighbor's property. He even had a libertarian cult term for it, which I don't remember.

This is to say: the people behind this "expose the hypocrisies" movement have their own hypocrisies crisis: and part of it is claiming that the left has some consistent ideology. Shapiro is just an example, though probably the best example. And he is obsessed with outlining leftist ideology, as if there is a consistent system.

Ted Cruz, who is the bridge troll to Shapiro's woodland goblin, takes this to an absurd, stupid level, where dems are the real global warmers and child cagers.

Anyway: I don't really think I've done justice to the problem of ideology. That book that @Coltraine recommended, I never finished. All of this stuff is all tied up together, this issue of abstractions replacing concrete social goals, and very few people have talked about it at all, because virtually everyone is playing this game (including virtually all "white nationalists," most of whom have managed to turn Hitler's practical approach into an ideology through a cloud-reading type process).

I should be able to break this down better, in more systematic language. Right now, if someone were to ask me to describe the differences between ideology and philosophy in 150 words, I don't think I'd be able to do it. I can only do it through examples. I should have figured out some soundbyte language by now. No one else is going to do it.

I remember maybe in the late 1990s, one of the boomers in my life was saying "I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative." Lately I've been toying with the idea of "I'm not a conservative, I'm a Christian" or some such thing.

I was really struggling with the language yesterday in that piece about the Arkansas governor using Buckley to defend child trannies. I should have hit on clearer language. Saying: "these corporations aren't really private, they use tax breaks and taxpayer funded infrastructure," or saying, "Adam Smith said in capitalism the government has to regulate monopolies" doesn't really solve the issue, and in fact probably compounds it.

The whole core concept of ideology has to be unwound. I watched a judicial committee hearing and some negro was like "have you read Ayn Rand?" and I was thinking that it might almost be easier to write a 1200 page novel than to create this soundbyte.

I went all the way through the Alt-Right period, when people were actually saying interesting and novel things, and these things were being broken down into soundbytes, and no one ever cracked this ideology puzzle.



Rock, paper, scissors is something I should have thought of. I also couldn't remember the SJW term for this hierarchy of oppression. They have a term, and I've read long essays about it, and I can't remember it.

Article titles have been an ongoing controversy. It's bigger than "sex sells." The traditional model of the site is from when links were still allowed on Twitter/Facebook, and embedding a longer and more interesting thing in a current events headline was a way to get people to read the bigger ideas involved. This was reinforced by the likes/shares system.

But now, I honestly don't know. Probably yes, I went with the current events seed title because it says nude/Nazi tattoo. But I'm working with a totally new model here, where people can only access the articles from the front page. I also don't really have very good statistics on what people click from the front page, because of the way the pages are served/cached (along with a high prevalence of Tor users and script-blockers, which don't get counted at all).

Basically, I think people should click any article that is in featured stories. Of course, some days I phone it in, because I'm not super-human, and I do not take days off. So I get that I've put out a lot of minimalist material and just garbage.

Long articles are usually good, and it would be nice to only write those, maybe. But that would mean I couldn't ever phone it in, and also mean that the site couldn't be used as an exclusive news source. To this day, actually, I think you can in theory read this site and not any other site and basically know what is going on.

My plan was to hire a staff to write news bits so i could focus on longer things, but that failed, for a number of reasons, not least of which was money. The end reason was money. There was also perfectionism (ironically) and so-called verbal abuse of staff.

Right now, I'm spending too much time writing on a forum that no one reads, relative to the main site. Sometimes I write these long comments and say "I'll turn this into an article" and then just never do it. This comment in particular is now very long, and cannot be turned into an article.

I'm thinking of turning that China argument I had with that guy into an article.
Everything you say is notesome. The "think" elite sees you as one of the last few actual analysers out there.
1617880206169.png
 
Last edited:

Im the horse

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
Escaped True Master
Rock, paper, scissors is something I should have thought of. I also couldn't remember the SJW term for this hierarchy of oppression. They have a term, and I've read long essays about it, and I can't remember it.
I think the term you’re looking for is “progressive stack”.
 

Bernamej

French Builder of Time Machine to Save Baby Hitler
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
Escaped True Master
The whole core concept of ideology has to be unwound
I recommend Edmund Burke’s work. This is exactly what you’re looking for. (If you want him in a nutshell just go through the first chapter of The Conservative Mind by Kirke).
The French have the French version of him which is Joseph de Maistre. Both de Maistre and Burke are incredibly insightful, deep and sublime writers.
 
Last edited:

Blatts_Love_Murder

Vae Victis 🇺🇲 - Allen Russell -
This is to say: the people behind this "expose the hypocrisies" movement have their own hypocrisies crisis: and part of it is claiming that the left has some consistent ideology. Shapiro is just an example, though probably the best example. And he is obsessed with outlining leftist ideology, as if there is a consistent system.
It's why Trump was so effective. He undermined people's confidence in the "pillars of democracy" such as NYT and CNN without any tedious arguments. He just straight bullied them and people loved it!

Rock, paper, scissors is something I should have thought of. I also couldn't remember the SJW term for this hierarchy of oppression. They have a term, and I've read long essays about it, and I can't remember it.
Intersectionality? I prefer rock paper scissors too...

Edit: I had to think about this one...
describe the differences between ideology and philosophy in 150 words
How about

Philosophy is a set of principles oriented toward a goal which is motivated by an understanding of reason
Ideology is a set of principles oriented toward a goal which is motivated by power.
 
Last edited:

CMcGillicutty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️
He even had a libertarian cult term for it, which I don't remember.
You mean "negative externalities?" I don't even disagree with him that those exist; and that dumping pollution into a river is a textbook example of them. But it's a gross false equivalence to liken that to people not getting vaccinated.

I was really struggling with the language yesterday in that piece about the Arkansas governor using Buckley to defend child trannies. I should have hit on clearer language. Saying: "these corporations aren't really private, they use tax breaks and taxpayer funded infrastructure," or saying, "Adam Smith said in capitalism the government has to regulate monopolies" doesn't really solve the issue, and in fact probably compounds it.

The whole core concept of ideology has to be unwound. I watched a judicial committee hearing and some negro was like "have you read Ayn Rand?" and I was thinking that it might almost be easier to write a 1200 page novel than to create this soundbyte.

I went all the way through the Alt-Right period, when people were actually saying interesting and novel things, and these things were being broken down into soundbytes, and no one ever cracked this ideology puzzle.
I wouldn't worry about compounding this theme for now. A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Right now we need to build up all we understand about what is a complex, abstract problem, and as we become more familiar with it, eventually we can discern what is elemental and what is of less import, and boil it down into refined soundbytes.

We should start by defining philosphy and ideology. Here's what comes up in google definitions for ideology:

Untitlede.png

I really like the "visionary speculation" definition. I think that hits the nail on the head, even though jewgle considers it an archaic definition.

Here's what comes up for philosophy:
Untitleded.png

The definitions for philosophy are a little more academic, but I think the first one is most apt for what we're driving at here. Where ideology is visionary speculation, often of an unrealistic hopelessly utopian flavor, philosophy is a more pragmatic attempt to understand the fundamental nature of what it means to be a sentient human being interacting in this plane of existence. Ideology is assumed, uncompromising and superficial, philosophy is gleaned, open to revision and intricate.
 

Aquafina

Internet Fun Police
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
red pill: satan was actually a woman all along
Angels don't have genders you bigot

That bitch should be punished for being a whore cunt and politician (same thing?) not for a tattoo... the Iron Cunt?
 

Zaldron

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Well, the other thing is that Shapiro, Mr. "Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" himself is actually full of shit, and will break his ideological code selectively.
Let me break this down as Bob Whitaker would. The problem is what Bob Whitaker called wordism. In wordism, we are one people because we all say the same words.

There are different kinds of wordism. It can be religious. We are all the same people because we recite the same creed. It can be secular and ideological. We are all the same people because we recite the same political dogmas. It does not matter whether the religious dogma or the ideology has any internal coherence. It only matters that this web of words defines the primary in-group.

The alternative is what Bob Whitaker supports and I do too. That is, we are one people because we are related. You can call that nationalism, because it comes from common birth, or you can call it racialism, because it's obviously genetic. Whatever you call it, it's not wordism.

Wordism of any kind and nationalism or whatever you want to call it have different characteristics. There is a degree of freedom of speech in racialism that there cannot be in wordism.

You can only have one top priority.

Personally I am a White man first. I have goodwill to my fellow Christians, but my bottom line is that I will not willingly see my race made extinct.

Jews are brilliant at using words to manipulate people for the gain of their race, but that doesn't make them wordist. It makes suckers who give up their own racial interests to the advantage of the Jews wordists, while the Jews themselves are ultimately racialist.

(The webs of words exist to serve the Jewish spiders; the Jewish spiders don't exist to serve their webs of words.)

In this respect, I think the Jews are doing it right, and we should do the same. We should treat all ideologies pragmatically. The vital question must be: is this good for the Whites? If it is, we can use it for the time being. (This is the same as Jews using socialism when it suits them and dumping it when it doesn't suit them.) Is it bad for the Whites? Out it goes.

Is Ben Shapiro a consistent ideologist? No. Even if he was not a hypocrite, he couldn't be, because he is a racialist. He will make exceptions for his race, which I think is what an intelligent man should do to protect his ethnic / genetic interests.

We too should not be tied up like the Fenris wolf, by cleverly woven bonds of words and intellectual traps. We should save our race. pragmatically using and discarding pretty words as the situation demands, and as our clever word-spinning enemies do.

We Whites have been beneath words, under their spell, and sacrificing our blood, our kinfolk to them. We Whites need to be over words, making them serve us.

Is this clear?
 

Highlander

✝️️Sword of Christ✝️️
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
Crystal.
 

Andrew Anglin

🐁 🎀 𝓂𝒶𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝑒𝒻 🎀 🐁
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
Most people on the forum don't use it for that purpose, and read all this other stuff. But I think a lot of the non-commenting readership reads this site primarily, as their main daily source for what's happening, which gives them the ability to discuss current events without ever having to click through a news feed.

Yeah, it's called 'ethno-nationalism', and they too believe that there is a set of standard crisis situations with a standard, morally legit answer that can be arrived at through the application of principles. For instance, they supported Euromaidan because it is according to the principles of 'ethno-nationalism' (and because they value aesthetics over substance), even if the result is a Jew-run government that takes direct orders from State Department and CIA, sending Ukrainians to die in a war that is mathematically impossible to win. Therefore, these people are quite often both useless and harmful.

I don't think that this 'ideology' question is too dense, perhaps difficult to sum up elegantly. Ideology simply answers to the need for standardization in every domain of life. This is of course, being exploited ruthlessly. Instead of seeking out answers for themselves and embracing the risk of failure, people seek refuge in ready-made answers, and run from moral responsibility. They were being 'principled'.
Yes, standardization and "application of technology to political thought" would probably be a part of a succinct soundbyte explanation, but that is still pretty abstract. I mean, I know from you're basic comments about conversations you have IRL you're moving in circles where there's an education level probably much more above the norm than you're aware (also your lack of awareness was gathered - particularly thinking right now of you saying you managed not to talk about popular entertainment).

This is also an issue with a lot of conversations with @Oystein, and several others here, where I am able to identify that the poster is outside of the reality of just how simple of a level the working class is functioning on.

The Ben Shapiro/Sean Hannity lines about small government and personal freedom appeal to these people. They will talk about how Bezos worked fro his money and so on.

I think that for people on a slightly higher than average level, I've already done the ideology thing justice, but until it is packaged for the masses, it isn't really useful. In order for some 100th monkey situation regarding any issue, you have to be able to ping a light bulb in the brain of someone who watches MCU material and drives a forklift.

Trump was unbelievably successful with this, though I don't know how much was soundbytes and how much was his larger than life personality being magnetic.

About 1/3rd of white men, at least currently (maybe due to @RedPillStormer 's thing about testosterone levels, will just bow to authority and consensus, but the people who watch Hannity actually do believe they're being walked through a logical process. And they are being walked through a logical process, it just falls apart at a level of scrutiny they're incapable of engaging. Sean Hannity himself, I am 99% certain, actually believes his own thing. I once posted about him talking about going to the grocery store and people being surprised to see him there, and I think that's actually a true story. Maybe not every week, but I would suspect at least once a month, he goes to the grocery store himself, because it is part of his own self-identity. His wife probably also cooks herself at least a couple times a month, at his request.

Some portion of the people I'm referring to - this "peasant mass" - are going to instinctive recognize that Ben Shapiro is a fraud, whilst Hannity isn't really a fraud, he's just genuinely too stupid to understand what is going on.

Trump was the perfect mix of above average intelligence (or just general competence) and status but also relatable.

Point being: any of these soundbytes have to be digestible by the same mass of people who watch Hannity. I think I have a good understanding of that mindset, mostly because of my own family background, but also just because I've made a point to try to understand it.

The thing with the Jews is 100% potentially digestible, because it is very simple. The other/outsider thing is the simplest. We see that with the China thing, where there is no real explanation for what China did, but it's "those people over there who are different from us are up to something." The problem with the Jew thing is just the level of indoctrination. That's like a steel door to a rotten structure, so it's like, you have to break support beams instead of endlessly kicking at this steel door.

I think the term you’re looking for is “progressive stack”.
Yep.

I'm not getting deranged from the lockdown and general social collapse - I give myself regular sanity tests as a matter of course (something I did long before the lockdown), but I will tell you: long term memory has really suffered.

It's not a big deal, but it is an annoyance - especially since search engines have turned into such garbage.

I've considered writing about this, but I don't like writing about myself. I do think everyone needs to be aware of their own mental health though, and gauging things by some objective measure, not so they don't go insane (that won't happen to most people), but so they don't start making bad decisions. Everyone makes mistakes - I am lucky to have been able to simplify my personal life to the point where there aren't many mistakes I can make. But yes, there needs to be some text on the way your brain will cover up levels of stress, hide it from the conscious mind, and how this can lead to bad decisions. It's not going to be the same for everyone, but for many people, struggling with memory is the first indicator. Especially I guess if you've already worked through any anger issues you might have. For many, irritability is going to be first.

I refuse to believe anyone is not suffering on some level from all that is going on, and frankly, anyone who claims not to be is simply showing that they are not really very in touch with themselves.

Just to say again: actually losing your mind is going to be a 1/100 thing, even at peak craziness, but bad decision making is a threat to everyone.

Frankly, writing these long comments is a bad decision on my part.

Intersectionality?
No, that's the term that I kept thinking of when trying to remember "progressive stack."

Philosophy is a set of principles oriented toward a goal which is motivated by an understanding of reason
Ideology is a set of principles oriented toward a goal which is motivated by power.
That's again simple and true, but it doesn't slice it up enough.

The target is specifically "conservative ideology" and no one who believes in that views themselves as being motivated by power. In fact, they view it as the opposite, where it is about "limiting the power of the state." Conservative ideology is about power for the Jews who promote it as a weapon against the people who adopt it, so they can justify things like monopoly corporations and tranny injections by getting the believers to refuse to fight, or refuse to take any power.

You mean "negative externalities?" I don't even disagree with him that those exist; and that dumping pollution into a river is a textbook example of them. But it's a gross false equivalence to liken that to people not getting vaccinated.
Yes, that's it.

Again with the memory.

But yes, he used this to bypass bodily autonomy, and really to bypass the entire discussion. We still don't understand what "herd immunity" means. If the vaccine protects people from the virus, then the people who take it shouldn't worry about the stupid theorists who refuse to take it. But we saw this with the masks, where they just claimed, inexplicably, that the mask wearer is protecting others and not himself. I've seen endless videos of people saying "no that's not how it works, my mask is protecting you, you have to wear your mask to protect me" and it's like: well, both entry and exit to your nose and mouth are covered - what are the physics here?
 

Andrew Anglin

🐁 🎀 𝓂𝒶𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝑒𝒻 🎀 🐁
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
Source? I seriously doubt this is true.
Someone else can field that one, I can't deal "please google that for me" right now. I've got shit I've got to do. And Google is so broken.

But I've written about it before, as have many others.

You could just as easily do the search engine work yourself.

I don't lie.
 

Andrew Anglin

🐁 🎀 𝓂𝒶𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝑒𝒻 🎀 🐁
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻
Someone else can field that one, I can't deal "please google that for me" right now. I've got shit I've got to do. And Google is so broken.

But I've written about it before, as have many others.

You could just as easily do the search engine work yourself.

I don't lie.
Seconds later, I cracked under the frustration of someone suggesting I'm spreading false information instead of doing a search themselves.

Here's Bing!

Screen Shot 2021-04-09 at 7.17.38 AM.png

Just now I'm realizing that you might have been trolling with the "you got a source for that?" meme.

If so, gj.

If not - then please don't ever ask me to google something for you again.
 
Top