@Megacles

Peter Boghossian #racist twitter.com

How to destroy civilization in 10 easy steps:

1) Claim that science, reason, and rationality are tools of oppression.
2) Focus on equality of outcome at the expense of equality of opportunity.
3) Teach a generation of students that being offended by certain *ideas* makes them better people.
4) “Decolonize” curricula by switching from robust epistemologies (scientific method) to radically subjective ones (autoethnography). Simultaneously, claim that anyone who has a problem with this isn’t merely mistaken but is a terrible person.
5) Sanction and shame people who have conversations across political and moral divides. Guilt by association is a particularly good enforcement mechanism.
6) Promote cultural, moral, and epistemological relativism. In other words, advance the notion that there’s no way to make independent judgments about cultural practices, moral codes, and ways of knowing.
7) Create and legally enforce blasphemy laws. This will be most effective if certain ideas are made sacred and thus immune from criticism. Bonus: Equate criticisms of ideas with criticisms of immutable properties of people.
8) Advance the narrative that what people can know is limited to exogenous, immutable characteristics, like skin color or gender.
9) Deny people healthcare based upon their income.
10) Do not provide a public education of the first rate for every citizen.

Dinesh D’Souza #wingnut facebook.com

Margaret Sanger supported eugenics & forced sterilization for low IQ, handicapped & “undesirable” black people. Democrat Stephen Douglas was a notorious racist who compared blacks to animals. Democrat Robert Byrd was a notorious Ku Klux Klan leader who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.
So liberals, I must ask... why are you not trying to erase these names from history?

The Meme Policeman #elitist facebook.com

Many have highlighted the Ayn Rand Institute (and other similar groups) taking PPP funds as hypocrisy. Their thought process goes; Rand opposed welfare, they are getting government assistance, thus hypocrisy. This is a shallow and mistaken view of her philosophy and the reasoning behind taking these funds.
-The ARI didn’t secretly apply for PPP loans, hoping no one would notice. They wrote an article back in May proudly announcing the move, “we *will* take any relief money offered us. We will take it unapologetically, because the principle here is: justice.” So how could taking government money be justice?
-Ayn Rand herself explained in a 1966 essay. She explained the recipient in such a case is morally justified “so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare-statism.” Those who support such handouts, “have no right to them; those who oppose them have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.”
-Rand recognized that the welfare state (the taking of some people’s money by force to give to another) was wrong. To advocate for or support this was also wrong, but what about those who oppose redistribution but are still stuck in the system? “The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.”
-Similarly, if someone advocates for private roads, but given the current system there’s only government roads, they are not obligated to refuse to use all roads, that would be absurd. To get taxed for the road and not use it out of some sense of principle would make one unnecessarily suffer. And for what? The same holds for programs like Social Security, Medicare and certain government scholarships and grants.
-As for the PPP funds, the government shut down most of the economy, adversely affecting virtually everyone (including ARI and their donors). They then offered money to virtually everyone to ease the pain. But the government has no money of its own, so essentially it is taking from all to give to all. Money that will likely not be paid for through taxation, but through inflation and deficits, which will effectively take from all productive people in the future. To refuse some of this restitution, so that others who might be indifferent or wholeheartedly support government redistribution can solely benefit, is not standing on principle, but enduring yet another sacrifice.
-Rand lists some other factors to consider in accepting money. One must not compromise their values or views and continue to advocate against the welfare state (the ARI was clear in their article that they would continue to fight for laissez-faire and their efforts wouldn’t be affected). And they shouldn’t take part in providing moral or ideological support for such programs, nor help in enforcing immoral laws.
-Rand admits these are often difficult moral questions. “It is a hard problem, and there are many situations so ambiguous and so complex that no one can determine what is the right course of action. That is one of the evils of welfare statism: its fundamental irrationality and immorality forces men into contradictions where no course of action is right.”
-One major drawback to these stimulus programs is it forces almost everyone into these moral quandaries. Essentially, it’s a free-for-all for government money, should you take yours or simply let everyone else benefit at your expense? There’s no purely virtuous move, but the fault of that lies with the stimulus programs themselves.
-She concludes with this caution in accepting government money, “The ultimate danger in all of these issues is psychological: the danger of letting yourself get bribed, the danger of a gradual, imperceptible, subconscious deterioration leading to compromise, evasion, resignation, submission. In today’s circumstances, a man is morally in the clear only so long as he remains intellectual incorruptible. Ultimately, these problems are a test, a hard test, of your own integrity.”

The Distributist #racist #dunning-kruger twitter.com

The most disgusting dishonesty involved in the campaign to tear down statues isn’t the IMPLICIT lie involved in judging the past by present standards, it’s the EXPLICIT lie that the vandals promote about why the monuments were valued in the first place. After the movement retroactively poisons the reputation of a subject, convincing the public that a man’s crimes outweigh his achievements (usually using half truths), it then invariably goes on the retcon the REASON why he was celebrated, “he was celebrated FOR his crimes”

Once the Overton window accepts the proposition to remove CONFEDERATE statues, progressives advance the notion that the objects were INTENDED to celebrate slavery, the contraposition is then use to defend statues of Washington & Jefferson, preventing the push from going too far. Everyone who knows anything about history (or even America outside the cities) knows that this premise is a lie, and therefore the defense of Jefferson & Washington under this standard is fraudulent. Once we roll from Lee to Columbus, the progression is inevitable. This is because this operation, this game, is not about understanding the past, but about a political narrative in the present. It’s about suckering as many middle American rubes into defending and idolizing what has already (secretly) been declared a “hate symbol” by elites.

Once the progressive elites triumph, they can then tell the story that they NEED to tell people to maintain power. Namely, that middle Americans are horrible racists that have only recently been convinced to give up their hatefulness (e.g. appreciation of Lee / Washington) Ultimately, I am not sure how to defeat this game. But I think an increasing number of people see how it works. I can say that I feel less inclined to defend any historical figures not directly tied to my faith or ethnicity. The cost otherwise is too great.

Julie Bush #racist facebook.com

This is my opinion of what should be done to ANYONE destroying or defacing our National monuments or statues. This is not open for argument, so if you disagree, move on. Don't spew a bunch of shit on this post, cause I will delete it. Make your own post.
They should be arrested immediately, even if the National Guard has to come in and assist. Thrown in jail with no bond. Put on a chain gang like they use to do back in the day, and clean and repair each and every thing that was destroyed or defaced. And the officers and guardsmen should receive hazzard pay. The way to get this shit to stop is to come down on the with a heavy hand. Not enough room in jails, build more tent jails like I believe they did in maybe Arizona? Too hot to live in, tough! Many people go without a/c. Going to be too cold come winter, tough! Many go without proper heating, God knows I did for years. Suck it up buttercups!! Not enough food to feed them, give them bologna or peanut butter, I'll donate the first case!! Like I said, this is my opinion, I'm tired of watching these spoiled brats destroy the country I love and am thankful for!!

Irami Osei-Frampong #racist wsbtv.com

ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY, Ga. — A University of Georgia graduate student is getting criticism for comments he wrote on Facebook.
The man at the center of the controversy is Irami Osei-Frampong -- a philosophy graduate student employed by the university as a teacher's assistant.
He speaks frequently about race and equality, but some critics believe he crossed the line when he made a post online that stated, "Some white people may have to die for black communities to be made whole."
Another social media post said: "Fighting white people is a skill."
The teaching assistant told Channel 2's Tony Thomas he's confused by the backlash.
"I'm confused why that is so controversial," Osei-Frampong said.
Osei-Frampong appeared on Cox Media Group radio station WGAU Tuesday morning, insisting he's not calling for violence, but believes it should remain an option.
"It's just a fact of history that racial justice often comes at the cost of white life," Osei-Frampong said. "I didn't advocate for violence. I was just honest of racial progress."
Thomas spoke with some students who had mixed reactions.
"I feel they should do something when it's, like, a racial thing,'' student Xavier Ford said.
"I would generally agree with it. I think black people in this country have been marginalized," student Andrew Davis said.
Thomas asked Osei-Frampong if he's worried about losing his position.
"If they fire me, they'd be firing me for doing my job," Osei-Frampong said.
Some UGA alumni said they're thinking about withholding donations after learning of the comments.
"I feel like the things he is saying is inciting violence. They invite the idea into people's minds," UGA alumnus Andrew Lawrence said.
University leaders said they are consulting with the attorney general on what actions they can take, but Osei-Frampong said he's standing firm and not backing down.
University administrators sent Channel 2 Action News the following statement that reads in part:
The University has been vigorously exploring all available legal options. Racism has no place on our campus.

Donald Trump #racist mediamatters.org

Since June 3, the Trump campaign has been running Facebook ads fearmongering about “antifa.” On June 17, the campaign added an inverted red triangle to some variations of the ad -- a symbol the Nazis used to designate political prisoners.

Using the Dewey Square Adwatch tool set to analyze Facebook Ad data, Media Matters found that the Trump campaign has run at least 2,110 advertisements with generic anti-antifa language since June 3. The ads ran on Facebook pages for President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Team Trump, Black Voices for Trump, Brad Parscale, Latinos for Trump, and Women for Trump.
In recent days, the campaign has experimented with various illustrations in the post -- mostly variations of a generic alert image. All the ads have the disclaimer “Paid for by TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN COMMITTEE."

On June 17, the campaign ran 88 ads on the Facebook pages for Trump, Pence, and Team Trump with an inverted red triangle. The red triangle was used for political prisoners in Nazi concentration camps. The Trump campaign gave this explanation for the ad: This is an emoji. It's also a symbol widely used by Antifa. It was used in an ad about Antifa.

As one reporter noted, the inverted triangle is not a widely-used symbol for antifa.
Historian Jacob S. Eder, an expert on the subject, told The Washington Post that the ad is “a highly problematic use of a symbol that the Nazis used to identify their political enemies. ... It’s hard to imagine it’s done on purpose, because I’m not sure if the vast majority of Americans know or understand the sign, but it’s very, very careless to say the least.”
Facebook has previously let Trump run thousands of ads fearmongering about an immigrant “invasion,” even though the ads violated Facebook’s standards. Facebook also let the Trump campaign publish at least 529 ads with false claims of voter fraud.
The Trump campaign used anti-Semitic imagery in the previous election cycle as well. In 2016, Trump used a meme that featured the Star of David on a background of money to call Hillary Clinton the “most corrupt candidate ever.” Trump would eventually suggest that it was intended to be a sheriff’s star.
The 2016 campaign also did significant outreach to neo-Nazi figures. Campaign surrogates Diamond and Silk did an interview with a Holocaust denier. The Trump campaign gave press credentials to a white nationalist radio program, Donald Trump Jr. appeared on the program, and a Trump adviser gave interviews to that program at the Republican National Committee convention in Cleveland.

Sohrab Ahmari #fundie twitter.com

"Although the myth of the particular or unusual cruelty of the Spanish Inquisition is now well debunked by scholars, it survives in the popular imagination." Everything you think you know about Catholic Spain and its presence in the New World is wrong. Even as they committed far greater atrocities, protestant powers used accounts of Spanish misdeeds *written by enlightened Spaniards themselves* to create the Black Legend.

The propaganda continues to misinform minds half a millennium later.

Miller and Heying #racist twitter.com

Geoffrey Miller: If book-burning didn't have such bad historical associations, you know they'd already be burning all the books they don't like.

They only thing preventing that, for the moment, is the 'bad optics'.

Heather Heying: Five years ago the optics on tearing down statues of the founding fathers were so bad, it couldn’t happen.

What, that seems impossible today, will be within the woke Overton Window in five years?

James Lindsay #racist twitter.com

Too bad.

If you give in to bullies, they always demand more. The point is to humiliate you into compliance so they can keep taking your lunch money.

....

Oppression is sin.
Enlightenment is the Fall.
Whiteness is the mark of Cain.
Privilege is depravity, which is total.
Antiracism is piety, runs on confession.
Grace is by works for liberation.
Oppressed are the saints.
Social (group) "Justice" is God.

....

A Kindle plugin that changes every occurrence of "white" to "witch" in White Fragility, the Malleolus Maleficarum of the contemporary age.

Heather E Heying #transphobia twitter.com

This is how it’s done.

Proclaim something to be true that is patently not. Do not mock those who disagree. Not yet. Instead, ask them, with sadness in your eyes, why you cannot just be generous and kind.

If they resist, shame them.

Most people will roll their eyes and move on. At first.

But after repeated exposure to the thing-that-is-proclaimed-to-be-true-that-patently-is-not, some will begin to question their understanding of reality. Now you make your next move.

Most people have an inadequate knowledge of biology (and other manifestations of reality), and know this. When pushed to the limits of what they are sure of, they may entrench (“er, no, men and women are different…?”) or they may cede small points.

Ceding small points is met with appreciation, & a request: Can’t you go just a little farther? Now that you have declared yourself a believer in X, surely you can also see that Y? This can be more effective than brute force attempts to change thinking.

Disinformation campaigns use many tactics. Words, gently offered, are a pleasant start. “Educate” yourself! They will move to shame, gaslighting, smearing reputations, outright lies, threats of violence, only if you resist. Best not to resist. You’re doing this to yourself!

Proclaim that men can get pregnant and give birth, as if it’s the most obvious thing in the world. Trot out ludicrous examples as if they comprise an argument. Compel some under-smart but over-educated PhDs in biology to back you up, and proceed to argue from authority.

Here is one of many threads that I have written on sex and gender. Do not “trust” it based on the fact that I have a PhD in Biology. Read it with a critical eye. Assess it. Also read @fondofbeetles, @swipewright, so many more.

Proclaim that biologically accurate statements that include respect & compassion for trans people are transphobic, & that the author of such statements deserves any abuse that comes her way. Pretend that this is showing love & support for trans people.

Proclaim that trans people suffer greater abuse and violence than any other demographic. Proclaim this while advocating for natal males to engage in “sport” against women, some of whom take pleasure in hurting women.

Proclaim that the only way to show that “black lives matter” is to sign on with #BlackLivesMatter, which advocates for defunding the police, “disrupting the…nuclear family structure,” etc, which have nothing to do with black lives mattering.

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” reminds us that genuflecting before false gods is a road to hell. You may think that you are signing up for social justice, an end to oppression, a veritable utopia, but no. They will come for you, too.

Cede small points, and they will expect you to cede more. Apologize for things you did not do, and you will be held accountable for those things, and more.

Do not accept the horse at the gates.

Karol Markowicz #racist nypost.com

The "cancel" crew will come for you someday soon

A moral panic is sweeping the nation. How we react to the pitchfork hordes will determine the fate of our country for a generation or longer.
We call what the hordes do to our fellow citizens “cancel culture,” but the term is far too cute to capture the cruel, mindless and life-destroying process taking place all around us in the name of “fighting racism.”
The tendency has been with us for some time, but the current, ­extra-crazed moment has accelerated its malignant energies: Locked in for months due to COVID-19, we re-emerged into a society more enraged and at war with itself than ever before.
Then the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis took the ideological madness to the next level. The great majority of Americans agreed that Floyd’s death was horrific and that the police officers responsible for it must be held to account. But that sane consensus wasn’t enough, as far as the cancel left was concerned: Enemies had to be found and eradicated.
And if there weren’t enough racist enemies, then more of them had to be invented.
Prominent conservatives, as I have pointed out in these pages, can rarely be canceled. A Sen. Tom Cotton might express an opinion deemed utterly verboten, but the left can’t drum him out of public life or destroy him.
But all other Americans — including those with small or nonexistent public profiles — are vulnerable. It’s a chilling development: We can’t cancel a Cotton or a Ben Shapiro, so let’s cancel citizens who might dare to share similar opinions.
That’s what was attempted with Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy. Gundy wore a T-shirt featuring the logo of a TV station called One America News. OAN has a variety of personalities presenting a variety of opinions, generally right of center.
When the swarm came after Gundy, he folded, saying he was sorry for the “pain and discomfort” he had caused.

Bonchie #racist redstate.com

If you thought tearing down statues of George Washington would satiate the thirst of some BLM activists, you haven’t seen anything yet. But who am I kidding? No one thought they’d stop with confederate statues, nor with the founding fathers. Now, they are moving onto Jesus.
Yes, I’m serious. Here’s noted BLM activist (and also noted white guy) Shaun King.

Shaun King: "Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down.

They are a form of white supremacy.

Always have been.

In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went?

EGYPT!

Not Denmark.

Tear them down.

Yes.

All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down.

They are a gross form white supremacy.

Created as tools of oppression.
Racist propaganda.

They should all come down."

I’m gonna go with Denmark not existing during the time of Christ for starters. Or perhaps our Lord and Savior just wasn’t a fan of the cold?
Jokes aside, this is absolutely astonishing, but also not surprising. Nothing is sacred anymore, not even religious depictions of Christ. King doesn’t even blink in calling for the destruction of statues of Jesus. He even manages to throw in the destruction of murals as well. Everything is white supremacy and must go.
Regardless, his claims are farcical anyway. Jesus wasn’t white, nor was he black. He did not go to Egypt to “blend in” because he was black. History tells us Jesus was Jewish, born in Galilee, and almost certainly olive skinned. Those paintings of a well tanned Jesus may not get the hairstyle right, but the skin tone is pretty much on point. I know that may rankle some people, but those of us with heritage in the Middle East win the looks portion of whatever ridiculous contest this is.
It feels silly to even have to discuss this as adults, but with BLM activists now calling for the destruction of “white” Jesus statues, my hand is kind of being forced. None of this is going to stop. First it was confederate statues. Then it was problematic founders. Then it was General Grant. Heck, even Ghandi didn’t escape their wrath.
Going after Jesus was the natural progression and here we are.

The Distributist #racist twitter.com

Let's explore. If you are of indigenous European origin and you say "I am White" then under this explanation you are admitting to membership in a malicious conspiracy to commit hard to other groups. You are therefore painting yourself as a villain with a target on your back. If you say there is someway to stop being "White" why haven't you done it yet? Or have you? I look at wokesters and I don't see saints but petty and self-interested cowards.

What is this new baptism of non-whiteness and how does it have such little evidence in your soul?

Suppose for instance you say "I don't consider myself White". Do you then walk around saying this at woke gatherings? I come from a blue city and I know this doesn't fly. Try this and you will be accused of being EVEN MORE MALICIOUS by denying your privilege. So we end up with a catch-22. You claim Whiteness or deny it and either way you are maliciously attacking non-whites. Sounds pretty shitty right?

Now remember this is the dilemma that progressives are commending for ALL OF OUR CHILDREN. Such moral heroes.

Sean Fitzgerald #wingnut twitter.com

The commies are trying to compare slavery to communism to try to win on something. Unfortunately for them, slavery comes in the communism package. Forced labor camps anyone?

Commies can't even claim to be smarter than confederates, read their writings, they knew slavery was dying, the whole point of the war was them wrongly trying to hang on. A communist always thinks, it'll work next time.

Actual Justice Warrior et al #racist youtube.com

Actual Justice Warrior: I know what you're thinking. We're talking about Michael Brown, yet again. But it's important to go over videos that still perpetuate lies related to Michael Brown because it's a foundational lie, it is actually the lie that led to the foundation of the Black Lives Matter movement. And on top of that, it's a good test of whether the subject that you're talking to, the person that you're talking to, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on, has any honor, any integrity, or any curiosity. People who get the Michael Brown case wrong are missing either one of those three or all of those three, because they don't care about the facts, they don't care about the information, even though it is plainly obvious and out there for anybody to see, as I've shown multiple times in this video.

[in the video that follows, AJW proceeds to argue that the police shooting a black man was justified; these are the comments]

Marcara081: I like it when violent criminals are killed and I'm tired of pretending like that's not normal.

Common Sense Productions: Ask BLM supporters to name one person killed that was not committing crime and/or resisting arrest. Works every time

Demon King: Domagoj Čović someone said breonna Taylor was moving drugs and said the boyfriend shot through the door as soon as police knocked. Breonna Taylor I’m not 100 percent sure. Should’ve said Sandra bland but Sandra bland commuted suicide

Common Sense Productions: I’m not saying there are NO examples but most people don’t know them. Most names people do know we’re acting as criminals before their death; temir rice, breonna Taylor, Floyd, Arbery, rayshard Brooks, Michael brown, Trayvon Martin, etc etc. They were all engaged in criminal acts or resisting arrest. Does not necessarily justify a killing, but it is indeed relevant to consider

Joseph Van Horn: Who a population chooses as it’s heroes says A LOT about who those people are. ALL of the people who get turned into martyrs by BLM are criminals and were guilty of the crime that the police interaction was based on. Meanwhile a brilliant man like Thomas Sowell goes unknown by the vast majority. People like Brandon Tatum and Candice Owens are called awful names and ostracized for trying to promote strength, responsibility, and shedding the victim narrative.

Eric McManus: We must remember, that at the time this happened, Obama was president and Eric Holder was the AG. They wanted Darren Wilson to be guilty. That's why they did 3 autopsy's. They wanted to try to find some reason to say Brown did nothing wrong. And this is because Obama and Holder are race hustlers. But even they couldn't warp the evidence to fit their narrative.

The Distributist et al #dunning-kruger twitter.com

The Distributist: “Force is more effective than voting” - FOR THE LEFT

None of my right wing friends should be under any illusion that they can get away with any amount of force or violence.

Settler's Lament: Force is effective when you have allies on the establishment who will protect or promote you.

Scholar-At-Arms: Force will only work for the Right if things come to an out-and-out civil war.

Davis M.J. Aurini: But if it gets to the point, you've got to ask yourself why the Cathedral sent a general to lead us.

Doc Yellow Pill: Antifa is the adjunct of the Cathedral.

Davis M.J. Aurini: Caveat: explicit, 'chimpout' violence only serves the left. My own people are famous worldwide for our far-right, religiously inspired shadow states.

Southern Daily News: Physical force absolutely not, however don't be afraid to be stern with your beliefs. To stand firm in the face of the anti-white narrative.

Iron (Ken): Voting is just the sanctification of force/initiating force by proxy. The Marxist left can't achieve their goals via legitimized force so they have specialized in alternatives out of necessity. The Right is generally intrinsically opposed to that mode of action.

Nuance Bro #racist twitter.com

Savanah Hernandez: White BLM supporter tells Hispanic Trump that he is oppressed, so the Trump supporters asks for reparations

Nuance Bro: White liberals assume man is less American because of his skin color and get mad that he doesn't see himself as oppressed. When he tells them to pay him some money as a form of reparations they are exposed as hypocrites for not putting their money where their mouth is

Bret Weinstein #wingnut twitter.com

[in response to medics refusing to enter CHOP because the police were barred]

I'm not ok with paramedics letting a man die. BUT this is a a demonstration that the CHAZ has little idea what civilization is made of and therefore can offer no meaningful guidance. Police protect all, including the fire department. Is it fair to bar cops and demand paramedics?