Leftist Lies and Anti-White Racism

From the Party of Love:



This should be fought with a brief history of Democrat slavery, Democrat Jim Crow/KKK, Democrat fight against Civil Rights, Democrat controlled racial ghettos, Democrat favoring Muslims over other minority/Victimhood groups, etc.

Misuse of Karl Popper.

Apparently the Left is using a trope which is called “Popper’s Paradox”. Since I am always interested in anything either Popperian or paradoxical, I took a look. And here’s the story, somewhat condensed:

It goes like this:

1. We must be tolerant.
2. We must not be tolerant of intolerance.
3. Therefore, we must be intolerant of intolerance.

This concept has directly enabled the fantasy that everything that the Left doesn’t like is “intolerance” of the right-thinking Left. Another way to say it is that everything the Left says or does must be tolerated, because “we must be tolerant”; therefore dissent is intolerance, which cannot be tolerated.

This is logically absurd, of course, since it is internally inconsistent, and self-denying, and thus it cannot be true. By inspection we can see that #1 and #2 above are incompatible and oppositional statements. Because the two statements are non-coherent, one of those premises must be false.

Popper wouldn’t ever make this mistake, and he didn’t.

Popper:

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

To summarize what Popper actually said:

1. We must be tolerant, but not without limit.
2. Therefore we must be tolerant of intolerance, IFF intolerance is physically passive, intellectual (amenable to contrary argumentation).
3. But we must not tolerate such intolerance as is totalitarian, i.e., actively aggressive physically, anti-intellectual, suppressive of contrary argumentation, dominating.
4. Because tolerance, like freedom, is not a suicide pact.

Popper actually fully defines the characteristics of the "intolerant":

...they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

The Left requires some sort of aura of legitimacy for their position even if doesn’t actually exist. So the Left chooses to increase its irrationality by attributing to Popper that which he didn’t say, by perversely truncating the quote and then reversing the attribution of intolerance, by redefinition (they are tolerant, but only of skin tone, not of contrary argument or even contrary thought). And that is within the Left’s necessary ability to live with logical and factual falseness in every aspect of their positions.

The Left is argument-impaired, being subsumed under Post Modern concepts of "no truth". If they argue at all, it is with false principles which they think they can attribute to their enemies for the purpose of condemnation of their enemies. This is the essence of Alinskyism: hold your enemies to their own principles (even if you have to make those principles up yourself).

Using a single sentence, undeservedly attributing the positive classification to themselves, ignoring the actual observed characteristics of their own behaviors and beliefs; all these rational failures are cynically used to twist Popper's statement diametrically for their own use. Their use for the past year and a half has been consistent justification of violence upon unarmed citizens. But now they have flipped to anti-violence in preparation for the next election.

The Post Modern Left accepts that "all cultures are equal". But not cultures which have contrary values. So they also accept that there "is no Truth", which nullifies their dogma when it is convenient. The Left has no arguments to offer because they believe BOTH that both sides are equally valid, AND that only their side is valid (for no reason at all). This leads the Left to dictate "Truths" which they also admit do not exist.

Irony Impaired

"The Country is Lost" and "We are Lost" seem to be among the most popular refrains for the past couple of days.

This is from supporters of open borders allowing in all sorts of minorities to enter with the full intention of eradicating the old western white class, which supports much of the existing minority classes. How that is not losing a country to the globalist-through-chaos attack on country boundaries and existence seems to blow right past these chanter/sign holders.

Doubling debt in just one presidency; weakening the military by reduction, political correctness, and climate priority; racial hostility from the top echelons of government; attacking business constantly via regulation; attacking Christians while ignoring Islamic atrocities at home and abroad; this represents the loss of a country.

Promoting cultural decay by normalizing all perversions; attacking free speech; violating the law by both the president and rebellious city governments; this represents the loss of a country.

What has been lost by the Left is not a country, it is the New World Order; it is a false Right: that of lawlessness whenever it is convenient. The Left has lost control of the national narrative, which they inverted into incivility. The Left has lost the power of Political Correctness to instill fear of censure, and installing voluntary censorship.

The Left HAS lost the country of incivil chaos which they loved. Civility will prevail soon in many quarters, if only for a while. The Left must become civilized, if possible. If not, then marignalized.

Fake News and Lies

If it weren't for lies, Obama couldn't talk at all.

Obama Boasts No Terror Attacks on Our Soil, Then Lists Terror Attacks on Our Soil [VIDEO]

NYT Goes Full Fake News With Israel Hatred Boiling to the Surface

The NYT Is Having a Meltdown Over Trump’s Israel Nominee

"For a moment this week it felt as if the sneering, embittered media hysteria surrounding Donald Trump was starting ever so slightly to subside. But not so fast. The New York Times, the paper of record of urban liberal contempt for Deplorable America, discovered a fresh new outrage: Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Israel.

David Friedman is a prominent and successful attorney in New York who has spent 20 years representing Donald Trump, among other clients. He is also a proud Jew who holds unapologetic pro-Israel views that are heretical in Times-world, and he has also expressed acid disdain for the kind of Jewish anti-Israel activism regularly glorified in the pages of the Times.

So he must be destroyed—and to destroy him he must be lied about. Which is what the Times did."

The Left can't and won't stop, regardless of their promises of whatever kind. They are fully infected with the Narrative of Moral Supremacy, and it defines them, permeates them completely.

The battle against Evil is joined by both sides. The difference between sides is two-fold: how Evil is defined; and what actions are Moral in pursuing the conflict.

More WaPo Bullshit

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

The "fake" news is this:

The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.

“They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,” said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. “This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media.”

It's both true and it's bullshit: government and Leftist intransigence needs to be known. The release of the emails could well have been hacked by the Russians. But no one - NO ONE - denied either their validity or that they revealed the evil actions of the Left. A number of people lost their jobs due to the FACTs released to the public via the emails. And yes, the knowledge of the lack of honesty and any semblance of morality in the Left did, in fact, play to Trump's benefit. Possibly. Probably.

But it was not FAKE NEWS. It was merely outside the control of the elites, the MSM including and especially WaPo and the Leftist owners of facebook, Twitter, etc. who wish to control the thoughts of the world. So calling it "fake" is the ploy being used to suppress facts that reflect badly on the Left. The entire premise presumes the desirability of the continued news control by the Leftist elites.

The biggest danger is that the current freedom of the internet is vulnerable to Leftist control, especially now that it is no longer controlled by the USA. Still, there could be a separate, parallel 'net created, "internet II", I suppose, to work just in free* nations. Carriers would have to be forced to provide it, probably. It could happen, in theory.

*Are there any? There will be, if the current nationalist revolt continues.

Obama Is Now Said To Support The Trump Presidency.

But here's what Obama said yesterday:



A string of lies and defamations shouted to a cheering crowd.[*]

Half the nation. Roughly. Half the nation is without morals, without qualms regarding Leftist lies and crimes, without principles other than Leftist narrative of day. Half the nation responded to the hate messaging of the Left, as if it were Truth, Truth to be cheered for. Half the nation has no respect for the US Constitution. Half. The. Nation.

Does it matter when Hillary rouses a crowd by calling half the nation "deplorables: mysoginist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic; irredeemables"? Does it matter when Obama derogates us as he does? What matters is that half the nation cheers when they say these things. The self-righteousness and arrogant moral superiority flows tsunami-like through these Leftists.

No. We cannot work with such people. It doesn't matter if Obama was insincere then, or is insincere now. What matters is that the moral core of the Left half of the nation is rotted out. Completely disintegrated. Replaced by the New Morality of the arrogant, elitist, utopian Left.

One scenario sticks with me. A hysterical Hillary supporter claimed to be all about love, while spewing hate the whole time. For her, "love" is an identity which is signalling moral supremacy, not anything even near actual "love". No one can or should compromise with the "morally superior" who are focused totally on their "superiority". The "superior" will always feel the need to dominate the Other. Always.

*Obama charged Trump of being KKK; unAmerican; disrespecting the US Constitution; a Putin subordinate; controlling reporters; threatening to throw his opponent in jail (true, and deserved); discrimination against "people of different faiths" (Obama does that- ask the Little Sisters of Mercy, and all bakeries and photographers); is uniquely unqualified to hold "this job";

Here's to the Leftist Troll-Losers

It should be obvious that I deplore the actual contemptible Leftists and their trolls, but it might not be so obvious that I also deplore the disgusting and contemptible "conservatives" who are indiscernible from Leftists and their trolls. They're all the same thing: Atheist totalitarians who do not tolerate dissent.

Quoting Vox Day again:

"You guys will be crying yourself soon enough, when you realize how easily you were played and what damage is going to be done to conservative movement...

We. Are. Not. Conservatives.

We are Alt-Right.

We. Don't. Care.

The Alt-Right Revolution has only begun."

The so-called "conservatives" sold out long ago. Now known as Cucks, as in Cuckservatives, they are part of the established elitist cabal of cronies, along with the media, the university systems, Hollywood, and of course, the usual Leftist parasites. These "conservatives" have conserved nothing; they have implemented the obama budget in the House each and every year. They promote war-mongered interference in wars around the world - seven separate wars being simultaneously waged by the USA right now. They did nothing to prevent the massive illegal invasion from the south. In fact, they are merely Leftists in conservative face-paint.

It takes a total brute-force outsider like Trump to dump these vermin. (The entire staff of National Review soiled themselves over Trump: Conservatives against Trump). The entire Republican and Democrat parties must be dissolved and rebuilt.

I cheer him on. If the Troll-losers don't like it, they should remember:

We. Don't. Freaking. Care.

If you can't stand constitutional freedoms; if you think you don't need no stinking laws; if your personal morality trumps historical, western morality as codified in the US Constitution, then you are the enemy. What happens to the enemy?

We. Don't. Freaking. Care.

Good! Now These Leftists Should Leave...

...Or be shown for the lying liars that they are:

1. Barbra Streisand

“I can’t believe it. I’m either coming to your country if you’ll let me in, or Canada,” the singer told 60 Minutes in an interview in August. Streisand has been a vocal supporter of Clinton’s candidacy, and appeared at a high-profile fundraiser for the candidate in New York City earlier this year.

2. Bryan Cranston

“I would definitely move. It’s not real to me that that would happen. I hope to God it won’t,” Cranston said in October of the possibility of a Trump victory. The Breaking Bad star suggested he would take a permanent vacation to Vancouver.

3. Miley Cyrus

The young pop star said she would “move out da country” if Trump, whom she called a “f*cking nightmare” were to win the election.

4. Lena Dunham

The Girls star said there is a “100 percent chance” she will pick up and move to Canada if Trump prevails on Election Day.

“I love Canada. I think that it’s a great place, and there’s an area in Vancouver that I find beautiful and appealing, and I can conduct business from there,” the actress and Clinton surrogate said.

5. Amy Schumer

The comedian and Trainwreck actress said Spain would be her destination of choice if Trump wins the presidency.

“My act will change because I will need to learn to speak Spanish,” Schumer said in an appearance on the BBC’s Newsnight in September. “Because I will move to Spain or somewhere. It’s beyond my comprehension if Trump won. It’s just too crazy.”

6. Jon Stewart

The former Daily Show funnyman may want to connect with billionaire space pioneer Elon Musk if Trump wins; he told People magazine last year that he would consider “getting in a rocket and going to another planet, because clearly this planet’s gone bonkers.”

7. Cher

The same goes for pop icon Cher, who wrote on Twitter that she would be moving to Jupiter if Trump wins. The “Believe” singer has appeared with Hillary Clinton at campaign events this year.

8. Chelsea Handler

The comedian and talk-show host said she had already made a contingency plan in the event of a Trump win.

“I did buy a house in another country just in case,” Handler said in an interview on ABC’s Live with Kelly and Michael in May. “So all these people that threaten to leave the country and then don’t — I actually will leave that country.”

9. Samuel L. Jackson

The veteran actor accused Trump of running a “hate”-filled campaign in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter.

“If that motherf*cker becomes president, I’m moving my black ass to South Africa,” he later told Jimmy Kimmel.

10. Whoopi Goldberg

The comedian and The View co-host has repeatedly trashed Trump on the ABC daytime talk show.

“Listen, he can be whatever party he wants to be,” she said during an episode in January. “What he can’t be is he can’t be the guy that says it’s your fault stuff isn’t working. That’s not the president I want. Find a way to make stuff work.”

“Maybe it’s time for me to move, you know. I can afford to go,” she added.

11. Neve Campbell

The Scream and House of Cards actress said she would move back to her native Canada if Trump wins the election.

“They see someone off the cuff and broad, and they think ‘ok, that’s the voice we need, just someone honest,'” Campbell told the Huffington Post of the motivation behind the Republican candidate’s support. “But his honesty is terrifying.”

12. Keegan-Michael Key

The Key and Peele star also said he’d flee north to Canada in the event of a Trump presidency.

“It’s like, 10 minutes from Detroit,” the comedian told TMZ in January. “That’s where I’m from; my mom lives there. It’d make her happy too.”

13. George Lopez

“If he wins, he won’t have to worry about immigration. We’ll all go back,” the Latino comedian and TV star told TMZ shortly after Trump announced his candidacy in 2015.

14. Ne-Yo

The R&B singer said he’d be moving to Canada “straight away” if Trump wins.

“Me and Drake gonna be neighbors if Donald Trump becomes president,” the singer told TMZ in October.

15. Rev. Al Sharpton

The civil rights activist told attendees at a Center for American Progress event in February that he would be looking for flight reservations if Clinton did not triumph on Election Day.

“I’m also reserving my ticket to get out of here if he wins. Only because he’d probably have me deported anyhow,” Sharpton said.

16. Raven-Symoné

The former View co-host and Disney Channel star is probably already on a flight out. During a February episode of the talk show, the actress said she would move to Canada “if any Republican gets nominated.”

The Big Democrat FLUSH

Flushed down the collective memory toilet:

The Orlando Killer was THIS:

DEMOCRAT.
MUSLIM.
ANCHOR BABY.
DEMOCRAT.
MUSLIM.

Which is why the DEMOCRATS immediately changed the focus of the news onto GUNS and RIGHT WINGERS. They know full well that the AR15 was not responsible for the massacre. It was one of their VERY OWN.

Leftist Logic

DC Police Chief who approves almost no concealed carry permits wants armed citizens to take action

Like vigilantes, maybe?

Where Is Liberal Rage Over Mass Shooting In New Orleans?

Well, it's just blacks shooting (innocent, mostly) blacks, 17 in fact. Those black lives don't matter, of course; blacks can shoot whoever they want. It's whites that must be kept in line. Nothing racist or newsworthy here, move along now.

Women's group can't accept that 'rape culture' just might not be a thing
When you're committed to perpetuating the myth of a rampant "rape culture" on college campuses, evidence to the contrary becomes baffling.

And so it goes for the American Association of University Women, which analyzed 2014 reporting data from colleges and universities across the country and found that 91 percent of schools had no reported incidents of rape. Most people would see that number and cheer. Hooray! College women aren't being raped in the U.S. at rates on par with the Congo!

But not the AAUW. Accompanying that percentage on a chart on its website are the words: "What's wrong with this picture?"

"When campuses report zero incidents of rape, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking, it simply does not square with research, campus climate surveys, and widespread experiences reported by students," the AAUW wrote.

Let's stop right there. Those "campus climate surveys" are the "research" they're talking about, unless they're referring to David Lisak's "studies," which have been thoroughly debunked this year, as have those [rape] climate surveys.

The biggest problem with the surveys is that they broadly define sexual assault to include pretty much every human interaction. And it's not actually the students participating who say they are victims of sexual assault; often, it's the researchers conducting the surveys — researchers who have a stake in proving "rape culture" exists and that women are oppressed.

Every report that is non-congruent with the narrative is just... wrong.

Countless Crimes of Hillary

Read this at the source: it documents much more than just the server.

The Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now Hillary finally hands over her server—after it's been professionally wiped clean

Related:

Does the Media Hold Anyone to a Lower Ethical Standard than the Clintons?

Well, yes; there's still Obama.

Another H R Clinton Lie

Clinton was required to sign document claiming she turned over emails in 2013

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, like all departing federal employees, was required to fill out and sign a separation statement affirming that she had turned over all classified and other government documents, including all emails dealing with official business.

Fox News Megyn Kelly reported Wednesday evening on the requirement and that a spokesman for Clinton had not responded to a request for comment, including an explanation of when the former chief U.S. diplomat signed the mandatory separation agreement or, if she didn't, why didn't she.

The Washington Examiner also asked Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill for comment late Wednesday but had received no response from him early Thursday. Clinton did not respond when asked about the issue earlier this week by the Associated Press. The issue was first raised Monday by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus"

It's just what they do, who they are: they lie, and they are liars, even on official documents. It is interesting that the MSM has turned on Hillary, unlike their undiminished fealty to the half-black president.

John C. Wright Strikes Bone

John C. Wright cuts deep into the malfunctioning minds of AtheoLeftism... again. I can't resist excerpting a large part from the beginning, but please go to his page to read it all.

A reader with the abstract yet addictive name of Concept Junkie leaves this comment regarding the case in favor of marriage, now, for some reason that does not bear close examination, called traditional marriage. (As if a three-sided triangle needed to be called a traditional triangle to distinguish it from all those square triangles with four sides):

Our gracious host has made the case better than anyone I’ve ever seen, but I don’t think his arguments, however sound and logical would change the vast majority of minds.

An understatement. My reasoning will change NO minds, zero, nada, zip, simply because those who uphold the perverse as equal to the decent, the sick as equal to the hale, the unwholesome as equal to the wholesome were never reasoned into that worldview, no, not one, not ever.

You cannot reason someone out of a stance he was not reasoned into.

A Leftist is not someone who has an alternative political philosophy to yours, or different reasons. He is someone who, in the realm of politics, has decided to eschew philosophy and abandon reason.

Leftism is what you get when you stop reasoning, kill it dead, and substitute word fetishes instead.

Consider: Marx proposed an economic system where goods and services would be produced without reference to prices, to supply and demand, and to the scarcity of resources. In other words, he proposed economics without economics. This would like someone who proposed a geometric system without points and lines, without definitions and without common notions. In order to answer his critics, Marx told them that to minds conditioned by bourgeoisie means of production, the results of the material dialectic once the dictatorship of the proletarian had ended the exploitation of private property forever was unimaginable to them. For those of you who don’t speak Leftist, Marx merely proposed that oldest and most favorite of Leftist counter-arguments: he told them to shut up.

A close study of Marx will show that he was not an economist at all, he was someone making up a plethora of windbaggy excuses, slurs, counter-attacks, and slanders to deconstruct, that is, to destroy economics. Economics led to a conclusion that Marx did not like, namely, that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch; you cannot eat your cake and save it, too. So rather than accept the conclusion, he rejected the art of reasoning. Keynes followed in his footsteps, and used a more convoluted terminology.

These terminologies are word-fetishes. A fetish is a magic token you use in order to get a magic effect in the world, and, when the effect does not take place, instead of throwing the fetish away, you adore it and implore it all the more.

A word-fetish is when you have a bit of language which you hope will have a magical effect on the world, turning gold into lead.

The simplest example is the phrase ‘wage slavery’ which, like the phrase ‘bright darkness’ or ‘four-sided triangle’ or ‘homosexual marriage’ is a nonsense phrase, signifying nothing and meant to signify nothing.

What word fetishes do is carry a connotation without carrying a denotation. In the above example, a slave is defined as one who is coerced into doing labor without a wage. The payment of a wage is the defining thing that makes a laborer not a slave; it is the sign that the exchange was voluntary. Hence the term ‘wage slavery’ has a connotation of a horrible and involuntary servitude, akin to bondage, and the connotation is affixed to working for a wage, a voluntary exchange between equals, which is the opposite.

Word fetishes are used instead of reasoning. When a man reasons, he defines his terms. When a Leftist unreasons — or whatever the mental activity is called whereby mental activity is deliberately made unable to act — what he does is undefine his terms. He makes clear terms muddy.

When the word fetish does not work, they, like the zealous medicine man whose rain dance cannot make it rain, merely dances again, this time harder. So the Leftist says his word fetish again louder or more forcefully or more scornfully. When nothing continues to happen, they try again. And so on.

I used economics as my first example because Marx is the defining pioneer of Leftism. But the same neurosis and the same results obtain for any topic discussed by the Left.

In philosophy, the word fetish is to declare that the only truth is that there is no truth. It is, in other words, an insolent abandonment of philosophy, the love of truth.

In ethics, the word fetish is to say that it is evil to distinguish good from evil, and that being judgmental or condemnatory must be brought to judgment and condemned. This is an insolent abandonment of ethics.

In politics, the word fetish is to call a greedy desire to plunder others a right or an entitlement, and to call a man’s right, especially to his own property to which he alone is entitled, greed. This abolition of all rights and boundaries is an insolent abandonment of politics, even of the concept of politics.

The other word fetish is to put the word ‘social’ in front of a second word so as to rob that second word of meaning, or reverse the meaning: ‘social justice’ in other words, means punishing the innocent and rewarding the guilty, as when non slave owners pay black rioters reparations for a non existent crime.

In logic, they use the word binary to indicate that they disapprove of the proposition that ‘A is A’ is true and that ‘A is not-A’ is false. Of course, without the binary distinction between self consistent and self contradictory statements, logic is vain. It is the insolent abandonment of logic.

Some more energetic Leftists make the argument — pardon me, they unlimber the word fetish — that unless you share the sex, tastes, race, social class, faith and nation of origin of the other man in the argument, your logic is disqualified, on the grounds that all races have different logical systems. Jew logic is not the same as Aryan logic. The mere fact that Nazis invented this argument so as to elude the need to answer critics should deter the Leftist, who claims to hate Nazis, but in truth does not.

In art, ugliness is called daring or subversive and beauty is insulted and deconstructed by any number of words mocking the motive of the artist and ignoring the merit of the art.

The mere fact that all these arguments are self defeating, absurdly obvious logical absurdities, does not shame them. Nothing does. The whole reason why the Leftist abandons reason is to quell his shame. Leftism is shamelessness.

Shamelessness is like guiltlessness in that one is free of feeling guilty, albeit, of course, one can endlessly continue to indulge in the most vile, low, vulgar, and shameful of vices. Neither the virgin nor the whore blushes, albeit, obviously, because the first has no need where the second no ability.

Shamelessness is like guiltlessness in that neither the sinner nor the saint goes to confession, albeit, of course, for opposite reasons.

If you have ever had the unpleasant experience of attempting a rational debate with a Leftist, you have no doubt come away with the same queasy sensation one might encounter if watching a man try to eat a rubber chicken, or copulate with an inflatable doll, or, to use a less grotesque example, like watching a retarded man in clown make up who does not know how to juggle tossing a single ball up into the air and letting it drop, and then smiling and bowing to the puzzled and bored children in the audience, as if he does not know that dropping the ball is not what juggling is, and does not understand why they are not as thrilled as he could be when he watches a juggler.

What the Leftist does in debate is utter his idiot word fetishes and slogans with the sneering hauteur of a card player displaying his trump card, or a chessmaster a checkmate.

And when his nonsense does not win the debate, or even address the debate, he realized you are the OTHER, and he blames you, and insults your character, your intelligence, your education, your moral stature, your maturity, et cetera.

The more mentally agile Leftists will invent some implausible sounding motive for you to be dishonest, such as (and this is the least plausible I have ever heard) he will answer cite your mental incapacity is due to ‘Christian Privilege’.

As far as I can recall, no one either in a debate or as an onlooker to a debate has ever been convinced by the ad hominem, or any like it. Why do Leftists always resort to this shift?

Naturally, he does not expect this bit of verbal drool to convince you or impress you: it is a code word, a shibboleth, a display of his credentials, a secret handshake.
[All emphasis added]

NYT Airbrushes The Islam Out of the Story

New York Times Reports On Muslim Proselytizing During Charlie Hebdo Attack, Then Deletes It

"So, imagine yourself as an NYT editor for a moment, if you can withstand the nausea. Why would you specifically take out the part about the Islamic terrorist proselytizing for Islam in the middle of the terrorist attack? Why delete this woman’s account of being threatened at gunpoint and being told to convert to Islam?

That’s easy. Because you’re one of America’s moral, ethical, and intellectual betters, and you don’t want it to be true. Your reporter hastily left that inconvenient truth in her story by accident, so you airbrushed it out, without any acknowledgment, to preserve the narrative. You turned it into, “Hey, maybe these guys aren’t so bad after all. They didn’t kill the women, right? Let’s not be too hasty.”"

And here's what they couldn't bear for anyone to know:

"Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled."

This was changed to:

"Here’s what it says now:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed.

Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman."

Muslims are SUCH feminists, doncha know?

DC is right: the NYT could not allow the actual words of the Islamic Mass Murderers to make them appear to be cold Islamics (they ARE Victimhood Category Class victims of white euro-males, of course), so they changed the reported conversation to make the Islamic Mass Murderers seem less, well, Islamic, to soften their appearance for their Leftist psycho-readers.

The NYT is just a den of despicable vermin.
[All emphasis added]

Tidying up Tyson's Wikipedia Page

The Wiki defenders of Neil deGrasse Tyson's image are scrubbing his wiki-image. They are removing attempts to add Tyson's falsifications to the page. Not too surprising, actually. Leftists are all about the narrative, not the truth. And like Tyson's narrative, they are smarter than you and I, more moral than you and I, and just all around superior in every way. At least that's the narrative, and they are sticking with it. Narrative über alles!

An "Atheist Meme" Failure

Sometimes a link will lead to another link until you reach something like... Atheist Memes. This is a site which consists of Atheist bumper sticker slogans, mostly of the ridicule or sloganeering kind. This one "meme" caught my attention:

Let's count the errors in this Atheist bumper sticker logic.

On the Christian side,

1. Subjective evidence is implied to be unreliable. Yet Atheism, itself, is based not on any supporting evidence or disciplined logic, but on emotional rejectionism. And that is purely subjective neediness. All knowledge is subjectively acquired and assimilated, with subjective discrimination and analysis. And all knowledge is contingent, especially that which claims Materialism yet has no material evidence for its claims (including the validity of Materialism).

2. Inconsistent Reasoning? There is nothing "inconsistent" about the arguments (from Aquinas to the simple challenge on this blog) which Atheists cannot defeat. It can be shown that Atheists in general do not use Aristotelian deduction at all, but that they always rather use Peirce's abduction and/or probabilistic methods such as Bayes Theorem which allows them to fabricate probabilities to fit their preconceptions and emotional needs, or they resort to ridicule. Bumper stickers never back up their claims, and some, like Atheist bumper stickers, cannot back them up.

On the Atheist side,

1. Objective Evidence which supports (much less proves) that Atheism is true does NOT exist. And when invited to disprove miracles such as Lourdes where objective evidence exists against Atheism, Atheists merely ridicule, rather than even attempting to refute that evidence. So this claim is patently false, as in a blatant lie.

2. Demonstrably consistent reasoning for Atheism does not exist. If Atheists had a single valid, true argument, they all would make it. There is no such argument, and Atheists commonly resort to faux Scientism, a logical error. That was refuted by Karl Popper, long ago. When asked to prove that a creating agent for the universe absolutely cannot exist, Atheists head for the door. This claim is also a lie.

Since both of the claims against Christians and both of the claims for Atheism are false, then the Atheist bumper sticker fails its own standards, and is inconsistent logic. Totally inconsistent logic.

NBC Will Honor Alex Haley, The Liar, Plagiarist, and Perjurer

Alex Haley became famous when the "Roots" TV miniseries aired. But the entire scenario which was claimed to be Haley discovering his family history - is phony, made up, a lie.

THE CELEBRATED ‘ROOTS’ OF A LIE

"ON Friday, NBC will air a special commemorating the 25th anniversary of the landmark miniseries based on Alex Haley’s book “Roots.” Ironically, the original series aired on ABC – but officials at that network took a pass on broadcasting the tribute.

What’s truly amazing, however, is that “Roots” is receiving a reverential tribute at all. For while the miniseries was a remarkable – and important – piece of television, the book on which it was based has now been widely exposed as a historical hoax.

Unfortunately, the general public is largely unaware of how Haley’s monumental family autobiography, stretching back to 18th-century Africa, has been discredited.

Indeed, a 1997 BBC documentary expose of Haley’s work has been banned by U.S. television networks – especially PBS, which would normally welcome such a program.

Coincidentally, the “Roots” anniversary comes amid the growing scandal over disclosures of historian Stephen Ambrose’s multiple incidents of plagiarism. Because as Haley himself was forced to acknowledge, a large section of his book – including the plot, main character and scores of whole passages – was lifted from “The African,” a 1967 novel by white author Hal Courlander.

But plagiarism is the least of the problems in “Roots.” And they would likely have remained largely unknown, had journalist Philip Nobile not undertaken a remarkable study of Haley’s private papers shortly before they were auctioned off.

The result was featured in a devastating 1993 cover piece in the Village Voice. It confirmed – from Haley’s own notes – earlier claims that the alleged history of the book was a near-total invention.

“Virtually every genealogical claim in Haley’s story was false,” Nobile has written. None of Haley’s early writing contains any reference to his mythic ancestor, “the African” named Kunta Kinte. Indeed, Haley’s later notes give his family name as “Kante,” not “Kinte.”"

But there is more:

"The Pulitzer Prize board has refused to reconsider Haley’s prize, awarded in 1977 – in what former Columbia President William McGill, then a board member, has acknowledged was an example of “inverse racism” by a bunch of white liberals “embarrassed by our makeup.”"

The Left will protect its designated Victim Class using whatever means is necessary to justify their ends. There is no ethical principle which applies to the Left other than "do what is necessary to further the Left". That leaves all paths open for their use.

One might imagine the uproar if the offender were either white or a conservative, or quelle horreurs, both.

James O'Keefe/Osama Bin Laden Cross the Mexican Border Into Texas

This is great. I wish I could post the video here, but for some reason their code doesn't register. So go over there and watch O'Keefe falsify EVERY Leftist who claims the border with Mexico is closed. There is even a steel footbridge(!)

Trey Gowdy And A Hapless Democrat Professor