Thursday, October 26, 2017

Social Justice Cretins

I've been through this before. Over two decades. Most who will read the following will be wont to tell himself that there is nothing he can do to fight against the hegemony of the predominant media. Yet Donald Trump succeeded at it.

Don't you get it yet? He was smart enough to read you, and bold enough to heed what you have been writing on the web for the last 25 years, and he made it his message.

Do you think it's only a Trump who could dent the SSM's influence? Dammit men -- it's been you all along! Don't stop now!

I'm compelled to write this because I've had my fill of reading sentences with the acronym SJW (social justice warrior) in them. I don't care if the term drips irony given the alleged pacifist predilections of the creeps to which it refers. The Left Sinister has no sense of humor, is immune to sarcasm, cannot be shamed, won't even call out each other for murder, so why would they do it for inconsistency and hypocrisy? The very same thing for which they've been trying to bring Trump down on treason charges  -- collusion and money laundering with the Russians to influence the last election -- they've been caught doing themselves. And now they don't want to talk about it. They could not have sunk any lower. (Well, let me not underestimate them yet).

So are we entertaining ourselves with mild ironies, and at that ones that only we acknowledge? Self-pleasuring is still not highly regarded no matter what the Cultural Marxists have been scheming to convince your children of.

Thus I am finding it hard to take seriously most opponents of the "Social Justice" Cretins (SJC) when they still use the SJW designation rather than SJ anything else.

Look I get it. In part it's lazy, in part it's despair. But the consequences of its continued use will be worse than it becoming clichéd.

If I fail to make a strong enough case, you all will continue to feel compelled to use SJW because everyone knows to what sort of creeps SJW refers. But amongst themselves they look at it as a badge of honor — the same always inconsistent idiots who claim waging war is a bad thing even as they now rejoice when one of theirs, wearing a mask, slugs one they believe is one us with a bike lock. And that was only the start, because their behavior and self-aggrandizement have gotten bolder and worse.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating many of my points, but they are significant.

Initially I could see any who opposed them using the term warrior for them in a sarcastic manner. But if there is anything that the SJCretins are consistent about it’s their lacking any sense of humor. Sarcasm and other civilized means of contradictory rhetorical style is wasted on them. Only outright insults in return for the insults they hurl makes any sense nowadays — in fact that’s what conservatives detest about the GOPe types with their insistence we not call the opposition all the sinister terms they deserve. And now their behavior has been revealed to be far in excess of worthy of insult. Treason is a legitimate charge. And I'm only asking that you engage in fitting insults for the less than treasonable useful idiots of the treasonous.

Calling a spade a spade is not only what Trump supporters like the most about Trump, it is also what those who have been luke warm about him give him credit for.

Look the SJWC is a relatively new group. Don’t let them over time ruin the good and noble word warrior with it being connected to them. Don’t let them wear the badge dishonorably as the Progs and Libs with their preferred labels have simply because the SSM has long permitted them those labels.

Both the Progs and libs have an agenda that is diametrically opposed to the longer words associated with them. Progs are the opposite of progressive with their post modernist, critical theory, PC tyrannies they’ve been cooking us with, and the Libs encourage government freedom (tyranny) that constrains individuals (anti-liberty).

Please join me in creating a common parlance that contains a nasty designation for these rotten pukes. Social Justice Cretins doesn’t have to be it. Something, anything else. I’m warning you, over time they will erase the meaning of warrior just at the old meaning of gay can never be reclaimed. Simply don’t allow them SJW any longer. Please!

Sunday, October 22, 2017

McCain Fouling Punchbowl Is News?

Why this seemingly shocked report (including the video) about John McCain?

Reporter to McCain: "Has your relationship with the president frayed to the point that you are not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks for?”

McCain to reporter: "Why would you ask anything so stupid?"
While McCain's answering a question with a questions could be labeled a non-denial denial, it was actually a reasonable question to ask the reporter. To ask McCain such a question and expect an honest answer would mean the reporter expected better behavior from McCain. Such an expectation is indeed stupid.

In February 2008, immediately after McCain locked up the GOP primary votes that earned him the nomination for president, I warned Beware The Wrath of 'Cain.
For when McCain self destructs, I am virtually certain he is not going to blame himself. He is going to blame conservatives. Thus picturing the following assuredly is not too hard.

From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.
Yes, I know: That scene from Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan, is about as melodramatic as anything ever produced by Gene Roddenberry. [But it fits the sort of resentment he holds for those who would not honor him.]

The man's bitter resentment for constitutional Americans was well established long before that. He treats the Leftists Sinister as if they are his brothers and conservatives as if they are vermin.

So even in 2008 it wasn't news to anyone who pays attention to how just about any Prog Republican treats any conservative. But especially John McCain.

Meanwhile the SSM treats him most of the time (when he's not running for President) as if he's a fair and decent man. They always favor those who advance the Prog agenda.

What rubs me the wrong way is how often he is treated with kid gloves by those who claim to be conservatives. Like perhaps your favorite talk show host. Or even a blog favorite such as Bill Whittle. Do a search on Bill Whittle and John McCain. I could not find a single instance where a negative word was said or written about McCain -- except in the comments to various Whittle videos, and not by Whittle himself.

I swear folks. It's just like I said in the title of my last blog post You Lie to Yourself At Your Own Peril. When big name "conservatives" don't say the obvious, most little guys are afraid to ask tough questions lest they hear from the big name "conservatives" a John McCain type condescension "Why would you ask anything so stupid?" As my friend Fran Porretto suggested, when you can't say "They Say" it, you are afraid to say it yourself.

You permit yourself to be intimidated into silence -- be it by bigger names or by group-think -- at your own peril.

So the next time you are again told that John McCain dropped a turd in the punchbowl, a reasonable angry response would be: 
And if the Republican Party had any real meaning they should have stopped him after the last time or the time before that or the time before that.

Friday, October 20, 2017

You Lie to Yourself At Your Own Peril

Telling anyone that they lie to themselves at their own peril ought to be obvious to anyone with two brain cells with which to comprehend what will happen when one steps in front of a speeding bus.

So then, why do we do lie to ourselves so often?  I think from observation that herd mentality is far worse than most any of us want to believe.

Despite my constant non suppression of asserting that death cultists must exert great influence in powerful circles, even I have still succumb to the urge to suppress lesser observations that I expect to generate reactions I rather not face. And in the long run, I also suspect that the likely outcome to the lesser observations being left unnoted is that their threats will grow larger and, thus, the downsides then would likely be worse by far.

So I know I've been guilty.

How about you?

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Orwell Was Right -- Again

Many people have attested they have read Orwell's 1984. But how good is the average memory of it or anything else? And even should the memory be good, how many are willing to connect what they remember to what they witness in real time?

I ask about being willing to make connections because there are a number of risks involved in doing so. Chief among these is the fear of being dismissed for jumping to conclusions. As a result, there is a requirement to piece all the evidence together before announcing the conclusion so as to be prepared to answer all outright adversaries, cynics, skeptics or casual scoffers rapidly and as thoroughly as possible.

However -- and this is the game changer -- it now matters not how well prepared we are for debate. Those who resent our abilities to answer them with facts, reason and rationality want us just to shut up, and they will charge us with all the things our well-backed-up arguments -- if permitted a fair hearing -- would belie.

See the world for what it has become and adapt!

We now live in an age where those who control the major outlets of communication, what most people refer to as MSM, but we here at Pascal Fervor refer to as the Soviet-Style Media, SSM, have hired people to spout utter nonsense without a shred of evidence, and are quite willing to slander any whom they wish with baseless charges.

Charges of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot more -- are brandished to the point of meaninglessness. But that does not mean tossing such charges are not still deemed as useful by those who pay for the service. They approve by renewing the contracts of all those who spew such unsupported "stupidity."

I put stupidity in quotes because such evil assertions are more easily deflected by calling them stupid than to take umbrage -- which would require a stronger response. So it's often called stupid by someone not willing to risk the implications on them of drawing the connection of evil intent to those who seek to gain by tarnishing the reputation of their opponents. And besides, such emissions are still food for mindless idiots to repeat to others of their ilk. Idiots will repeat any stupidity that suits them.

So this is written to remind my readers of one of the more unclear notions that Orwell wrote about. It's an attempt to make it easier to pass the understanding along to others how novelist George Orwell (journalist Eric Blair) predicted the sort of repeated gibberish of which we see all the time on SSM, most frequently on CNN and MSNBC, but on every TV news outlet, including Fox, and ever increasingly in the products of the entertainment arm of the SSM.  

Darin at Crusader Rabbit in FFS! #39,528  reacted in the usual way to what appears to be simply the title of the Daniel Greenfield report Dr Seuss is Racist, Thomas the Tank Engine is Sexist
  “Are there even words for this level of stupid?”

Of course he's right on one level, as I laid out above. And the direct answer to Darin's question was provided by Ed Bonderenka with the brilliant double entendre: "utter nonsense."

There's much more to comprehend, and that's why I am looking at it more thoroughly here.

Contend that Orwell predicted what may be called orchestrated stupidity. He gave it the name Duckspeak. He wrote several paragraphs in 1984 explaining the goal of the practice, but did not provide explicit examples.

The best summation of all that Orwell wrote on the topic may be this:
“make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all.”
I’m guessing he didn’t give us an example because he could see the value in its use but had not yet seen it put to use.

We, unfortunately, have been forced to live with it and have not yet figured out a successful counter-ploy since we individualists and targets of the oppressors don’t command the intrusive and omnipresent stage as the SSM does.

Such a widely staged practice, its contents prevented from being fairly contested on that stage and thus easily employed for inculcating weak and weakened minds, provides material for the jabbering parrots you may hear every hour of every day. Emitting words without involving the higher brain centers at all.

Wait. There's yet more. How did it evolve?

Duckspeak may have begun in this country with the relatively minor behavior of Eleanor Clift on the long running PBS show The McLaughlin Group. It bore the initial appearances of a slightly less formal debate: a panel discussion between various political commentators who worked for establishment outlets. But it was always rigged to Clift's advantage in that she was always granted a hecklers veto. Whenever an argument seemed to expose the failings of some Leftist Sinister policies, those in charge of her microphone permitted her high pitched whine to overwhelm whichever opponent was speaking. It didn't happen all the time, but it proved to be an acceptable and winning format. It went on for over 20 years and until the death of the host.  Suggestive that the resultant disorder that harmed fair discussions could well have been one objective goal of its host is that although the other panelists changed around over the years, only McLaughlin, the host, and Clift were regulars. Clift's behavior was essential in advancing the ability of nonsense to gain any ground on that program and in setting the pattern of what could follow on to undermine ordered discussions in our society.

Following that, CNN advanced the assault on reasoned debate with a show titled Cross-Fire. In that one, the shouting was more pronounced as the title of the show explicitly suggests. In other words, the appearance of decorum was far less often preserved. And given all that CNN has come to represent in its support of all that has become ever more openly sinister to what America once stood for, their advancement of Duckspeak appears to have taken the practice about as far as it can go.

The facts of the situations we have witnessed in only the last few years indicate that the effectiveness of Duckspeak has dwindled quite a bit. The most flagrant practitioners may be needing to look for new jobs assuming they survive the extremists who have begun to eat their own. 

The failure of nonsense to win over new parrots to utter the nonsense is why authorities in universoties and skools who are committed to the failing Prog agenda have increasingly resorted to shut-down real debates where students might actually hear clear, reasonable, rational arguments that expose the huge numbers of failures being forced down our throats. And expose Duckspeak for the utter nonsense it is.

That also explains why authorities all around the country, even more deeply committed to the failed Prog agenda, have allowed violent thugs to appear masked and with bludgeons and mostly tied the hands of law enforcement to prevent their unlawful acts.  It explains why the crony-corporate funded SSM invoke invalid apologetics for Antifa's antics and grants those thugs the uncritical use of the label Antifa without once acknowledging incident after incident where Antifa's actions match exactly those of past fascists and other violent organizations such as the Democrat Party's violent auxiliaries in the KKK.

This may be another reason why Orwell didn't explicitly provide examples of Duckspeak. It would have been too stupid to write about convincingly. This is because, once again, truth is stranger than fiction. Who could believe a fiction wherein someone would say that Doctor Seuss is racist and others would repeat it?  Only in the real world!

Face it. Even if it's in decline, as far as Orwell once again proving to be a predictor of the tactics to expect from those seeking absolute power and his understanding of how it would diminish of the ability of the intended subjects to resist, he was right.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Weinstein Episode Missing -- Law & Order, SVU

Somehow I suspect that series producer Dick Wolf won't be using this big story for his cannon fodder in any timely fashion -- if at all.

Ace has it:New York City DA Scrambles to Blame NYPD for Not Prosecuting Harvey Weinstein; NYPD Says They're Lying

I'll not highlight any of the details you'll find at the link. Ace deserves the traffic.

The reason I bring this up here is because of the wide scope of the scandal.

Government and entertainment big-wigs / celebs are deeply implicated. And all the rest of what we call the Soviet-Style Media (SSM) will do its usual gymnastics to protect its most graced apparatchiks and try to limit the damage.

The SSM perform the informational equivalent of the Jesuits at the Sorbonne whom Blaise Pascal exposed. If the internet commentators do their job, more of these a$$hats in media will go down with many in the NY DA hierarchy and in Hollywood.

It's our duty in trying to claw back decency in our society!

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Liberal Profs Awaken Too Late for Their Lives

What I want to highlight today is that liberal "intellectuals," having been slammed hard in the chops, can end their piece wondering "Is the modern Antifa fight against fascism actually fighting for fascism without realizing it?" [emphasis in the original]

Let's get on to the lunacy.

Photo provided by the following link

In Mussolini’s Description of Fascism Sounds a Lot Like Antifa  you will read that the intellectuals have discovered among Mussolini's drivel a passage that mimics what they witnessed on their former campus (they've been expelled for not being Left Sinister enough.)

"the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.” -- B. Mussolini [emphasis mine.]

Essentially these liberal professors may have finally awakened, realizing the Left Sinister is not liberal but as bad as the fascists the Antifa claim to oppose. Can you imagine that?  Antifa is not only not what they claim to be, but they are what they claim to be against. 

Are these profs yet so naïve that they still can ask 'how is that possible?'   Seems so.

Why next they may awaken to the fact that the overarching group from which the violent Antifa sprang, the Progressives, are really regressive authoritarians, the original masters of disguising themselves and hiding their agenda of gaining power by any means necessary.

But, like their quote of Martin Niemöller, it will be too late for these profs. They will be destroyed by the Progs because they know too much. Or they may be destroyed by the patriots, fighting to reclaim their republic, for remaining useful idiots to the end. (You will notice if you read the whole above link, that they are quoted still rationalizing the role their "good intentions" played in their own undoing.)

This find by a friend, and sent to me, is priceless. I'd never have read this site on my own.

I wish I could say I enjoy the schadenfreude, but I fear too many patriots will have a share of their karma. All who have known better, but wrote off evil too often as mere stupidity, means all earned share.

Now let me answer the link's final wondering question "Is the Antifa fight against fascism actually fighting for fascism without realizing it?" 

Yes. Definitely yes, you dolts.
For sure, there are undoubtedly useful idiots within Antifa who don't know it. They provide cover for the violence the thugs have inflicted and will continue to inflict -- just as you libs with all your alleged good intentions provided reasons and cover for the Left Sinister to incrementally steal power for the last one hundred plus years.  

But the bastards who provide them funds, train their leaders, and see that hardly any are arrested let alone restrained, know full well these are fascists.

And you "intellectuals," because you are only just wondering if they are fascists, are indeed dolts. For even if you are wise as serpents, and are still playing a role trying to convince us you've been fooled, you are still dolts. Because, in the grand scheme of things, you will pay a price, one whose painful extent you are too stupid to see.

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

Put Down the Resentful; Stay Happy

The consequences of resentments are rarely explored. Shakespeare did it once; Othello was a tragedy.

I've been a flawed man all my life; and now I can add old and worn-out to my excuses for imperfection. Be there anyone who ought to thank God for the happiness He has graced me with, it is I. Consequently I fret that I fail to show adequate thanks and faith when I don't speak out, as at least one of my acquaintances demurs, because of those dear held hostage by the more powerful. Anyone who justifies their silence about wrongs they see as being "for the children" is drowning his conscience for short-term gains -- even where not delusional -- at the cost of tossing away liberty and justice to secure the long-term.

If what follows is less than a thorough examination of the resentful and those driven by resentment, it is far better that I try to convince you poorly that this is a matter of grave importance than for me to throw up my hands in frustration and stay silent.

Resentful people at all levels of society, but particularly at its highest levels, have gotten away with murder for far too long. What they murder is peace. Peacefulness allows for the pursuit of happiness by the widest number of people. Happiness, as I'm inferring, is the thing that the unhappy resent the most.

Most all translations of the Ten Commandments have errors in them. Most common among them is the way the 6th is often presented. The correct translation is don't murder, not don't kill.  After seeing so much damage brought on by covetousness, I'm almost certain the 10th commandment's listing of only material items not to covet is in error. On the other hand most translations end with "thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbors." Thus intangible things your neighbor may own, such as momentary happiness, appear to be included. (I only wish it was among the tangible things that were listed so that it was clearer.)

It seems to me that perhaps the single most important thing never to covet is happiness. Perhaps the biggest reason for this is that there are as many causes for happiness as there are individuals. Unless one is completely deranged, one who aims to destroy of the happiness of another gains nothing. And the problem I'm highlighting is that there seems to be a lot of derangement being nurtured by the even more despicable.

And this brings me to why I am writing this screed. Social Justice is a lie designed to reverse what are justly held possessions and steal portions under cover of smarmy words, claiming the intent to give them to those who have less. These perpetrators claim to be contemporary Robin Hoods, but they are doing to today's legal owners what scoundrel medieval English nobility had done so that Robin Hood had to steal it back to give it to the rightful owners.

Today, as things become ever more unpleasant by interjecting politics into every aspect of life, the rogues and their ever increasing numbers of henchmen plus the usual large number of useful idiots begin to have an ever worse impact on everyone's happiness. They have made it their goal to not let anyone enjoy anything as long as someone somewhere may not be content. Lots of people see it as madness. That's become the common and cavalier way of refusing to acknowledge the evil content of most any threat. Rather than fight evil, they willingly judge the perpetrator(s) as simply mad much as our courts do when deciding not to indict for trial someone deemed insane. It's hard to discern when it is cowardice or laziness that accounts for this. It is certainly not a responsible response. 

Echoing what Jordan Peterson said in the video central to my post of last week, those who claim to be seeking social justice for all the best of reasons are effectively lying thieves. It only makes matters worse when they have permitted themselves to believe the lie. So many useful idiots, so few gallows.

For an awful example of a believer in "social justice": those who expressed satisfaction that the targets of the Las Vegas mass killer two days ago were country-music concert goers -- and thus likely "Repugnics" -- are the type who only wish for unhappiness on others to equal their own. Equality seeking at its most low.

Add to that that so few on the Left Sinister raised a voice in protest to such gross and truly repugnant public statements, and it drives home my point. The most virulent of the Social Justice Cretins (SJCs -- I refuse to call them warriors) are evil, exhibiting the most extreme meaning of the word sinister with which all the Left are rightfully tinged.

The most reprehensible, of course, are the one who get the ball rolling with the propaganda networks. They stoke dissatisfaction, always for their own sinister purposes. A formerly happy person can be made unhappy when they have reason to fear destruction of their happiness. And that makes the Sinister happy.

Iago did that to Othello. Out of resentment for being passed over he sought revenge by fabrications intended to make Othello jealous that his wife was having an affair with the lieutenant whose promotion initiated Iago's scheming for revenge.

The well-healed in our society are quite well aware of the kind of resentment and the bad consequences portrayed in that particular play. Iago even turns to the audience to explicitly guide the less than bright on how to implement such a scheme. Thus they know how to do it, and full well see the kind of tragedy that can befall a society that is constantly encouraged to covetousness and the envy and jealousies that follow. In my opinion the risk is too great that they must intend for it to be.

I have struggled to write this well enough that more will be convinced that the danger is too high that I am right. I hope it helps the rising generation punish as never before those who either seek to gain temporary happiness at the expense of others, or when unsuccessful, attempt to ruin the happiness of everyone else out of spiteful jealousy.  But the most important thing for this generation -- or any other for that matter -- is to always be skeptical enough to be wary of people who peddle dissatisfaction. Thus gladly enjoy your happiness to spite their worst attempts to ruin it.

Oh they may promise you Utopia if you but heed their siren calls. But remember this about Sir Thomas More when he wrote his novel. He knew it was a lie, and hence the translation of Utopia is "no place." My favorite proof that Utopia is allegedly the place where everyone is happy. But if that were so, where would the misanthropes and practical jokers be? Their little secret is that the practical jokers convince large numbers to go there, and only after there do they discover that the misanthropes are running the place.

On the bright side, there seems to be a meme on resentment making the rounds. Since I published Vengeance of the Power Elites Pleases Satan, I stumbled across emissions at two other blogs, Declination and  Liberty's Torch, who wrote about the resentful and resentments of the kind needing to be battled much more severely. I spotted a third too, but lost it.

The first of these was inspired by a comment Dystopic received, so that makes 3 people in a short time span. What caused me to notice the first blog piece was that the commenter could have been quoting what Jordan Peterson said in the video published only a couple of weeks ago (Sept 12, 2017), but didn't credit him. All innocent enough because it could simply be that Professor Peterson himself had not started the ball rolling. He simply rang a bell that resonated well with a lot of thoughtful people, and many more heard it because of his renown had risen in great part due to him having been a publicized target of the SJWCs.

So I consider it good that the dangerous emotion known as resentment is getting more attention today. But the attention given it so far doesn't appear to do to much more than provide one more reason to distrust those in power and those seeking it. And that's an old distrust, at least to the political Right of this contemporary world.

What I'm advocating -- and this is different from the others who've dealt with the resentment meme -- is an offensive move in behalf of righteousness for the sake for happiness itself, and not solely to protecting material gains and property (true justice in law) as the SJC would have the world believe.

Those who are unhappy for any reason should not be permitted to destroy, without comeuppance, whatever happiness us poor souls can enjoy. It's long past time for such an offensive to be mounted against them and the rulers and would-be rulers who gain by their demands. The value you place on life hangs in the balance.
View My Stats