Memo to L

0

Hey, you’re wrong about the NPC meme being right wing, and 4chan had very little to do with it.  The 4chan mods HATED it, and almost every NPC-related thread was pruned shortly after its creation.

(They also began censoring the term ‘soy boy’ at this point.  But antisemitic and racial slurs are still a go. 👌)

There’ve been people of all different political persuasions involved in the central aspects of it — the memes, the memeing, the LARPS, the RL appearances, the articles, the videos, etc.

The beauty of the NPC meme is that it’s only offensive to the people to whom it applies.  It isn’t solely applicable to the Regressive Left, but they’re at the center of the current culture war (pushing the rest of us off into the ‘alt-right’ category), so that’s how it’s being used.

Also, don’t believe a damn thing you hear about the NPC meme from the mainstream media.  They‘ve been among our primary targets, which is why they’ve been our greatest detractors.

There were never 10,000 Twitter bots.  The retweet-bot idea was discarded 48 hours in because: capchas.  There were real people behind these accounts, and the idea was to provide a steady stream of freebased identity politics while promoting awareness of social media censorship.

We never set out to influence an election, and the NoMenMidterm meme (from July) only made a comeback after the mainstream media decided to integrate it into its “voter suppression” narrative.

When they reported that we were giving out a false voting date, we put out word to push THEIR November 7th voting date.

This is what they do. The media brought the racism and antisemitism over to 4chan back in the mid-2000s when they began reporting on non-existent racism and antisemitism.  The racists and antisemites swarmed in.

The rise of Anonymous shortly thereafter was the direct result of Greta van Susteren’s sensationalized accounts of a series of mean-spirited adolescent pranks.  Actual hackers moved into /b/ and brought with them a political agenda.

The media’s practice of creating its own news is what brought the NPC meme to life in the first place.  It had been dead for over two years when some idiot journalist decided to dig it out of the meme graveyard and claim it was being used to “dehumanize” SJWs.  The “alt-right trolls” were only too happy to comply.

Advertisements

Not a Good Month For Friendship

0

NOTE: Update to follow (eventually, I swear), because there’s a Part II to the genderqueef shit, and it’s seriously one of the craziest things I have ever seen from the Regressive Left.  Which is saying quite a damned bit.



October has not been a month for friendship.  My friends are dropping like flies — and it’s largely the fault of Lindsey Graham.  He has released from within me an utter abhorrence for unethical shams.

About a dozen people have unfriended me on Facebook since the Christine Ford farce, and I’m pretty sure the majority of those who didn’t are no longer following me.

For the most part, I have been silently unfriended.  By whom, it’s hard to tell, which suggests no major loss.  But here are two cases in which I played an active role in the dissolution of a friendship — for better or for worse.

Continue reading

FACEBOOK: What Supporting Kavanaugh Was Really About

0

All right, everyone — listen up, because an astonishing number of you don’t seem to understand the overwhelming support behind Brett Kavanaugh, or how the SCOTUS confirmation process even works.

The President can nominate whomever he damn well pleases, and it’s up to the Senate whether or not to confirm.  There isn’t an ideological litmus test, and it doesn’t matter how “mainstream” a nominee is, because the Supreme Court does not exist to represent YOUR interests OR mine.  The only “interests” it represents are those of the United States Constitution.   (Worth noting: Brett Kavanaugh is an utter caricature of Middle America.)

The only relevant concern is whether the nominee is capable of doing the job.

Think he lacks the experience to fill a seat?  Fine.  Think he doesn’t understand the Constitution, or how to properly apply it?  That’s fine too.  Have concerns about the candidate’s ethics, or do you otherwise question whether he can and will remain objective in his rulings?  Then certainly, Senator, you should vote ‘no’.

But please, all of you screaming your heads off about Roe v. Wade — shut the fuck up already.  You don’t actually believe Trump can be pressured into nominating someone who supports abortion; you’re just looking for an excuse to bitch about Trump.

If you had any serious concerns about Kavanaugh’s confirmation, you belonged taking them to your senator — not taking to the streets like savages or whining about it on social media.

(To anyone who contacted their senator’s office and THEN whined: 👍  But I hope they had the good sense to ignore you unless you actually had something constructive to say.)


Secondly:

I’m tired of all the mischaracterizations of Kavanaugh supporters, and of people reframing the issues around irrelevant topics instead of challenging our arguments directly.

This was NEVER about abortion — not for us.  It was never about politics — not for us — and if you think this was a right-wing movement, you’re living in an echo chamber.

Standing With Brett was never about wanting him confirmed.  It was never about the Patriot Act, or about Donald Trump, or the myth of male privilege, and we aren’t the ones seeking to politicize sexual assault.

Standing With Brett boiled down to three things:

(1) Upholding the integrity of the judicial nomination process.

(2) A reaffirmation of due process.

(3) A rejection of the #metoo movement and its underlying feminist ideology.

No matter where any one of us happens to stand politically, THESE were the three things we held in common.

Continue reading

Election Interference From Feinstein’s Buddies

0

Meet Foreign Policy Magazine.  Rated “Least Biased” and “Factual Reporting: High” by Media Bias and Fact Check, they are now working to throw November’s election by spreading actual Fake News — with help from #metoo’s Alyssa Milano.

Click on the above tweet from Foreign Policy’s senior foreign policy editor, or click here to go directly to the article.

Behold:

The Trump administration on Monday began denying visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees, and requiring those already in the United States to get married by the end of the year or leave the country.

The U.S. Mission to the U.N. portrayed the decision—which foreign diplomats fear will increase hardships for same-sex couples in countries that don’t recognize same-sex marriage—as an effort to bring its international visa practices in line with current U.S. policy. In light of the landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the U.S. extends diplomatic visas only to married spouses of U.S. diplomats.

”Same-sex spouses of U.S. diplomats now enjoy the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex spouses,” the U.S. mission wrote in a July 12 note to U.N.-based delegations. “Consistent with [State] Department policy, partners accompanying members of permanent missions or seeking to join the same must generally be married in order to be eligible” for a diplomatic visa.

[…]

The new policy —which enters into force Monday—requires that foreign domestic partners of diplomats and U.N. officials posted in the United States must show the State Department proof of marriage by Dec. 31, or leave the country within 30 days. As of today, domestic partners of diplomats and U.N. officials based abroad will need to show they are married in order to enter the country on a diplomatic visa. The latest policy change, the United States explained in the note, was aimed at ensuring all couples were treated equally.

[…]

Same-sex couples already inside of the United States could go to city hall and get married. […]

(Read More)

Visas are being denied to both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners!

In other words, same-sex couples are receiving equal treatment.  (Wasn’t that always the point?)

Alyssa Milano — who was a personal guest of Dianne Feinstein at Thursay’s hearing — wasted no time, tweeting this out to her followers:

Who of course began freaking out en masse because nobody bothers reading past the headlines anymore. 🙄

I replied to a number of sub-threads, hoping to call attention to what was actually going on here:

Resulting in:

But at least I didn’t get the James Woods treatment.  Funny how the DNC can accuse him of trying to influence an election by making fun of soy boys, while Dianne Feinstein’s friends can blatantly work to throw one (“text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election”) and get a free pass — if not actual help — from Twitter.

For the record, I am adding Alyssa Milano to my List of Women I Would Like to See in Refrigerators.

#InvestigateFeinstein

Unethical Sham

0

For the record, I am utterly appalled at the way Brett Kavanaugh has been abused by Senate Democrats, the media, and my son’s paternal grandmother.  I’ve had more than enough of the Democratic Party weaponizing mentally-ill women against the rest of us by hand-feeding them Marxist-feminist ideology and spite.

I can only imagine what Brett and his family must be going through, and anyone who wasn’t moved by his tears when he spoke of his ten-year-old daughter is a fucking monster.

I mean it — these Pussy Hats are complete sociopaths, and they’ve done more harm to women than I would have imagined possible when they began crawling out of the woodwork in 2011.

We cannot allow such neo-Stalinist tactics to continue.  Kavanaugh needs to be voted up or down, and Creepy Porn Lawyer just needs to go away.

Never thought I’d want to fist-bump a Republican so badly:

Christine Ford 🙄

0

Can we just get something straight, please?  All those reports of Christine Ford having passed what’s been described as an “FBI polygraph” are patently false and based on a misquote of the original Washington Post article:

Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.

In other words, someone (who?) read Ford a statement (what?) summarizing her allegations (which version?), and then asked her if the statement was “accurate”.  That’s all the Washington Post is claiming — period.

That this is the strongest claim the Post was willing to make after seeing the full polygraph results is simply mind blowing.

I can’t be the only one who noticed this, but it’s been ten days now, and I’ve yet to see anyone raise this point.

True, some have questioned the accuracy of the results — which no other media outlet has been permitted to examine — along with the objectivity of a polygrapher whose credentials remain unverified.

Others are asking who paid for it — as if that were particularly relevant and not painfully obvious.  (NO ONE has suggested Ford actually paid for a polygraph out of her own pocket.)

But the fact that no one has decried the Washington Post’s deceptive wording and the ensuing game of telephone is truly astounding.

Then again, consider the number of social media users who don’t bother reading past the headlines.

If Ford isn’t about to testify, can we at least pin down what it is she’s accusing him of?  Because it’s gone from groping to attempted rape and murder.

It also might be nice to establish how many people were there the night that nobody else seems to remember (4 or 5?) and just how many of these people actually tried to rape and kill her (4 or 2?).

Especially Dianne Cheinstein.