Clockmed vs HanAssholeSolo: A Case Study in Normie Bigotry

In the final seconds of Wednesday’s (7/5/17) show, Rush Limbaugh brought up an important point in regards to the #CNNBlackmail story by reminding listeners of the “Clock Boy” incident.  For those of you who don’t remember Clockmed, let me recap: a 14-year-old inbred muslim half-wit removes the case of a digital alarm clock, puts the guts into a metal pencil case, and takes his “invention” (as he called it) to school.  The results were as you might imagine.  There’s actually debate about whether his father and/or sister built the device, knowing that it looked like a bomb, and set him to school with it as a jihadi psy-op, but that’s immaterial.  In the weeks following the uproar: tech companies offered him grants and scholarships, Universities offered to enroll him upon graduation, he even got the support of the former occupant of the White House.  Not bad for 10 minutes worth of work and a whole lot of victim LARPing.  Needless to say, the #FakeNews media acted as the Mohammed family’s personal PR firm.

HanAssholeSolo, on the other hand, is a Kekistani prodigy.  He posted a meme so dank that the God-Emperor Himself retweeted it.  Since CNN was the butt of the joke, they lost their shit and got their IT extra-virgins to track him down and threatened to dox him, knowing full well that their dwindling audience is comprised mostly of Antifa jerkoffs who would physically attack this minor and his family.

So there you have it, dear reader(s).  The SJW media protects and defends a teenager who brought a hoax bomb to school while targeting a teenager who posted a funny gif on Reddit.  Don’t bother calling CNN hypocrites, to paraphrase Ann Barnhardt in her magnum opus “Diabolical Narcissism: The Overarching Global Pathology“:

  1. Calling someone a hypocrite is attempting to shame them, and these people are completely incapable of shame
  2. Not only are these people already aware of their hypocritical behavior, they get off on it

The only way forward is to completely destroy the SJW media, leave them powerless and as financially bankrupt as they are morally bankrupt.  Cut the cord, target their sponsors for boycotts and massive shitposting campaigns, call out their bullshit every chance you get, and for fuck sake, ignore every cuck who tells you to “be reasonable”.  Cry havoc and let slip the frogs of war!

SHOCKING REVALATION: Proof of Russian Election Tampering

This has just come in to me, a source in the intelligence community who wishes (for obvious reasons) to remain anonymous has dropped a bombshell in my lap.  He has confirmed that Russian cyber-assets interfered with the 2016 US Presidential election on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.  According to him, Russian tampering is the only reason Hillary got a majority of the popular vote.  “The words ‘Hillary’ and ‘popular’ don’t even belong in the same paragraph,” he told me, “without the Russians, President Trump would’ve walked away with it in a landslide.”

This news is so contrary to the media narrative that I had trouble believing it at first.  When asked about this apparent contradiction, he replied “Of course Putin wanted Clinton in the White House.  Why wouldn’t he want his number 1 rival being lead by a chronically unhealthy alcoholic who is known to be open to bribes?  As Secretary of State, she sold them our uranium for Christ’s sake.  It’s just common sense.”

This is truly shocking news.  As of this writing, we are still awaiting word from the numerous investigatory bodies (FBI, House, Senate, etc.) on their change in focus.

Islamophobia is Retarded

The word, I mean. Fear of muslims is perfectly reasonable

 

Merriam-Webster defines a phobia as: “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation”. So can we finally get rid of the word “Islamophobia” please? Look at the world news section of even fake news outfits like Yahoo or CNN and ask yourself “is being afraid of an ‘allahu akbar’ really illogical or inexplicable?” Even a cursory understanding of history and current events will tell you that it’s pretty logical and entirely explicable.
According to thereligionofpeace.com there have been 41 attacks (8 suicide blasts) in 13 countries killing 225 and injuring 199 between April 29, 2017 and May 5, 2017. Ben Shapiro crunched the numbers vis-a-vis “moderate” vs “radical” muslims and the results are legitimately scary.
Further, the idiots who throw around “islamophobia” like to claim it’s dangerous to be muslim in the West because of hate crimes. I could point out that a muslim is most likely to be killed by another muslim, but that’s the week argument. The strong argument is that there are no hate crimes against muslims in the West. Know how I know? Because every single supposed hate crime gets nonstop media coverage up to the point that it’s revealed that it was a hoax perpetrated by muslims. If you’re unaware of this: seriously, read something other that Buzzfeed listicles. I’m not saying that this will be the case in perpetuity because the harder and longer you push people, the greater the inevitable pushback (see: the Crusades).
I understand that the common usage of “blankophobia” these days is just shorthand for “people who don’t like what progressives like” (don’t think kindergarteners should be taught about anal fisting? You’re a homophobe! You think mentally ill people with severe body dysmorphia should be given compassionate mental health treatment instead of cancer-causing hormone therapy and dangerous surgery? You’re a transphobe!) but seriously, islamophobia has to be the stupidest. My suggestion for forcing the retirement of this singularity of progressive retardation is to point and laugh every time someone uses it. Every. Single. Time. Eventually the message will penetrate even the densest of progressive skulls.

TL;DR summation: it wasn’t that long, read the damn thing.

Yes Virginia, Corporate Censorship is a Thing

A Response to the “Well technically…” People

Whenever a conservative such as Steven Crowder speaks or writes about social media companies censoring their content, there’s an inevitable torrent of comments from the “well technically” people that usually goes (quoting almost verbatim) “private companies can’t censor people stoopid!1!! The first amendment only applies to the government #LOL”. Not only are these people wrong, they are spectacularly wrong on legal, philosophical, and technical grounds (even ignoring the “problematic” collusion between social media companies and governments & beltway insiders to remove/block content).

Argument I: Techno shit, Sherlock

If these people actually read the Constitution, they’d know that the First Amendment applies to Congress. It states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It could be argued that the Founders, naively believing that subsequent generations would actually obey the Constitution, intended for it to apply to the whole of the federal government since Congress not being able to make laws meant that there’d be no laws for the Executive to enforce or the Judiciary to interpret. That still leaves the First Amendment applying only to the federal government. At the time of the founding (and for almost 200 years thereafter) state, county, and municipal governments had all sorts of laws against obscenity, pornography, public indecency, etc. And there are still many restrictions in existence, such as requiring permits to hold demonstrations on public lands and being held in contempt for using profanity in a courtroom.
And if you wanted to get really pedantic about Constitutional technicalities, President Trump could order a crackdown on all of the leftist protests, as they are neither assembling peaceably nor petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Autistic monkey-screams and smashing shit is not Constitutionally protected speech. Not relevant to the discussion, it’s just a fun aside.

Argument II: I’m no lawyer, but…

Social media companies (especially Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) present themselves to the public as platforms of free expression. Conservative commentators large & small didn’t pull that idea out of their ass, they just took the companies at their word. These outfits present themselves as platforms of free speech, hide words like “hate speech” in the terms of use (words that are either undefined or vaguely defined), and then use “terms of use violations” to get rid of content with which they disagree.
Case law, both civil and criminal, is full of examples of companies presenting themselves to the public one way while doing something entirely different. Citations can be found in legal encyclopedias under the heading “Fraud”. All restaurants are legally entitled to serve meat, there’s no law against that. But if they serve meat while billing themselves as a vegan restaurant, they should not be surprised by lawsuits, savage Yelp reviews, and crowds of gaunt, pasty hippies protesting outside their doors. If YouTube wants to be a progressive video-hosting platform, that’s perfectly fine but let them state it openly rather than claiming the mantle of free expression for all.

Argument III: Get the Spirit

While, as previously stated, the First Amendment applies only to the federal government, there is such a thing as the spirit of free speech which we should all respect. It’s one thing to have codes of conduct to promote decorum and harmony in the workplace, but someone losing their job for an opinion on the cause-du-jour that is incorrect by the left’s ever-shifting standards is entirely different. Gab.ai banning real threats of violence and illegal activity is one thing, Twitter shadow-banning Scott Adams because he was predicting Trump’s victory and effectively explaining why is another (also, a terrible PR decision as Scott Adams has a pretty big platform to call them out). Even the left should be alarmed by this for no other reason than the practical concern that an ever-shifting standard means that no one is entirely safe. One day you could be a progressive in good standing, the next your picture is on the front page of BuzzFeed as the newest Emmanuel Goldstein.
Further, a free marketplace of ideas is to everyone’s benefit. An open society results in dynamism, growth, and prosperity while a closed society that bans “incorrect” thoughts and speech results in stagnation (see Margaret Thatcher’s 1977 interview on Firing Line in which she predicts the fall of the Soviet Union for this very reason). More voices: we all win, when someone is silenced (by a government or a private company): we all lose. When someone is banned from Twitter for saying that a mannish female celebrity looks like a man, we all lose even if she’s your “totes fave”. When a YouTuber has his videos removed or demonetized because it’s a gun channel and the Silicon Valley beta-boys at Google think guns are icky, we all lose even if guns aren’t your thing. And just like the free market weeds out bad products in favor of the good, the marketplace of ideas weeds out bad ideas in favor of the good (which is probably why the left hates it so much). The more opportunities that a Nazi (a real Nazi, not a “literally Hitler”) has to express their ideas, the more people will see them and think “these people are fucking insane.” Silencing them results in creating curiosity about and even sympathy towards them.
Finally, a practical argument in favor of the free, open marketplace of ideas is that it prevents radicalization. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable,” as someone the left claims to like once said. Preventing someone from speaking his mind and/or telling them that their thoughts and opinions are so deplorable that they can’t be uttered creates resentment. The larger the universe of unapproved speech, the larger the population of the resentful. If the population of the disenfranchised and resentful reaches a critical mass, a worst case scenario is a psychopathic huckster like Lenin or Hitler harnesses them to gain power (best case scenario is that they just piss away their lives in misery and dejection and the soul of the society dies). “Free speech acts as a pressure valve” is an old chestnut, but it’s an old chestnut for a reason.
TL:DR summation: more voices good for all, fewer voices bad for all but an elite few, social media companies are censoring frauds and those who defend them are jerkoffs who need to shut their ignorant cockholsters.