Heres Why. Owning a Gun: "Pure Evil"; Kill Them All

When Leftists don't get what they want, their insanity takes them to violence immediately.

That's why: Guns.

Thoughts on Revolutions and Children

Worth the Read:

You Say You Want a Revolution [VIDEO]

Eric Holder Wants to Knife Fight Republicans (Who Own Guns)

Eric Holder to GOP: ‘You want to have a knife fight, we’re gonna do it’

It's not clear which Republican Holder wants to "rumble" with, or what issue he's ranting about, or whether it's just the normal, violent Leftist speech like Obama's "bring a gun" speech.

These Are Experts, Indeed

Can't happen here - not enough Leftists... um wait... several generations of children have been weaponized.

LGBT as Revolutionaries in Pursuit of Raw, Irrational Power

From Spiked:

This year, however, the LGBT movement has turned to the dark side in earnest. The corporate, governmental and celebrity bullying of North Carolina’s decision to forbid people with penises using public toilets designated for women might prove to be significant. And now, this week, news comes that businesses in New York City will face fines under a new law that makes it a violation of someone’s human rights not to use their preferred gender pronoun. Henceforth, employees, landlords and businesses who refuse to refer to transgender people with terms such as ‘ze’ and ‘hir’ will be in violation of the New York City human-rights law.

‘Where will it end?’, you may ask. To which the answer is, ‘it won’t’. Christian churches will be next in line, then gender differentiation in schools and hospitals. Those who fight in the name of liberation will always demand more, even when the revolutionary movement has surpassed the boundary of reality into fantasy – in this case, the state enshrining in law, with penalties for those who disobey it, someone’s belief that ‘he’ is a ‘she’ because he simply believes it so.

The impetus for change and the desire to seize power is inherent to revolutionary movements, whether they be communist, Nazi, Islamist, trans or animal rights. Once human beings become subordinate to abstract notions of equality and the future, people become expendable. ‘The future is the only transcendental value for men without God’, said Camus. Thus revolutionaries must forever meddle with the present, because tomorrow never comes.

Rational folks are starting to catch on to the underlying tyrannical motives of every single Leftist movement.

What's With Democrats and Lunch Counter Discrimination?

Lunch Counters THEN:

.
.
.
.

Lunch Counters NOW:



At least in the 50's they got to sit at the counter.

Franken; Part2

Melanie Morgan: After TV appearance, Al Franken harassed me too

Exclusive to the Media Equalizer
With additional reporting from Martin Walsh

Immediately raising questions about double-standards in the media and on Capitol Hill, a Los Angeles radio news anchor today accused Senator Al Franken (D-MN) of sexually assaulting her.

Now, Media Equalizer Co-Founder Melanie Morgan has come forward as well, recounting her own experience with the onetime comedian, liberal radio host and activist. Morgan’s disturbing encounter was sparked by daring to disagree with Franken during an August, 2000 edition of ABC’s Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher.

Earlier, a bombshell report published by KABC on-air personality Leeann Tweeden accused Franken of kissing and groping her without her consent while she was asleep.

Shockingly, Tweeden even provided a photo as evidence, which shows Franken with his hands on her breasts while he smiles for the camera.

Tweeden said the sexual assault occurred in December 2006, when they were both on a USO Tour to support and entertain U.S. soldiers.

“It wasn’t until I was back in the U.S. and looking through the CD of photos we were given by the photographer that I saw this one,” Tweeden wrote about the photo on in her KABC article.

“I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated,” she wrote. “How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?”

Tweeden said Franken had written a skit in which he would kiss Tweeden, where she said she “agreed to play along.”

“When I saw the script, Franken had written a moment when his character comes at me for a ‘kiss’. I suspected what he was after, but I figured I could turn my head at the last minute, or put my hand over his mouth, to get more laughs from the crowd,” she wrote.

Tweeden wrote that Franken insisted that they rehearse the kiss several times before the show, which she said made her “uncomfortable.”

“He repeated that actors really need to rehearse everything and that we must practice the kiss. I said ‘OK’ so he would stop badgering me. We did the line leading up to the kiss and then he came at me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed his lips against mine and aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth,” she wrote.

“I immediately pushed him away with both of my hands against his chest and told him if he ever did that to me again I wouldn’t be so nice about it the next time,” she added.

According to Newsweek, Franken has since released a statement saying he didn’t recall the incident.

“I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann. As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it,” he said in a statement.

In response to the disturbing allegations made against Franken, Media Equalizer and Media Equality Project Co-Founder Melanie Morgan has come forward to recall her own frightening encounter, sparked by a seemingly-mundane and even obscure topic of political disagreement.

Morgan, who was a ABC Radio talk show host for KSFO / San Francisco at the time, appeared August 19, 2000 on ABC’s late night show Politically Incorrect.

She was joined by Franken, William Baldwin, and then-Colorado Lt. Governor Joe Rogers on the panel.

Morgan and Franken had a dispute over the OMB’s budget numbers.

“I was invited and unaware of who his guests were going to be that night. I’ve since learned that though few know this, Al Franken was actually a writer for the show,” Morgan said.

“I made a statement about the budget numbers, Franken challenged me, I challenged him back. It was about spending priorities, actually just a mundane discussion. But he obsessed over it.”

After the show, Morgan said Franken wouldn’t leave her alone, insisting on continuing the argument.

“He approached me backstage, angrily called me out on those numbers and insisted he would prove he was right. He wouldn’t leave me alone, he kept following me. As a woman, his presence and proximity to me felt very threatening and intimindating.

“I didn’t realize his creepy behavior after the show meant it would continue in the days to come.

“He approached Carol, the show’s producer and demanded my home phone number, which was a clear violation of network protocol. I had thought that was the end of the story and was shocked when he started calling my home, badgering me repeatedly.

“I became fearful and called Carol to complain and asked her to tell him to back off. But he made another call after that. I thought that he might end up stalking me at my home in Northern California, it was that bad.

“By the third phone call I was outraged and terrified, as he is really disturbed,” Morgan recounted.

Morgan said Franken finally left her alone, but only after she pushed back and threatened “to call the police and make a report that he was harassing me.”

To this day, she says she is haunted by it: “I never forgot that experience and it informed me of his lack of character and obsessive personality. I believe every word Leann wrote.”

With many calling on Republican Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore to step aside following claims of sexual misconduct from decades ago, will Franken be asked to resign as senator?

“I will happily testify before the Senate Ethics Committee, should a hearing be held regarding Franken’s behavior,” Morgan added.

Entitled Minority Victimhood Victim

Entitled to her own facts (legislation and laws for mass killing of minorities), entitled to her own law (fuck your laws), entitled to her own anti-logic (free speech is genocide), entitled to racial hatred (You're WHITE homeboy). This person qualifies as poster child for Leftist Narrative Insanity:

Student steals MAGA hat, demands victim be punished

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.

Funding the Rioting Left

The Business Behind the Left’s Pay-to-Protest Scheme
Big-money groups are helping to organize and fuel 'AstroTurf' progressive uprisings

When left-wing organizers were recruiting people to travel to Washington, D.C., to try to “shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump” and “paralyze the city itself,” they offered a number of incentives — free housing, food, and also legal assistance in case of arrest. They also organized training camps, workshops and media-encounter events in the run-up to the main event: the big riot.

[...]

The housing, the food, the organized activities and the defense attorneys at the ready made the riots possible. But why did news reports never mention that the riots were being funded?

It's because the liberal media "sees protests as a tactic," says Tim Graham of the Media Research Center, adding that while the media often label Tea Party gatherings as "AstroTurf events" — and therefore not true grassroots events — it never does the same with the Left.

"They're not going to allow the idea that there's liberal AstroTurf. To suggest such a thing is a conspiracy theory," Graham told LifeZette.

[...]

A year ago, Breitbart reported that hacked Open Society Foundation documents showed that the George Soros-funded group gave Black Lives Matter groups $650,000. The Ford Foundation subsequently announced that it was launching a fundraising campaign to raise $100 million to support Black Lives Matter.

It's unclear how often individual protesters are paid a fee to protest, but regardless, the organizational side of the unrest is becoming big business. The movement first attracted attention with violence in the streets during the Ferguson riots. A raised fist brings notoriety, and notoriety brings in big money. It's a clear exchange.

One hundred million dollars to BLM!? It's profitable to promote violent racism, because you can extort big cash from corporations who want to be left alone...

WaPo Platforms Leftist Call For Violence

Rubicon: WaPo Op-Ed Openly Calls For Political Violence

For anyone paying attention over the last 100 or so years, it was only a matter of time before America's establishment Left, meaning elected Democrats and the mainstream media, found themselves so frustrated they would finally come right out and validate violence, or what can only be described as political terrorism, against their ideological enemies.

Going back to the Bolsehviks straight through to Barry Obama's terrorist-pal Bill Ayers, violence is always the end result of an ideology that demands purity and conformity, even at the point of a gun. And now, probably because they have been unable to bully President Trump to its will, The Washington Post has finally revealed itself as an un-American and un-democratic monster.

In an editorial published Tuesday, N.D.B. Collins, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, was handed the imprimatur of The Washington Post to call for "direct action," direct action in the form of actual political violence.

Charlottesville Showed That Liberalism Can’t Defeat White Supremacy. Only Direct Action Can.

The white nationalist riot in Charlottesville, a city that boasts “diversity makes us stronger,” made a lot of things clear. One of them is that generic solutions to the racial problem — bland affirmations of inclusiveness, tolerance and “free speech” — will no longer work. Indeed, they have never worked, at least not on their own. ...

[I]n April 1968, amid a flurry of other “rocks,” riots shook American cities following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. It took that rolling unrest, not the promise of further economic growth, to spur President Lyndon Johnson and Congress to action. Within a week they had passed the Fair Housing Act.

Over the past century, liberalism, vexed by an ever-sharp, ever-cutting white supremacy, has needed these rocks. ...

Segregationists have again assumed their pedestals in the Justice Department, the White House and many other American temples. Paper alone won’t drive them out. Start throwing rocks.

Now... Is Professor Collins using the word "rock" as a metaphor?

Why, yes — yes, he is.

Martin Luther King was unavailable for comment.

Where There is no Logic, There is no Contradiction

Group that protested NRA over 'violent' rhetoric embraces convicted cop killer

The group behind last week's protest against the National Rifle Association over rhetoric it claimed was a "direct endorsement of violence" wished a convicted cop killer and fugitive a happy birthday on Monday.

"Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur!" the verified Twitter account for the Women's March tweeted. "Today's #SignOfResistance, in Assata's honor, is by @Meloniousfunk."

The tweet included a painting of Assata Shakur, also known as Joanne Chesimard, with the slogan "A woman's place is in the struggle."

The Women's March praise for Chesimard came less than a week after the group organized a protest of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in large part due to a video the gun organization produced. The video, which criticized resistance to the Trump administration and protests that have repeatedly turned violent across the country, was specifically cited as a key motivator for the protest, and the Women's March demanded the NRA take it down. "Recent actions by the NRA demonstrate not only a complete disregard for the lives of black and brown people in America—your fellow citizens—but appear to be a direct endorsement of violence against these citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest," a letter from Tamika D. Mallory, co-president of the Women's March, to the NRA read. "You are calling for our grassroots, nonviolent resistance movement to be met with violence."

While critics of the video have taken issue with its metaphorical call to "fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth," the video does not include any call to actual violence.

Chesimard was the first woman to be added to the FBI's Most Wanted list and was last spotted in Cuba after escaping prison in 1979. As a member of the Black Liberation Army, Chesimard is believed to have committed a number of felonies including bank robbery. She was convicted of first-degree murder in connection with a May 2, 1973, shootout between her group and New Jersey State Police.

The Western Anti-Western Disease

It is the Left's Top Mantra today: Constitutionalists are White Nationalists; believing in the exceptionalism of western culture is racist, and that is to be expected of the Deplorable Oppressor Class, which is to be hated by definition.

Hate is the product being sold. Anti-westernism is merely the tactic du jour. It focuses racially on whites.

Yes, They Really Do Despise Their Civilization

The rational problem is this: the vaunted multiculturalism hypothetically eradicates all individual "civilizations" in order to equate all sub-cultures as equally valid. It takes very little mental acuity to realize that that barbarism is thus equated to peaceful cultures, and that peaceful cultures are restricted from defending their own civilization from the (valid) barbarians. The obvious result of that philosophy, if fully implemented, is hegemony of barbarism.

To the Left, that is a feature which is fully desirable. Under Cloward/Piven and the Gramscian March, the destruction of the specific culture/civilization of the west is the stated objective. That is, of course, feasible. However, the consequential delusion is that the Left expects to rise from the ashes of the destruction as the controllers of the globe, able to enforce total equality on the Victimhood Class, after the eradication of the Oppressor Class (which believes in constitutional law, and abjures the racism and class war of the Left).

The Left cannot rise to power without a superior force of genocidal, rapine, mass murderers. This has proven true in every Leftist political adventure, over the past 10 decades.

So far, the western ideological Left has only its KKK replacement, antifa, which is mostly skinny white kids who destroy stuff only when the police stand by idly and there are no oppositionals to scare them off. Where the Left will acquire a serious force is yet to be determined. Obama fired all generals who wanted to protect civilization, and replaced them with culture warriors who foisted "social justice" programs onto the armed services. But those services still are not Leftist in their souls; they still march in service of their western civilization.

But more likely is the continuation of the path of barbarism which has been enabled into the heart of the peaceful civilizations. And those civilizations are so disabled by Leftism and the multi-culti fable that they cannot restrict or control the barbarian culture, which grows and does not assimilate, but coagulates into no-go zones which are no longer part of the civilization which enabled them. The maintenance of the barbarian cultures, in the face of the denials of the Leftist politicians, grow and grow, and despise the culture of the Leftist politicians. What do the Leftist politicians expect to result from this? They still expect to obtain total Leftist hegemony, a delusion on the order of mental incapacity due to cortex malfunction and disorder.

The near future, then, seems to hold lots more violence, but of a localized nature, of the sort that Obama thought that the nation could absorb, and which Europe fights with flowers and blather. Whether this escalates depends on answering this question: how do we fight Leftist hegemony tending toward radical barbarism if we don't fight?

If Leftists don't relent, then "fight we must".

Good Donk: Find Me Something... Anything...

Politics, Morality, and the Left

Leftists will be the first to argue that there is no objective morality. (Their Atheism is thus axiomatic) If there were such an objective and obvious set of behavioral principles, it would mean that the Left would not be the arbiter, and their behaviors would be somewhere between amoral and objectively evil. The Left cannot be wrong - such is the lot of the narcissistic - and thus there can be no objective morality. The Leftist construct of Morality, then is binary: strict yet evanescent rules apply to the herd (all of the non-Left), rules which are discerned by the Left and applied joyfully by the Left to the Other. The Other must be controlled now in preparation for elimination as Deplorables later. Utopia cannot handle Deplorables.

No rules apply to the Moralizing Left. This is easily understood by both observation and deducing what could possibly be the source of moral authority for a class superior to all other classes: only themselves would be considered to have such capability. And besides, it is a precursor to and feature of the wonderful utopia they will create.

So the Left has determined that they, and they alone, have the capacity to declare actions to be moral or immoral, and those actions would necessarily not be their own. They are tautologically moral by both their self-classification as superiors, and by their ability (and necessity) for defining their own morality separately from the morality which they define for the Othered Class. When one defines his own morality, he becomes a moral paragon because he cannot violate a code which he can change instantaneously (Think Muhammad, and the instantaneous increase in his allowable number of wives whenever he viewed a comely woman, married or not). Consequentialism is defined by the ability to define any conceivable objective as moral, which automatically confers morality upon all conceivable means and paths to obtaining that objective.

The Left comes historically from the specific Class which broke apart the Union of the United States in order to defend SLAVERY, resulting in the slaughter of half a million of America's young men in the pursuit of the objective of suppression of black slaves.

The Left comes historically from the Class which racially discriminated against free blacks by using Jim Crow laws and unequal segregation, dogs and fire hoses, along with terrorism via the Ku Kux Klan (hooded and masked arsonists and violent thugs). All in pursuit of their objective of maintaining their racial dominance over blacks.

The Left comes historically from the specific Class which for 100 years opposed all civil rights legislation designed to equalize opportunities for minorities, maintaining their position of white superiority.

The Left comes historically from the Class which created the Democrat Plantation Theory of suppression of blacks via ghetto support using welfare to suppress incentive and destroy families as well as to marginalize black males. All in the pursuit of maintaining white superiority.

It is no wonder then that the Left attacks actual history, because truthful history clearly condemns the actions of the Left, when any standards at all are applied to Leftist history since the beginning of the USA. So in conjunction with redefining terminology to cover for their own evil actions, the Left wishes to eradicate their history by eliminating names on halls, statues reminding us of their history, historical flags such as Confederate, and any other indicators of their own history.

Blame is deflected to the Othered Class, which contains the elements which in reality fought to eradicate slavery, to eradicate racial discrimination, to reduce the impact of the Democrat Plantation for suppression of blacks, to suppress KKK violence and membership, to stop the eugenic, genocidal killing of preborn humans, a practice focused on blacks. This class is now called "racist", "sexist", "homophobic", in the inverted, overheated minds of young Leftists. It is projected as Truth in a universe which contains no Truth.

And yet, they pursue the same policies as they ever have: When they shout "racist", they are blatantly exercising racism as they always have. When they cover their heads, faces and identities and attack the Other, they exercise the same violent terrorism as they always have. When they declare their own superiority and moral authority to condemn anyone who is not them, they foment class war as they always have. Their path is as objectively evil as it always has been.

The Left is materially the same as it always has been: self-declared superior, with moral authority to create the morals for the Other, and the moral authority for themselves to force their secondary morals onto the Other using violence and hatred in whatever quantities they deem necessary and sufficient. The Left is characterized by their hate, their self-elevation to moral authority, and their violence. Violence upon language, upon civil systems such as government bureaucracies, university and education complexes, voting processes, upon speakers for the Othered, upon entire classes of people, from blacks and unborn, to whites, Asians, males, and any perceived non-Leftist, which now are defined as attackable "fascists", completely subverting the meaning of fascism.

For these reasons the Left is the Class War insurgency against all civilized societies. They have for themselves only the morality of the invading barbarian horde and an internal culture of matching barbarism in anti-intellectual concepts and inverted definitions for use in hate speech. When that is coupled with determined anti-rationalism, the resulting Marxist, Leninist, Nietzschean, Comtean, Frankfortian, Cloward/Piven revolutionary fervor is fully expected.

With enough momentum, the Leftist revolution will proceed as is necessary for ultimate hegemonic seizure of humanity. It has succeeded in genocidic siezures before. Stopping that momentum is... problematic.