News

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s Syria Trip Causes Neocon Fits Of Hysteria

155 Comments

The neocon Syrian “regime change” fanatics are not going to go gently into that dark night, it seems.  At least not without flinging a few last bits of bile through the interwebs.  The latest focus of their ire has been Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, whose recent trip to Damascus on a fact-finding mission about the toll the war has taken on the Syrian people has sent the regime-changers into paroxysms of rage.

Gabbard’s courageous trip was something of an achievement among the craven-hearted folk in Washington.  For five years, American money, weapons, and diplomatic cover have stoked the fires of the Syrian war and kept them burning brightly.  No legislators have been willing to confront the brutal reality of what their policies have produced for the people of the region.  And why should they?  Their job is to do what John McCain and the lobbyists in Washington tell them to do, not to think independently.

In her trip, Gabbard toured the devastation wrought by the instruments of US policies; she met with President Assad and tweeted her support of Russian attacks on ISIS and other fundamentalist opposition groups.  Gabbard’s trip was a sign that a sea-change in US policy might be on the horizon; by any measure the trip was successful in bringing the carnage of the war to the attention of the US public.  But to the regime-change marionettes in the US media, this was unforgivable.

Typical of the response was an article by journalist Noah Rothman published under the title “Tulsi Gabbard’s Disaster In Damascus.”  One can almost see the flecks of spittle flying off Rothman’s mouth as one reads the piece.  The opening paragraph gives a flavor of the whole:

The simplest way to identify Russian sympathizers is to probe them on the matter of military interventionism. They may appear principled in their suspicion toward American force projection but are nowhere near as apprehensive about Russian muscle-flexing—even in the same theater of operations. That describes the foreign policy views of Hawaii Congresswoman and favorite of the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, Tulsi Gabbard. Following an ill-conceived visit to the Syrian capital to meet with the blood-soaked dictator Bashar al-Assad this week, her craven prostration before Russia’s vassals may have gone too far. Even Gabbard’s erstwhile allies are abandoning her.

Rothman goes on to berate Gabbard for having the temerity to oppose a “no-fly zone” (a favorite tool of regime-change gamers) and other forms of aggression against a sovereign state.  He then bewails the uncounted numbers of Syrians killed in the conflict.  The hypocrisy and mendacity dripping from the article would be shocking, were they not so routine from the fantasy world of the regime-change gamers.  Those who live in the real world know who was responsible for the war and its atrocities.

As Rothman knows very well, it was the United States and its regional allies (Turkey, Israel, and the Gulf States) who launched the Syrian war, kindled its fires, and kept it going for five bloody years.  Each actor had a role to play: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States were to recruit head-chopping fanatics and mercenaries from all over the globe and pay their bills; Turkey would provide the routes of infiltration and lines of supply into Syria from the north; Israel would provide the signals intelligence, surveillance, and occasional airstrikes; and the United States would wring its hands at the UN to gain sympathy for a political “solution” (i.e., regime change through negotiation).

Regime change was the goal, and it was done for the purpose of installing a regional puppet in Syria that would do the bidding of the US and Israel.  Assad’s crime, of course, was that he and his allies opposed US policies in the region.  In the logic of Washington, unless you permit your country to become a Western economic and military vassal, you are an enemy who must be destroyed.  Independent nationalism is the real threat; every other pretext for regime change is just window-dressing to this end.

gabbard1

Gabbard is not some out-of-touch peacenik but someone with real-world experience

But, alas, things did not go as planned for the regime-changers.  They were outplayed at the game by Assad, who had friends of his own to call in for backup (Iran, Russia, Hizballah) and were not going to allow the foreign conspiracy against Damascus to succeed.  The writing on the wall was pretty much clear to everyone after Aleppo was retaken by the Syrian Army in late 2016.

So what can the regime-changers do at this point?  Not much besides mudslinging and name-calling.  To this end, they have tried to present Gabbard’s trip as a boondoggle, when in fact it was nothing of the sort.  It was a long-overdue act of political and moral courage from the Washington establishment.

While we will never get a mea culpa from the people who started and sustained the war, Gabbard’s trip at least begins the process of recognizing the horrific human cost of the West’s regime-change project.

Read More: Terrible Mother Who Took Her Kids To Syria Now Wants To Leave Islamic State

155 thoughts on “Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s Syria Trip Causes Neocon Fits Of Hysteria”

  1. I would bet you that with Trump, relations between US and Russia will improve. Obama had the worst kind of foreign policy, meddling with others in a position of weakness.

    1. And this is another cardinal sin of Trump
      the people should be in constant fear of war with Russia…

      1. could be, he hasn’t been there long enough yet for me to form an opinion of him about that.

    2. Hopefully, but John McCain and Lindsey Graham (The Cucksuckers) will try to derail any attempt at trying to bring about peace anywhere in the world.

  2. If Russia and Iran are on the same team, I wonder how the US and Iran are going to be like. The right to build pipelines was what this war has been about, from my knowledge.
    And Trump isn’t near all he appears to be. His kids either became or married Jews. His appointments for some positions are quite worrying as well as his inconsistency, particularly about the CIA.

    1. Trump has far more Jewish connections than any President before. I don’t care about that, but I don’t understand why white supremacist groups support him so willingly.

      1. white supremacist groups have supported the right wingers like McCaine and Romney like the total commies supported Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama. Both sides do it out of fear of the opposite side, lesser of two evils, and hope that they can elect a further right/left wing candidate next time.

    2. 1) Some would say Trump is a step, not the solution.
      2) I’ve of the view that Trump is the eye of the hurricane and/or a member of a minority in the elite who enjoy indoor plumbing.
      Doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy Trump’s ability to make heads explode.

    3. Alexander the Great defeated the greatest Empire – Persia in a few years.
      Then spent 3 years running around in the wilderness in Afghanistan…
      Eventually married the daughter of a king – roxana…
      Then peace, and trade…
      Kings always do this…

  3. As an Imperialist, I have much common ground with the neoconservatives in America. However, the Syrian conflict was planned and executed so badly it is the perfect strawman for the isolationist.
    IMO, we shouldn’t have done it in the first place.
    If we look at successful regime changes (Clive in India, Wellington in France and Just Cause in Panama, to name a few), we find that they were executed and backed whole-heartedly, not with half-measures like weapons sales and no fly zones. We put troops on ground and fought like it was a real war (as opposed to ‘limited’ actions that are popular these days.)
    We need to execute regime change only when appropriate, fight hard as hell, and make sure we benefit after the fact with clear, achievable goals.
    Please cue RoK’s pat responses that are our own equivalent of SJWS crying ‘racist’, ‘sexist’ or ‘nazi’: ‘you stupid cuck’, ‘globalist!’ and my personal favorite: ‘why are you brainwashed by big corporations, goyim?’

      1. Your error in thinking is that I give a fuck what through globalists and Zionists care about.

        3. Imperialism is aimed at achieving individual state goals. Though with the interdependence of world economies, that is difficult to do.

        4. It’s like the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism: (edit) in the end there is no difference.

        5. Medals and promotions do not add or subtract to the validity of a statement, rather it must stand on the merits itself, completely agnostic of the voice that speaks them.
          Every war the United States has fought has been about money: whether it was paying taxes in 1776, Southern landowners angry about their livelihood being cut off in 1861, loans to the British Empire in 1918 or economic devastation of Germany in the 1920s and 30s: every war the United States has fought came down to money. The only aspect of WWII that might not have been about money was the direct attack on Pearl Harbor, but the Japanese were already a threat to U.S. holdings in the Pacific (and Japanese control of the Pacific would have been bad for commerce).
          Name any war the United States fought and I guarantee I can show you how money was a primary, if not the primary, reason for the war.

        6. “Medals and promotions do not add or subtract to the validity of a statement, rather it must stand on the merits itself, completely agnostic of the voice that speaks them.”
          That’s like saying John Q. Public is qualified to run my nuclear reactor.
          More from Smedley Butler:

          War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses……
          It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
          I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
          I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
          During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

          Edit: While I would readily concede your point about medals and promotions (even in Washington’s day, generalship could be political, not to mention the present-day ‘muh diversity’), that was still a day when masculine men could still be promoted and command respect in society.

        8. Thinking out loud here. . .I would think the difference would be in the intent of power and the status of the various nations.
          Everything England did in India, Hong Kong, Kenya, South Africa, etc was done with the intent of serving England’s power, prestige, and finances. Until the end of Empire, there was no suggestion that Jamaica was England’s equal. Nor that competitor nations such France and Russia’s success was a benefit to England.
          Whereas globalism says, “We are all equally valuable. We should trade together so we all benefit.” Globalists don’t care about nations.
          Of course, when you start factoring in things like the East India Company’s conquering India in the name of corporate profits, things do get murkier.

  4. “Gabbard is not some out-of-touch peacenik but someone with real-world experience”
    So it appears. But take one look at her Twitter, and it’s clear she falls for the narrative of the left hook, line, and sinker:

    Our movement is one of love, aloha, and inclusivity — regardless of race or religion. Your racist and hateful views don’t align with ours.

    Thank you, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly, for your quick action. Blanket bans of any group of people not ok.

    She managed to put one foot out there, beyond the confines of the democrat plantation, but has yet to follow suit with the other.

  5. Only in the West do they ally with Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia to bomb other Arab nations and topple their secular governments while supporting Al-Qaeda affiliated Jihadist groups only then to complain about terrorism.
    If there is any justice in this world, Iraq should sue the US for destroying their country since it’s abundantly clear that they had no WMD’s and had nothing to do with 9/11.

    1. Petroleum-dollar, or oiled backed US dollar explains everything. The Saudis are the golden goose which out economic power lies. i find it comical that everyone today says saudis aren’t banned because trump has business deals there. *trump voice* wrong! It’s far greater than that.

        2. Of course. Stealing is a crime against a person. Blasphemy is a crime against the Universe in its entirety.

      2. Yes the “House of Saud”…watch Lawrence of Arabia..The Saudi’s were given power in exchange in helping the Allies defeat the Axis powers specifically Turkey..

    3. Nothing to do with 911 yes. No WMDS? Lol they had a plenty. The real question was when did Saddam run out? Was his stash depleted on the kurds? Or did he pass it off to Iran?

      2. Hindsight is 2020 but a secular strongman WAS needed, IS needed there. What a mess!

      3. Should have stayed home, saved the $2 Trillion (and counting), and saved the tens of thousands of lives of our soldiers. What a mess.

  6. Beautifully written. Syria seems like the fulcrum for world events right now, and there is so little mainstream clarity about the situation.

  9. I had a conversation with an young Syrian refugee who had a decent command of the English language. I was eager to get some first hand information so I asked him few questions starting with: Who do you think is to blame for this mess?
    He looked at me and said: I will tell you but you are not going to like my answer. It’s Assad’s fault. OooooK – I said and proceeded with further questions.
    What transpired in the end was that the local NOGs (most probably funded by Soros) mobilized the students in protest against the president. My friend was one of the protesters. He told me he got locked up and when I asked if they tortured him he hesitantly said: Err, yes they did torture me. No external signs of torture was visible.
    It all sounded to me like another Orange revolution, another Arab Spring and another fake opposition funded from abroad. I assume that Assad did kick some ass and maybe some people did get tortured but it seems he was just ruling with a firm hand as he should considering the situation he found himself in.
    At this moment of time with the civil war it is almost impossible to find out what really happened and whose fault it is but one thing seems obvious is that the West has been meddling with their internal affairs to provoke the conflict.

    1. He’s lying to you, full of shit, or telling you what he thinks you want to hear. Lots of those protesters are from rich families who hate the gov’t for a variety of reasons.

    2. i was in Syria in 1999 as a tourist. Place was crawling with tourists. Place was functioning . Infrastructure was adequate. Visited Aleppo , Palmyra ..Really cool. If you want to see Roman shit go to the middle east. Seemed like the place a viable , legit place . Not Austria nor would I move there but now it is in ruins…. Assad seemed to be the “lesser of evils” which is how the Middle East. The “least worst ” is all we can hope for. Now it is fucked …

  10. I don’t trust this mystery meat Gabbard, really a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile, even Bernie Sanders was right on trade. Be weary of people peddling her “military career”, she was in the Hawaiian National Guard’s medical support and communications which, though undoubtedly valuable, is where you’ll find many of the dregs, college-savers, and often unhirable people (though the signal corps is by far the worst).

      1. That’s one of the most generic statements I’ve ever seen, you could easily put any thourghly average servicemember’s name in there. A bland statement for an undistinguished career.

      2. The real irony, is she posted that as a sign of her humble and honerable service to her country and as a statement of her character. Completely missing the fact that a truly humble person does not self promote…

        1. That’s politics, though. Gotta promote yourself to the lowest common denominator. Ask Michael Dukakis, et al where taking the high road got them.

        2. She’s just “humbled” and “blessed” to make sure you know she’s the Chosen One. ;^)

        4. OK where does she stand on immigration. How many muzzies does she think we should take into the country? How many immigrants does she want? I expect she is another open borders globalist until I see evidence to the contrary. Does she like Ann Coulter? I didn’t think so

      3. Photo-Op: When you care about your men so much that you kneel down to give them the privilege of catching the stray bullets while you crop their faces out of the picture. That’s Photo-op (it’s like Spec-Op, but with more fabulous), ftw.

    2. She supported Bernie Sanders in the primary and probably didn’t vote for Trump. Even a broken clock is correct two times per day.
      As to her “service”, she was already in the legislature before enlisting. I highly suspect she is a politically connected officer who probably wouldn’t have even made captain without favors at the Hawaii National Guard JFHQ.

      1. It’s not unusual to find state legislators who are also officers in their state’s national guard. Overall though it’s about the same as the regular military with lots of asskissing, favoritism, and affirmative action rank climbers who are really there to embellish their résumé.

      2. I agree. I think there is a lot of imagery and bullshit and theatre surrounding Gabbard. I don’t think she is badass and I think she is mainly a liberal. That is my 2 cents worth based on several glimpses. The story about the badass kickass hot Wonder Woman babe isn’t very convincing at least to this old fart. We’ve seen this before.

    3. She’s pretty much the only politician who has dared to speak truth to power where it really counted, and at a time (during Obama’s administration) when it was far more risky to do so. Trump should have put her in his cabinet

    4. She’s shining a light on a shady foreign “policy” shitstorm, but I too have reservations. These photogenic, identity-padded youthful heroes of the people don’t just book a flight on Kayak for some “fact finding” field trip.
      There is something brewing and it is not about Syria as much as it is about her political positioning. She’s taking some risk but only because there is a long-game at work in which she will greatly benefit in exchange for this little charade. That’s how its played, sure enough, but what of her character, her actual beliefs, values, convictions? Dubious.
      She’s got the kind of cute-ish, affable, multi-culti, affirmative action profile that screams Manchurian. Her meteoric rise should be a kind of tell, reminiscent of another dark and diverse democrat who went from obscurity, to a standing O we-the-people speech at the DNC, to the worst President in the modern era, in a few short years.
      Time magazine could have her on the cover tomorrow as a picture of “our future” and too many people would be nodding along, glossing over the obvious in favor of the glossy mod-art “hope” banners that conveniently and suddenly appear when the cameras are rolling.
      Neocons can all go suck-start a shotgun for all I care, but I’d be wary of this diverse mare just as I’m wary of those “red pill women” who make documentaries about men. The pussy pedestal is a big part of what created the neocons and churchian cucksters – and keeps them prostrating to this day.
      She very well could be great, a game changer, or a female Trumpian trumpeter, but somehow I suspect she is just one more go-girl playing tough with the boys until the boys actually start treating her like one of them and then she has to accidentally drop her vag all over creation to ascend to the preordained throne.
      She’s a democrat from a libtard multi-culti qausi-state that
      isn’t a third-world backwater only due to its fortuitous strategic location and 70 years of various Asian land-banking efforts. She’s got a
      long road to hoe to convince me.

        4. lol That’s “literally Hitler” or “Deplorable” to you sunshine.
          If you’re going to employ lazy ad hominem, at least be clever about it.

    5. I noticed some sort of medical badge on her chest, but the lapels have the officer’s military police corps insignia. Please elaborate more.

    6. She was not able to mention who paid her and got caught. She is a typical corrupt liberal who enjoys her free 5 star hotels in Syria. There is an entire circuit of such liberals. Sanders’ camp is full of them, who take foreign money and then say what they are told. Isn’t Hillary the same. Paid shill of the left, all the same

  11. I hope she’s got a trustworthy and skilled security detail. The Elites don’t like it when people fuck with their plans.
    Gabbard could sweep a presidential election. She’s got a lot going for her. Young, charismatic, slightly brown, a military service record, etc. My prediction, though? The DNC will hamstring her campaign and back some 65+ year old cruise missile liberal with mountains of baggage because it was their tuuuuurn.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a6095a8cd79e7b72478bffb3e8b95caf3d831f2c4fe49cd9e55ee40df1805c7b.jpg

  12. she’s 35?! i would have done her well 6+ years ago. Perhaps even cream pied her 10+ years ago.

  13. As I live on Kauai I met Tulsie at the Veterans Memorial Center. She is one of the four female representatives in the House that have combat experience. She may be left leaning in other areas but when it comes to foreign entanglements I think we should listen to what she is saying. This woman is as tough as nails.

    1. I’m genuinely curious as to what her actual combat experience entails. Often times CARs and CABs (apparently she has a CMB, from an administrative medical position??) are awarded in a very uneven manner.
      I’d very much like to read her citations for that and her 3-year MSM.

        2. Not very heavy into specifics. It isn’t being questioned as to whether or not she deployed.

    1. she’s not stopping men (male politicians) from doing the same is she? She’s doing something that needed to be done. It’s petty not to give credit where credit is due. Obviously if you think she’s wrong to have done what she’s done then that’s another story

      1. Yes but maybe she’s attention whoring for the 2020 election where she will, true-to-form revert back to the Identity politics , feminazi harridan like Hillary . They can’t help it…

      2. I don’t think she is wrong on that.
        She has done some right thing to which she does earn credit.
        That doesn’t mean that we can accept her or even glorify her person for it.
        What a person does is not always equal to what a person is.
        That is simply as everyone of us views and lives the world differently.
        Even as she decided to go against her nature out of good reason doesn’t mean we can ignore the mistake that clearly took place whilst doing so.
        In this article for one the author says that she “isn’t some out of touch peacenik but someone with real-world experience” with a picture of her being decorated in the military.
        Would you suppose now that that is a good thing for women to do?
        Just because she happens to have done something good?
        Be rational. She as a person shouldn’t go without criticism.

        1. “She has done some right thing to which she does earn credit.
          That doesn’t mean that we can accept her or even glorify her person for it.”
          Giving credit where credit is due isn’t glorifying a person. Acknowledging that men and women are different, and have different strengths and weakness isn’t to set their nature in stone or to automaticall invalidate anything they do. But even if there is an element of narcissism or whatever in what she is doing focusing on that is to ignore the issue at hand, that is, the issue discussed in the article, which is about the reality on the ground in Syria, and the fact that virtually every other politician in the US appears to be happy to collude with the fiction that the US under Obama was in any meaningful way fighting ISIS etc when the evidence suggests that it was in fact enabling the jihadi elements (moderate rebels) in a proxy war against russia etc. This shouldn’t even be controversial under the current administration when Trump himself has more or less said as much. When the issues are as important as this, focusing on the fact that Gabbard is a woman can only serve to distract us from the real message, which is about the failures of US foreign policy and political oversight; failures which hopefully the current administration will now put right

        2. Did you even read what I said? Did you even try to understand it? When did I even say that she does these things out of narcissism? Didn’t I myself say that she can get credit for what she did?
          Does this not also obviously mean that this is something different from glorifying her in my mind?
          Never did I say that this invalidates anything. You piss me off right now.
          You seem incapable of differentiating between the person and the act.
          The way it is now you are even promoting letting women be masculine because there might be a chance of them doing a good masculine thing.
          What you don’t fight; you accept.
          My point is that such unnatural characteristics should always be criticized. They shouldn’t be promoted just because they once led to something good. And yes, the author is promoting it and you are accepting it.
          And don’t give me that it is not important. What we are doing is clearly sending the message that there is nothing wrong with her and that women can lead a life of masculinity and have it work.
          Her life and person are something different than her act.
          Would you let a pedophile go without criticism because he did something good?

        3. “The way it is now you are even promoting letting women be masculine because there might be a chance of them doing a good masculine thing.”
          I’m not promoting anything. This is an article about Syria, and the foreign policy of the US administration under Obama with respect to Syria. Gabbard is the messenger here and instead of addressing the substance of the article, you seem to be trying to turn the whole thing into a debate about whether she’s behaving like a man, or did a masculine job (in whatever service she was in).
          I said and thought I was agreeing with you that we should not glorify / pedestalise woman but that it was correct to give credit where it is due. But turning a discussion about Syria / US foreign policy into one about the dangers of reinforcing unchickly behaviour can only be a distraction. If you want to address the issue of gender roles I would say it would be better to focus on male leadership – why are men, male politicians not leading here in speaking truth to power? For me it’s less a question of her doing a man’s job as opposed to showing the kind of leadership that should be being demonstrated by male politicians but isn’t right now.

        4. You are turning things on their head now. I am not trying to “change” the debate from Syria to how this woman should behave.
          That is pointless bullshit.
          “I’m not promoting anything.”
          What you don’t fight; you accept. And as you actively try to defend her from criticism you are indeed promoting it.
          What I am saying is that we shouldn’t forget, regardless of her acts, that she is not a role model for women to live by. For her life choices she should be critizised.
          “I would say it would be better to focus on male leadership…”
          Oh, and how are we supposed to do that when our view of women is completely out of whack? Just because she happens to have made something good?
          Get it together. The author of this article literally says that she has “real-life experience” in form of military experience. As though that would be a good thing for women.
          That is going far beyond just giving her credit for her deed.
          He IS literally glorifying her.
          Do you suppose that we lead a bunch of women to become practically men?
          What would be the point in that?
          No, she should be critizised regardless of you feeling uncomfortable about it just because she happens to have made a good deed that goes along our values.
          Her being goes against our values. We should always point that out.
          My words make perfect sense and you should know this.
          Also, no woman should teach us anything. That is a hypocritical foundation of sand.
          Even if she does this certain thing functionally right.

        5. “What you don’t fight; you accept. And as you actively try to defend her from criticism you are indeed promoting it.”
          I see zero reason for there to be any criticism of her with respect to what she is doing unless it is a veiled attack on her with respect to her own attack on US foreign policy.
          “Get it together. The author of this article literally says that she has “real-life experience” in form of military experience. As though that would be a good thing for women.”
          I doesn’t matter whether you or I approve of her real-life experience, because she happens to have that experience and appropriately in this situation has drawn from it to make a necessary commentary on the situation in Iraq. There is nothing about that, or about her treatment in the article (from memory – I can’t be bothered to re-read it) which amounts to glorifying her or her career choices. The de facto feminist position is that women’s careers matter more than family / children etc. The ROK position contradicts that, considering that that is an up-ending of the priorities that women actually have when they aren’t bullied and cajoled by feminists, governments and corporations to think otherwisem and that as such they are generally swelling themselves short. I don’t see why that needs to translate into a condemnation of every woman’s career or whatever. One of my favourite pianists right now is Yuja Wang – am I suppposed to pretend that I don’t like her interpretations just because she’s spends her days playing the piano instead of home-schooling children or whatever? I agree that women should not be pedestalised, and most of the time their careers don’t amount too much, but ultimately that’s down to them, and when their work does amount to something we should not lie to ourselves and say otherwise

        6. You still don’t get it.
          “…am I suppposed to pretend that I don’t like her interpretations just because she’s spends her days playing the piano instead of home-schooling children or whatever?”
          How did I possibly suggest such a thing? Are you being purposefully dense?
          I said that she has done a good deed to which she deserves credit.
          That is it. Not one centimeter further regarding her personality.
          And yes the author is expanding it to her personality by how she has “real-life experience” and outlining it as something good.
          For choosing such “real-life experience” she should be criticized regardless of her deed.
          It should be made clear that there is no redemption, as the author indirectly implies, from you own nature and values just because of one good, but unnatural deed.
          Because there isn’t.
          On to your entertainment by Yuja Wang. How do you even get it into your head that you have to pretend to dislike her works?
          Do you still not grasp what I am talking about?
          A civilization has to uphold values to exist.
          And yes, if this Yuja Wang places her piano career above having children then this should be seen as unwise and she should be advised against.
          You have not answered my question. Would you refrain from criticizing a pedophile because he happens to have done something good that goes with our values?
          I want you to know that just 50 years ago you would have been considered a fanatic leftist. Even as civilization has already decayed quite substantially just 50 years ago.

        7. “On to your entertainment by Yuja Wang. How do you even get it into your head that you have to pretend to dislike her works?
          Do you still not grasp what I am talking about?
          A civilization has to uphold values to exist.
          And yes, if this Yuja Wang places her piano career above having children then this should be seen as unwise and she should be advised against”
          Too forceful a position on male / female roles actually becomes absurd pretty quickly and actually undermines the substantive case the manosphere is making that they are still relevant in the modern world as they always have been. Sex roles simply don’t work when they are too coercive and / or excessively prescriptive – people simply react against them to the extent they are free to do so, and then you have to come up with some rationale for why they ‘have to’ behave in the approved fashion: that doesn’t work outside of a highly coercive regime.
          The rationale for society accommodating to a differentiation of male / female sex roles depends largely on people recognising that that is what works, is rational but also feels ‘natural’ to gravitate towards: they have to see for themselves that that makes sense. There will always be people – both men and women – who will struggle to ‘fit’ such roles, and what is happening now is that many people, women in particular are discovering that the coercion with respect to sex roles actually derives from the feminists and social engineers trying to reverse how society ‘does’ gender. Force, or anything too prescriptive is largely self-defeating. That’s particularly the case with someone particularly talented like Yuja Wang. Most women are probably being sold short in a feminist society that tells them to focus on corporate career slavery rather than motherhood / family, but there are some who will have genuine talents and who find themselves having to negotiate a pull in both directions. You can’t invalidate that in advance, even if in general women do tend to have stupid careers they would be better off weaning themselves off, or scaling back to enjoy what for most is likely to be a more fulfilling existence.
          Getting too taliban on the issue is highly likely to defeat the case you’re making

        8. Yeah, we have seen how that works with the first feminists.
          People are idiots when you let them. For people to be rational there has to be a basic incentive.
          Frankly, your suggestion is childish. It doesn’t have any bearing on reality.
          Before we achieved success that was a natural sense of danger and instability.
          Anyone who doesn’t agree with the values of the nation can’t be allowed to be part of that nation.
          That is only natural.
          “Sex roles simply don’t work when they are too coercive and / or excessively prescriptive…”
          That is the only way they have ever worked.
          Fact is that civilization happens when a bunch of men come together and decide what are values that should be promoted. Anything that subverts these values should be destroyed.
          There is nothing wrong with promoting these values in a nation that has been made by and is based on those values. There is nothing wrong with weakening subversion against those values.
          A good deed is never an excuse for what you are.
          If women wan’t to be men they can do that; somewhere else.
          Also, anwser my question.

        9. “People are idiots when you let them.”
          How do you force people not to be idiots?
          “Anyone who doesn’t agree with the values of the nation can’t be allowed to be part of that nation”
          Except even after the election of Trump it is you and for the most part all of us within ‘the manosphere’ who are at the margins when it comes to the ‘values of the nation’. Much of the ground that has been won has been won precisely because we were able to demonstrate that it is the left / progressives etc. who believed in coercion and monolithic values.
          “That is the only way they have ever worked.”
          The only way you can return to those ways through coercion is by emulating the likes of the Taliban, the Saudis or even ISIS – there is no viable model of contemporary “authoritarianism” that would meet your unworkable requirements. As importantly the powers that be make damn good use of those example of ‘extremist’ oppression to keep the nutcase progressive programme on track. One of the only reasons the right has made the gains it has made is that it was successfully able to present itself as the de facto side that supports free determination for free peoples (sovereignty and nationalism being an extension of that) and it was only able to do that because the elites failed in their attempt to portray the (alternative) right, the manosphere etc as a bunch of extremists indistinguishable from the taliban and ISIS etc. Your argument (effectively favouring coercion) might as well be built from the ground upwards to play right into their hands.
          “A good deed is never an excuse for what you are.
          If women wan’t to be men they can do that; somewhere else.
          Also, anwser my question.”
          A good deed? We’re talking about exposing the neo-con deception in the middle east, a deception that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and not only do you do everything to ignore that issue – you haven’t addressed it in any substantive way except in order to move the discussion away from the issue – you refer to it as ‘a good deed’? Trust me, our elites are absolutely fine with us trying to get women back into the kitchen or whatever, just as they were happy for women to try to cut our balls off in the collective – precisely because it distracts from what they are really doing.
          As for your question about rewarding paedophiles for good behaviour or whatever I haven’t answered it because it seems like a kind of silly question. I don’t know that much about Gabbard’s career, but real world experience is generally something held to be useful regardless of whose experience it is, or whether the person in question had a good reason to acquire it in the first place – Qunitus’ point here is not that we should lick her feet but that unlike most progressive female mouthpieces she is coming from a position where her judgement may actually be relatively sound.
          I don’t think women make good soldiers and I particularly dislike the idea of them acting as combat soldiers, but if it so happens that they have that experience then they have it. It’s not for me to ‘reward or punish’ them on account of it – you could argue it reflected a failure of judgement on their part but it certainly isn’t a moral failing in the same way as paedophilia is. Acting like a man is something which as far as I’m concerned simply doesn’t not enhance a woman: it distracts from her as a women and therefore is more a question of aesthetics than of morality, if indeed it is at all.
          In a different context it might be worth exploring this, but in the context of something far more important like US foreign policy in Syria focusing on issues like these (in a way reminiscent to an ad hominem attack) seems to me nothing more than a distraction.

        10. “…who believed in coercion and monolithic values.”
          That’s cute. So?
          There is no strength in division. Civilizations don’t work like that. Face it.
          Maybe the mainstream public has granted us some leverage bvecause the left has lost it’s way of tolerance. So?
          There is nothing resembling strength in this.
          That aside I don’t believe in coercing anyone. I believe in the people coercing themselves.
          When you wan’t to be part of something you have to fit.
          If you don’t than you have to change yourself or you can’t expect to be part of it.
          When you think that’s coercion and not just natural, so be it.
          “The only way you can return to those ways…”
          Wrong. The way I can actually return to those ways is by choosing my friends and associates and rejecting all outward influence that doesn’t fit our values.
          As is natural.
          No one can expect to be part of something who’s values he rejects.
          The idea that a nation has to satisfy everyone, and not just the people that follow it’s values, is absurd.
          “A good deed? We’re talking…”
          You are really pissing me off right now. So much so that I am not ready to converse another word with you unless finally face this.
          There is no good deed that justifies a bad deed. Just because soem person makes a good deed, no matter how good, doesn’t mean this person is flawless or it’s flaws suddenly become less important.
          No, exactly here we should be hard and we should make it clear that there is no redemption from nature and values. As is obvious when you think about it.
          Spare me any further glorfication and answer my question.

        11. “That aside I don’t believe in coercing anyone. I believe in the people coercing themselves.”
          Actually that’s pretty much what our globalist leaders believe in too. That’s why they focus on ideology, and ‘technologies of the self’ – we are supposed to govern ourselves as they would wish us to, because they have swallowed what we’ve been told. That’s why coercion from the left or the right, really doesn’t change much. In both cases people end up losing their freedom and capacity for self-determination. I’d also note that the rationale behind this isn’t charity or anything, it’s the slow realisation – particularly after the failed communist experiments – that people can’t easily be governed by force: at least, they can but they become cowed and unproductive. That doesn’t mean they won’t respond to strong or forceful leadership, whether from a Putinesque type leader at the national level, or an alpha male leading the household at the domestic but that unless people are fully behind such a situation, i.e. exercising for the most part their own volition, then there will be trouble in store – at least outside of the kind of violently coercive regime where loyalty and cooperation are not optional.
          “The way I can actually return to those ways is by choosing my friends and associates and rejecting all outward influence that doesn’t fit our values.
          As is natural.
          No one can expect to be part of something who’s values he rejects.”
          Fair enough. But that’s a description of liberty and its free exercise. Applying that at the level of nation / state depends obviously on shared values, and that’s usually the issue, because those values are what are currently being thrashed out.
          “You are really pissing me off right now. So much so that I am not ready to converse another word with you unless finally face this. / There is no good deed that justifies a bad deed. Just because soem person makes a good deed, no matter how good, doesn’t mean this person is flawless or it’s flaws suddenly become less important.”
          I don’t even know why we’re discussing this. Again, you’re trying to turn an article about US foreign policy into a discussion about the individual who prompted the discussion. If you really cared about the substantive issues involved in the article you wouldn’t be getting so wound up about the fact Gabbard doesn’t meet your ideal of womanhood
          Re. answering your question, I thought I did – it was something about (not) rewarding paedophiles for their good deeds. I still don’t think it has anything to do with what we’re discussing

        12. “Actually that’s pretty much what our globalist leaders believe in too.”
          That doesn’t mean anything.
          “…really doesn’t change much.”
          You can’t just make shit up. You will not strawman this.
          Fact is that no one belongs to a group whose ideals he opposes. Simple.
          That has nothing to do with taking away free will.
          “…because those values are what are currently being thrashed out.”
          I know that. So what? Doesn’t mean that the solution isn’t going back to a “monolithic” and rational view on values. Logically there is no point in tolerating mistakes anyhow.
          “Again, you’re trying to turn an article about US foreign policy into a discussion about the individual who prompted the discussion.”
          Am I supposed to stand idly by whilst fools glorify her person?
          “…you wouldn’t be getting so wound up…”
          Again and again and again. The person is seperate of the deed. No matter how substantive it may be.
          I don’t care if she damn saved the world.
          Does this mean that we should glorify her and pretend that the things that we despise are all of the sudden good? That she is flawless?
          “I still don’t think it has anything to do with what we’re discussing”
          Are you being willfully ignorant? Clearly the pedophile is a placeholder for that woman.
          As I have noticed you don’t particularly mind masculine women.
          And as your entire argument of all of the sudden not criticizing a person because of a good deed is based on emotion alone…
          I simply had to find something that you would emotionally react to.
          That is simply as to get your head around the following logical truth.
          A good deed does not redeem a person’s character or short comings. No matter how good it may be. It is no basis to glorify that person.
          Nor is it any basis to defend that person against criticism.
          Also, the belief in nature and inherent values is our highest ideal. Even if that woman wins some apparent huge victory it is made meaningless for us when we throw our values and clear lines out of the window.
          I can’t stand hypocrites.

        13. You said that “I believe in the people coercing themselves.” and I said “that’s pretty much what our globalist leaders believe in too.” I explained what I meant by that yet you simply assert ‘that doesn’t mean anything’. I am referring to ideology, indoctrination – the means of effectively changing the mind’s “software” so that people govern themselves in the way you want them to. I am saying that by believing ‘in the people coercing themselves’ you are aligned with the indoctrinators of the left, the marxists, the people we are supposed to be working against, because we prefer to believe in a free society
          “…really doesn’t change much.”
          You can’t just make shit up. You will not strawman this.
          I have no idea what you are referring to therefore I cannot respond to it. If you care to clarify I’ll attempt to respond
          “I know that. So what? Doesn’t mean that the solution isn’t going back to a “monolithic” and rational view on values. Logically there is no point in tolerating mistakes anyhow.”
          So rational is monolithic?
          “Am I supposed to stand idly by whilst fools glorify her person?
          “…you wouldn’t be getting so wound up…”
          Again and again and again. The person is seperate of the deed. No matter how substantive it may be.
          I don’t care if she damn saved the world.
          Does this mean that we should glorify her and pretend that the things that we despise are all of the sudden good? That she is flawless?”
          Nobody is glorifying her except in your own mind. The article praises a stance she took as courageous. I agree with that because she was the only one who dared to speak out, and to act on her convictions. She’s a democrat so it should be pretty obvious that neither I or the author are inclined to ‘glorify her’. Hher conduct on this matter however is worthy of praise – I still suspect that you disagree with the politics in question here hence you are arguing ‘the person’ – the ad hominem – it’s as though you think every body should belong to rigid castes and never disagree within that caste or show any kind of sympathy let alone solidarity outside that caste. I find that bizarre except to the extent that I consider your position to be crypto-political rather than entirely ideological.
          “As I have noticed you don’t particularly mind masculine women. ”
          You mean Gabbard? Pretty sure Yuja Wang isn’t masculine. I understand the concern with women acting as men and share that concern, however unlike you I don’t care to erect an unbridgeable iron curtain between the ying and the yang
          “Clearly the pedophile is a placeholder for that woman.”
          Clearly I’m arguing that it isn’t. Diddling children and choosing a career are not on a moral par. Unless of course the career you are choosing is to diddle children. Beyond Gabbard’s position in speaking up against the hypocrisy of the neo-con war-mongering establishment I assure you I don’t give a shit about Gabbard’s career.
          “And as your entire argument of all of the sudden not criticizing a person because of a good deed is based on emotion alone…
          I simply had to find something that you would emotionally react to.”
          What on earth you are even referring to? What emotion?
          “Even if that woman wins some apparent huge victory it is made meaningless for us when we throw our values and clear lines out of the window.”
          If you agree with her politics you wouldn’t care, just as I don’t care. Gabbard is of interest to me only because she’s exposing hypocrisy and lies. When wikileaks published all those podesta emails democrats argued that no-one should care because the russians were behind it all (or similar rubbish) – yet those emails betrayed the corruption at the heart of the democratic party. Your position is identical to those democrats saying we should care what’s in the e-mails because of who was (allegedly) responsible for them

        14. That still doesn’t mean anything. When you choose to be part of a group you have to accept it’s ideals.
          That is a free choice. That here is the emotional strawman I am responding to in conjunction to this:
          “That’s why coercion from the left or the right, really doesn’t change much.”
          You can’t just make that up.
          You can call it what you want and you can use my semantics against me but it won’t change that coercing, especially by own free choice, due to a natural circumstance isn’t in any way a bad thing.
          “So rational is monolithic?”
          When you have the truth the rational thing is to keep it pure. And to tolerate perceived mistakes based on that is always foolish.
          “Nobody is glorifying her…”
          And yet you are here defending her. You would throw away our values and become hypocrites because we have won something that goes along our values.
          That’s not how you achieve anything.
          There is nothing wrong about criticizing her person regardless of her deed. Especially as this is vital to a true victory. When we abandon what we wanted to bring to victory we haven’t won.
          “I still suspect that you disagree with the politics in question…”
          And this is what pisses me off about you. What? If I would agree with the politics would I then refrain from criticizing her?
          Is it just unimaginable to you that I think that Assad did an excellent job of keeping terrorists at bay and that America shouldn’t have messed with it?
          And I can’t stand liars and neocons. Again, she definitely did a good thing to which she earns credit.
          And that I am yet able to do the for you uncomfortable deed of criticizing her person as to not let us become hypocrites and to remain true to our values?
          Don’t try to revive your strawman and don’t assume bullshit about me.
          “…you think that every body should belong to rigid castes…”
          Another strawman. Great. I think that if you want to belong to a group you have to accept it’s ideals.
          So if you want to belong to the gentleman’s club you have to behave like one.
          When did I ever say that everyone just has to stick to his group or “caste” forever?
          Don’t put words in my mouth.
          I don’t care what you consider.
          “You mean gabbard? Pretty sure Yuja Wang isn’t masculine.”
          “Diddling children and choosing a career are not on a moral par.”
          No shit. However I used this to get your emotional reasoning to go full circle. I finally got you to indirectly say that gabbard has and is disrespecting our values.
          You do mind gabbard and the only reason you defend her as she tramples our values is because she has made a good deed you deem more important than our values.
          You don’t want to “taint” this victory because it feels uncomfortable.
          There is no other reason.
          After all you don’t care all that much about true values when they truly mean something.
          Tell me outright is it worth sacrificing what makes us to win?
          “If you agree with her politics you wouldn’t care,…”
          What if I told you that I am what I say I am and that I believe in the things I say I believe in and that you are simply outright lying about me to your convenience?
          What even is this bullshit? What do you accomplish by slandering me like this?
          I am not the hypocrite here.

        15. “When you choose to be part of a group you have to accept it’s ideals.”
          Maybe so, but I don’t know what group you’re referring to. ROK, the manosphere etc contains a broad mix of opinions: it’s a place where men can thrash out differences, but not with a view to creating some monolithic orthodoxy. I have not the slightest interest in that
          “That here is the emotional strawman I am responding to in conjunction to this:
          “That’s why coercion from the left or the right, really doesn’t change much.”
          I really don’t get what you mean here: as I remember all I was saying here that thinking in terms of ‘the right’ or ‘the left’ may be illusory where there is more that the two agree on than disagree, specifically in this case, coercion, or trying to force people to all think in the same way.
          “You can call it what you want and you can use my semantics against me but it won’t change that coercing, especially by own free choice, due to a natural circumstance isn’t in any way a bad thing”
          What on earth does that mean? – “coercing, especially by own free choice”?
          “When you have the truth the rational thing is to keep it pure.” But you see that’s the problem: even if ‘you have the truth’ you still have to persuade people that that is the case. If you can’t even persuade me, and I’m probably not that unsympathetic to your position, then how can you hope to persuade others? And if you can’t persuade them, then it comes back to coercion, force.
          “I think that if you want to belong to a group you have to accept it’s ideals.
          I don’t have a problem with that. Just accept that the likelihood is that you’re likely to find your group is in the minority to the extent that you inflexible with respect to those ideals. Don’t misunderstand me, sometimes ideals shouldn’t be bent or deformed just for the sake of increasing popular appeal, but so far you haven’t demonstrated to me that those ideals are worthy of being kept poor. For instance when it comes to gender role differentiation, we both seem to agree that men and women are better of respecting gender differences, but you seem to be far more rigid in applying that . You don’t have to accommodate to a world you disagree with perhaps, but you have to be pragmatic. Personally I don’t see Tulsi Gabbard as being ‘masculine’ – maybe I don’t know enough about her but from what I’ve heard so far I quite respect her as a politician. The fact that she’s a democrat is the main indicator for me that she is someone whose views would probably diverge from my own. The fact that she’s a democrat might also indicate she’s a feminist of some sort either in name or in action. For me that’s reason enough to lower my expectations with respect to her future conduct, but not modify my opinion of her with respect to her conduct so far. Would I vote for her (were I a US citizen, which I’m not)? Unlikely, but if there was one candidate who was a neo-con cuck who I knew was going to vote for wars in the middle east, I might well consider it. To be honest I have such profoundly low expectations with respect to most politicians both male and female, it’s difficult to look at things like this as primarily relating to gender. I am against feminism, but these days you’re as likely to get male feminist politicians as you are female ones. We live in a world where compromise is pretty unavoidable unless you want to hole yourself up in a compound in the woods
          “What if I told you that I am what I say I am and that I believe in the things I say I believe in and that you are simply outright lying about me to your convenience?
          What even is this bullshit? What do you accomplish by slandering me like this?
          I am not the hypocrite here.”
          I was slandering you because you seem completely uninterested in the subject matter of the article, which raised my suspicions. Likewise your argument amounted to an ad hominem attack against Gabbard – effectively you are arguing that we should ignore the message on account of who the messenger is. You may well be who you say you are, and share the same concerns about US foreign policy deception, but with respect to the latter you just don’t seem very concerned, and I find that difficult to understand Gabbard was pretty much the only person – of either party or either gender – speaking truth to power on this matter – and if we were to disregard her as you appear to want – there would have been no-one speaking up on this matter. Yet I am supposed to believe you when you say that you are aligned with my concerns here, as well as presumably with Gabbard’s herself (however much you may disapprove of her career)? That doesn’t make sense, even if you are telling the truth

        16. “I have not the slightest interest in that” I do, as it doesn’t change how civilization works.
          And I don’t have to be referring to anything but the ideal way. Also, RoK, like any group, has monolithic ideals even if those aren’t very precise. Faggots and women are excluded for one. Not much but this is clearly monolithic.
          What I mean about this strawman is that it simply concludes that no coercion works whilst disregarding and not even considering my points.
          “What on earth does that mean?” – “coercing, especially by own free choice”?
          As far as I am aware coercion is nothing more than forcefulness. And that’s the way I mean it anyhow. I myself feel coerced to do certain things. And as this coercion only comes due to a natural consequence, can’t be part of a group whose ideals you oppose, there really is nothing about it that actively tries to undermine free will.
          “And if you can’t persuade them, then it comes back to coercion, force.”
          That is another strawman. Will I try to persuade people with words? Sure.
          But how did I ever imply that forcing their will on my own is my last weapon?
          Let me give you an example of what I mean. The world ends. We men therefore come together and rebuild it. We also have a code and values that govern our ways.
          Other people will find themselves in a position of natural coercion. They can join our group and follow it’s values or they won’t have part of it’s benefits.
          It does not make sense to throw away our values that made us great and ultimately drive us to achieve such benefits.
          I deem the military as masculine, yes. Also, what I am speaking of doesn’t only work on the national scale. To uphold the values that made our civilization is the only way to greatness.
          To broaden the definition of greatness means to cheapen it.
          That is why a clear stance and criticism are important.
          Do I endorse what she did instead of rejecting it based on that? Sure.
          Do I not criticize her person because of it? Never.
          Would I become a hypocrite because of it?
          “Likewise your argument amounted to an ad hominem…”
          I don’t care about your strawman. Fact is that I support her on that thing she did.
          That’s it. An ad hominem is pointless when the perpetrator doesn’t disagree with the topic in question. Because I agree with her point, you have nothing to argue here.

        17. “Also, RoK, like any group, has monolithic ideals even if those aren’t very precise. Faggots and women are excluded for one. Not much but this is clearly monolithic.”
          I wouldn’t say ROK has monolithic ideals. Yes, I know there’s a list of core values but I doubt you’ll find that many regulars who subscribe to all of them. I don’t subscribe to all of them, and I’ve made that clear in the past, and Roosh still hasn’t banned me. In fact Roosh is in my opinion a pragmatist, not to mention one of the twenty-first centuries great ‘trolls’ – and I don’t mean he isn’t serious about what he says, but that a great deal of what he says is about trolling progressives, a group of people who God created just so that they could be trolled and triggered and for no other reason. The moment you start to take all of this too seriously (even if….especially if it is serious) – and you regard the values in question as non-negotiable and ‘monolithic’, relating to a group of subscribers who are necessarily going to exclude more people than they can ever include, you’ll find you’re on the losing team. Roosh has generally stuck to his guns, but he’s also made many pragmatic and typically shifting alliances, including with uber-fags like Milo – not least because both Milo and Roosh shared a goal, namely getting Trump into power. In the same way Quintus, the author of this article, and someone who often appears to be one of Roosh’s right hand men is able to be pretty flexible – even to the extent of praising a democratic, female politician in this case – precisely because – I presume – he knows what he stands for without having to be inflexible in the application of his beliefs.
          “As far as I am aware coercion is nothing more than forcefulness. ”
          Well clearly coercion can be a great deal more than forcefulness. It usually means forcing people to do something against their will, rather than through consent, something you’ve indicated is not what you mean. I don’t have any problem with groups seeking to freely associate with people of like mind, and having certain expectations that those who join them will hold similar beliefs, which seems to be what you’re really talking about, but I do think trying to make that monolithic in the sense of ‘dogmatically pure’ or even completely consistent is a losing strategy. People differ in their views, including on this site …. especially on this site
          “Do I endorse what she did instead of rejecting it based on that? Sure.
          Do I not criticize her person because of it? Never.”
          Look, I think I know by now where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that’s a particularly clear position – people don’t always meet our expectations or requirements. For the most part, the best we can hope for is that we can find some kind of common ground or alignment even if we know that that may turn out to be temporary and ramshackle. She’s a female democrat politician after all. If you really do approve of what she did then I’d say her personal background, career, personality etc should be fairly irrelevant in all this. There was hypocrisy and deception that needed to be called out. She was the one that called it out. Everything else should be irrelevant. If Roosh invites her to write a column at ROK or something that might be a different story

        18. As said when you broaden the definition of greatness then you cheapen it.
          I stand by this truth. Hypocrisy is what it is too.
          That being said you may say that her background should be fairly irrelevant but yet you clearly see the author going beyond that.
          Merely accepting her by not criticizing her is something different than promoting or defending her.
          However it is clear that you see this differently and won’t consider my arguments whilst I don’t care about reach at the expense of clarity.
          Let’s just leave it then.

        19. civilization isn’t quite what it used to be, and I’m not sure thinking in terms of ‘greatness’ is particularly realistic at the moment, which is why I favour pragmatism, and working out what’s important and what is less so. We seem to disagree somewhat on that, which is fine. Anyhow, thanks for the debate

        20. I have always found pragmatism silly for that. What worth does anything hold that doesn’t pursue greatness?
          And “the way is the goal” is just a means of being content with mediocrity.
          When you have no ideals to measure yourself by you don’t have anything worth measuring. That is what I think.
          If the pursuit of greatness is unrealistic or not feasible in any moment than this pursuit is always pointless. Nothing is perfect and as such there is always something to improve.
          Therefore the choice to do so can always be taken regardless of the circumstances.
          The choice to always improve, step by step and day by day, is what makes the world.

        21. pragmatism shouldn’t have anything to do with mediocrity, but it will seek to orient to the reality of the situation, including where constraints are likely to impact upon success or failure etc. As such as I don’t think it would serve to hamper what you call ‘greatness’ – if we stick with your term – but would be incompatible with inflexibility, a rigidity of mind or attitude that might reflect a weakness of reality orientation. Actually I don’t like the term greatness much – it is far too reminiscent of what some have called a quest for self-glorification. If you recall your initial objection related to an alleged ‘glorifying’ of a particular woman, so why should it be so much better if we seek out greatness for ourselves. It sounds like vain-glory to me. Rather than speak of greatness, why not simply insist upon sticking to one’s principles, allowing of course for the fact that these will differ from person to person?

        22. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. What do you think you will accomplish by what you do?
          Fact is that every centimeter you give you will never get back.
          We are the ones making standards here. And if we keep lowering them just to appeal to wider masses then we can only lose.
          What do you think will happen with all these lesser and lesser red pill, rootless people?
          They will bring more and more rootless people and lower the standards even more.
          Decay or true progress (towards greatness). There is no middle ground and there are no pragmatic short cuts.
          Do you think that arrogance is part of greatness?
          There is absolutely no fault and no flaw to pursuing greatness by the very nature of it. Therefore you cannot criticize it.

        23. You’re still on about greatness. As far as you’re concerned my position is for some reason hypocritical but from my perspective I see you as pursuing a narrow creed that in this case is serving to distract from the fact that TPTB are lying to us about Syria, lying about (partially) funding rather than opposing terrorist groups in the middle east. As for ‘greatness’, you’re not pursuing greatness, you’re sticking your head in the sand in the name of the red pill. All the elites care about is to distract us from what is really going on in the world.
          I think we’ve said all that can be said on the matter. Let’s conclude this debate as we said we were going to

        24. “You’re still on about greatness.” So what? Did you think I’d suddenly drop it? How’d I ever indicate that?
          You were the one talking about pragmatism as we were just about ending this debate.
          You think I would just let you go without as you indirectly demand the last word?
          There has to be some Latin fallacy name for that.
          I also don’t like that you simply omitted my point despite having been the one to keep the discussion going.
          Fact is that every centimeter you give…
          You are hypocritical as you defend tulsi’s person despite being against masculine women as far as I understand.
          If you don’t like the traditional sex roles then say so outright.
          And no, no amount of usefulness will make this position not hypocritical.
          “…serving to distract from the fact that TPTB…”
          I don’t care as I don’t support hypocrisy for whatever reason.
          And yes. Let’s just end the debate here on my last word.

        25. “You’re still on about greatness.” So what? Did you think I’d suddenly drop it? How’d I ever indicate that?
          It’s vainglorious and irrelevant.
          “You think I would just let you go without as you indirectly demand the last word?
          There has to be some Latin fallacy name for that.”
          why are we still talking?
          “I also don’t like that you simply omitted my point despite having been the one to keep the discussion going.”
          What point? Why are you keeping this discussion going not least since you have no interest in the actual article?
          “You are hypocritical as you defend tulsi’s person despite being against masculine women as far as I understand.” / If you don’t like the traditional sex roles then say so outright.
          I am not against masculine women. I’m against a society that masculinizes women as a matter of policy. I’m against social engineering. Your reward / punishment regime perpetuates social engineering, but in the opposite direction
          “…serving to distract from the fact that TPTB…”
          I don’t care as I don’t support hypocrisy for whatever reason.
          You care about the messenger but not about the message, yet you still fail to acknowledge that TPTB seek to distract from such messages by doing exactly what you are doing, engaging in ad hominem reductions. The neo-con spooks may not employ you but they sure as hell must appreciate the help you’re giving them

        26. Spare me. What the hell?
          You were the one to try and end it with your last word.
          But you think that greatness is irrelevant. Which is fascinating.
          Every centimeter you give; you will never get back. But you don’t have any lines or values anyhow.
          Your continuous oversimplifications and strawmen will not change reality.
          Reality is that if you want to be part of a group and want to enjoy it’s benefits you will have to accept it’s ideals. That is natural.
          That is how every civilization ever came to be. Your emotional bullshit is what tears civilizations down.
          Without the pursuit of greatness nothing has ever been achieved nor is it in any way rational to tolerate mistakes. But you can’t even define what a mistake is because you don’t define what is actually great. What a muddy, indecisive mind.
          Yes, you may not be a hypocrite but that is only as I have overestimated you.
          You are nothing and have nothing to say ideologically. Live in your broad swamp of meaninglessness for all I care.
          Keep comforting yourself and everyone around you that there are no standards to live up to.
          How utterly naive and childish.
          Why are you even here?

        27. “But you can’t even define what a mistake is because you don’t define what is actually great. What a muddy, indecisive mind.”
          You are the one referencing ‘mistakes’ and ‘greatness’ so why should I define them?. I’d tell you to define them yourself, but I’m not remotely interested.
          “You are nothing and have nothing to say ideologically.”
          What does that even mean? The term ‘ideology’ is generally used pejoratively, except by marxists.
          Throughout this conversation the only thing of significance has been the fact that you have sought to redirect away from the subject of the article at all costs. Your reference to ‘greatness’ is an attempt to channel ‘Trump loyalty’away from his condemnation of american foreign policy in Syria and the middle east, and back to the distraction of exaggerating gender / class conflict. This is the only explanation that can account for your bizarre style of arguing

        28. I can define mistakes as I have a clear stance. You in your diverse mud of meaninglessness have nothing.
          Well, what could it mean? It means that you don’t stand in for anything because your naïveté drives you to comfort everyone based on feelings.
          You have nothing concise and clear about you.
          “…except by marxists.”
          How brazen can you be? That here is an actual ad hominem and not what you are on about.
          “…only thing of significance…”
          Based on what? Your feelings?
          Every centimeter you give; you will never get back.
          But certainly as you don’t have any standards you can’t even lose.
          “Your reference to ‘greatness’ is an attempt to channel…”
          Yes, of course I am trying to undermine the condemnation of american… whatever inane bullshit baseless accusation. “Trump loyalty” is no person btw.
          What is even going on in your brain.
          “…exaggerating gender / class conflict.”
          Spare me your strawman. There was no conflict of the SEXES 200 years ago.
          Your kind and your lack of standards is what tries to erradicate the SEXES and a complimentary natural way of life.
          There have never been any genders.
          You are impermissibly illogical. Please tell me that you’re an atheist.
          Would explain why you have no lines, standards and sense of moral above some fancy feelings.

        29. “It means that you don’t stand in for anything because your naïveté drives you to comfort everyone based on feelings.
          You have nothing concise and clear about you.”
          Unless you’re trolling you might want to read over what you write occasionally. You have a very odd writing style and there is nothing clear about it. As for you going on about ‘my feelings’ the only time I have ever encountered that kind of accusation in the past was from people mimicking rather than representing the manosphere. I was ready to give you the benefit of the doubt at one point, but it seems clear to me that the meaning of what you communicate are the subjects you avoid: namely Syria and the middle east; the deceptive US foreign policy under Obama and his intelligence supremos that saw at the very least indirect support of terrorist groups like Al Nusra. You never ever address these things except to move away from them.

        30. You are overly emotional and irrational as you don’t mind degeneracy.
          Whatever does not support the values of a nation shouldn’t be allowed in that nation.
          It should be destroyed.
          There is no logical reason to tolerate mistakes.
          There is also no logical reason not to strive for improvement.
          But you are all about reach no matter what it does to truth.
          You wouldn’t and can’t stand up for values as you don’t have any. You are here for the emotion. You wouldn’t allow anything that feels painful or forces responsibility and standards on you.
          How often do I have to tell you that no matter if this or that person saved the world I will not let anyone glorify that person and call it’s mistakes and weaknesses good.
          Spare me your strawman.
          “You never ever address these things except to move away from them.”
          How often have I addressed them now? Three times at least when I remember.
          You know my answer but you cannot fathom it as my clear lines are terrifying to you.
          I perfectly agree. Doesn’t mean that tulsi shouldn’t be criticized for her life choices.
          No, especially here any glorification is to be avoided and it should be made clear that there is no redemption from nature and values.
          But clearly your emotional nature doesn’t allow that.
          Are you an atheist?

        31. “You never ever address these things except to move away from them.”
          How often have I addressed them now? Three times at least when I remember.”
          you address them as briefly as possible in order to move the subject to something else. Everything you have said is irrelevant to the actual article i.e. distracts from a critically sensitive area of incriminating US foreign policy. In fact I would say that was your rhetorical trick: rather than disagree on the substantive issue in question, you will concede the absolute minimal agreement, and then amplify disagreement on an unrelated question. Why else would you be arguing so hard on a subject that I’ve indicated I’m not even interested in talking about – as I’ve made clear several times.
          “You know my answer but you cannot fathom it as my clear lines are terrifying to you.
          I perfectly agree.”
          I appreciate you checking your post this time, but it still reads kind of strange. There are words and phrases you use which suggests to me you aren’t a native english speaker. In the history of the English language no-one before you has said ‘my clear lines are terrifying to you”
          “I perfectly agree.” Fantastic, although you don’t say with what
          “Are you an atheist?” I’ve comment on that many times before on these boards. I’m not discussing that with you

        32. Wow. Weren’t you the one who said that I should look critically at the evidence?
          “…that was your rhetorical trick…”
          Of course I’d do that. Just for you. For no actual purpose or gain.
          “In the history of the English language…” “you aren’t a native english…”
          So what?
          “…don’t say with what”
          What could it possibly be in the context?
          I am not discussing anything about atheism with you.
          I just want to reassure that your irrationality pairs with atheism.
          Makes sense as there are hardly any more illogical and hypocritical people than atheists on this planet.

        33. “…don’t say with what”
          What could it possibly be in the context?”
          you always say as little as possible when you claim to agree with something, that’s why I believe it is a rhetorical trick designed to de-emphasise the substantive issue.
          “…that was your rhetorical trick…”
          Of course I’d do that. Just for you. For no actual purpose or gain.”
          Of course you wouldn’t do it for no actual purpose or gain. I said I believe it to be so, I am not claiming to be able to prove it definitively, so deny to your heart content

        34. “,…so deny to your heart content”
          You cannot avoid logic with this. This is just yet another strawman.
          There is no possible purpose or gain to deflecting from the issue.
          Nor are you in any way important.
          That is an obvious truth which should have prevented you from ever even considering this.
          Fact is that you and the author were not just defending a broken woman but also glorifying her.
          That is despicable. Your dumb strawman won’t change that.

        35. strawman this, strawman that. People always have agendas, and they aren’t always straightforward in how they advance them. What you don’t talk and won’t talk about is I believe the real substance of your position. All that ‘defending, glorifying a broken woman’ stuff is secondary

        36. Based on what and with what objective?
          What is it that you don’t get into your head?
          There is no gain to any of these actions whatsoever if I had your retarded motive.
          You truly are severely lacking logically. To go so far as to call me a liar to protect your feelings.
          Regardless you are the spineless man disregarding all value lest it be uncomfortable.
          You are likely only trying to annoy me now.
          Let’s not speak again.

        37. feeling, feelings. Again you’re mimicking what you’ve heard. You’re words are inauthentic
          But it doesn’t really matter what you’re agenda is, or whether you’re a liar. I haven’t alleged that you are. All that matters is that with respect to this article, intentionally or otherwise you’re working to the advantage of the blood-thirsty neo-con foreign policy agenda by effectively giving it a free pass. Your protestations to the contrary are as weak as your arguments

    2. Correct. But hey, she is not doing a MAN’s job ! She has been “given” a chance (and “easy way”) by the MEN, period !
      And; what did she do to glorify, anyway !!

  15. Goddamn J Neocons are worse than the liberals.
    They are going to be the thorn in Trump’s side more than anything and they’re sucking and fucking their way up to assure that pussy Pence gets in the drivers seat for the continuation of Bush/Obama. Pence is nothing more than Killary Lite.

    1. The butthurt from the campaign runneth over. Who in their right mind would ever vote for a puss like Lindsey Graham? How does this dipshit still hold an office?

      1. Name recognition and neocon dollars. That homo makes Obama look like Schwarzenegger. That’s how toxic Graham and those neocon queens are.

  16. This trip is nothing more than a photo-op, featuring a pretty face and an empty head. Gabbard is one of the last great white hopes for the desperate Democrats in 2020.

  17. Oh they aren’t going quietly alright. Little Marco, the raging ball of dementia McCain, and his girlfriend Lindsey look to cause Trump as many problems as they possibly can when able to. Unfortunately the first two had their contracts renewed last year.

  18. “While we will never get a mea culpa from the people who started and sustained the war, Gabbard’s trip at least begins the process of recognizing the horrific human cost of the West’s regime-change project.”
    The whole neo-con project should be seen in terms of war crime / crimes against humanity. The people behind all of this need to be brought to account even if they can’t be brought to trial. At the very least the entire neo-con political establishment and everyone who aided and abetted them in their conspiracies need to be removed from any and all positions of institutional power and influence. One could usefully start with the dismantling their poisonous little think tanks

  19. I agree that the enemies of Assad are bad people. However, not sure if Assad is really preferable to the syrians. The current Assad wouldn’t be the first to massacre his people either. To deny that Assad massacred some of his subjects is delusional. That’s not to say that there should be an intervention by America or Regime change — but what is certain is that the writer of this article is partial to Putin’s russia. And of course, post-Soviet Russian leaders are much better for russians than American leaders have been for Americans in the last 53+ years or so. And their women are certainly much more feminine. But let’s be objective: Russia is flexing muscle in the middle east, and Russian interests may not necessarily align with traditionalist western interests. Even if they do, whatever the Russians have been doing should have always been done with consultation and cooperation from the US as long as it isn’t Russia’s backyard. Not that we should listen to cuckservatives Graham and McCain, but we shouldn’t take sides with Assad either simply because Putin is on his side.

  20. John McCain and Lindsey Graham just came out today critizing Trumps Muslim Ban. Those two fund ISIS and then want to bring them into the country all in the name of “Security” What a joke, if we lived back in the day those two would have been strapped to the front end of a cannon.

  21. Great move by Gabbard. She’s been complaining about the U.S. arming the rebels for a while; this trip helped her show there’s no such ‘good guy’ ‘moderate rebels’.
    You would think Clinton supporter heads would be exploding as they realize what a mess she created as SOS arming the head choppers and how she lied about doing that. I think as more and more about this comes out, it’s great to have someone on the Democrat side saying this, otherwise the Clinton die-hards will claim it’s just Republican B.S.

  22. The article still misses the point of US/Israel intervention in Syria, which is to destabilise, allow for a greater ‘Israel’ to be proclaimed and have all that lovely US oil pumped from Iraq to ports in the Med for export( read;control). Will be interesting to to see what Twump does now.

    1. You spoke the truth. 99% of what happened & going on in Syria is a well-planned conspiracy of this Country & Israel. Irony is the whole world knows about this truth !!

  23. She’s a Democrat, so she’s disqualified.
    Republicans may not have all (or most) of the answers, but the Democrats have none. They are anti-American, pro-Globalist to the core.

    1. I don’t think the point of the article was that she’s a democrat, rather that she uncovered truths that both mainstream dems and republicans don’t want to hear. Quintus himself would not have chosen to spotlight her trip had he not thought it was wise to do so. Remember you have to be willing to question everything, even if it comes from the mouth of someone you nominally disagree with.

  25. Did any one check what is under the hood yet? She looks muscular and without that hair piece and make up should be masculine!

    1. I’m against female pastors and politicians, period, and consider them Divine Judgment.
      Isaiah 3:12
      “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

  27. She’s a smart opportunist. Hawaiians are usually just filipinos with an axe to grind, litter their own beaches, blame everything on haole, & for the most part shitbags. They claim to be watermen but puss out when they hit mainland CA water. While Im on this positive high note, I regret the Japanese never invaded in WW2 & taught them to appreciate haole.

  28. “The simplest way to identify Russian sympathizers is to probe them on the matter of military interventionism.”
    —————————–
    And the simplest way to identify a cuck is if they have a hate boner for the Russian Federation.
    The only major power remaining in the world that fights the left.
    The only white country that knows how to handle Muslim immigrants….
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2a6-1UD1kI
    ……………anarchists and rioters (God, I wish it was BLM and SJWs getting their asses handed to them in this video!)…….
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKIQjOS_9C4
    ……and feminists.

  29. The US frequently sides with murderers and rapists as long as it suits their immediate needs. Rhodesia was sold out by the US and other western nations under the guise of liberating blacks from “oppressive whites”. Once a economically and socially prosperous country Rhodesia was given to a genocidal maniac who stole, killed, and raped the native population. The US would rather see Syria destroyed and governed by psychopathic murdering sodomites than by an independent, nationalistic people.

    2. Who armed, trained and equiped Rhodesia’s enemies? Not razzing you– I agree they were f*cked over, but the blaming the omnipotent boogy-man (America) is a bit rich condsidering it was always a British possession.
      Now Zimabawa is stuck with their thieving marxist side-show Bob Mugabe and those poor blacks suffer so. Meh.

      1. Nearly every western country ignored black atrocities against Rhodesian civilians (black & white) while fully knowing they were funding terrorists with humanitarian aid, weapons, and anything else. It’s rich thinking western countries don’t support terrorism in the name of fighting racism or whatever libtard fantasy they have been indoctrinated with.

        1. Soviets and other communists were aiding them mate. Talk to an older russian some time. Those AKs and T64s didn’t come out of the ground.

  30. Tulsi is wrong here. Assad only has influence in the coastal Alawite/Christian areas. The Sunnis of the country is extremely conservative and view the Alawites as some kind of colonial occupiers, and a threat to their faith. Al Jazeera openly promotes the war with the Alawites narrative. I agree it is in the west’s interest to support Assad, but he does not have popular support.

    1. There are a large number of secular Sunnis who are backing Assad. The Sunni refugees going to Germany are the conservative head-choppers.

      1. That’s not significant. It depends on what you mean by ‘large’. I saw a poll that said that 24% of Syrians were supporters of ISIS. That’s like 33% of Sunnis. Now this does not include the equally dangerous head chomping ‘moderates’. So sure there are Secular Sunnis, but they are simply not numerous enough to cut the mustard.

      2. Ahh, no, there aren’t that many secular Sunnis. Maybe 25% at max, but just not enough to cut the mustard. Around 33% explicitly support ISIS leave alone the ‘moderate’ rebels.

  31. Must be hard on the knees!? Where is your geographical location and do you swallow?
    Cheers..

  32. Wrought is a past participle of work not wreak. You mean “the devastation wreaked by the instruments of US policies.”

  34. Google images show some close ups of her that look like her face caught on fire and somebody put it out with an ice pick.

    1. Closeups without makeup almost make her look like a burn-victim. Probably too much of that Hawaiian sun.

  35. A shame to say but for all the blood and treasure spent in this ridiculous war the only ones who got a “good deal” were the Saudi men who were able to purchase there Yazidi sex slaves on the cheap. It’s not like the Saudi men are going to give them back now that the war is lost.
    Maybe if Hillary Clinton has any campaign cash left over she can direct it towards purchasing their freedom.

  36. Her trip was paid entirely by the Iranian lobby. She is just like Obama except less of a cuck. The jewish lobby loves her and Assad, especially Soros, because Assad’s wife looks atheist, as in has no headscarf. The people who back her are also anti Christian bigots and anti white. Get double redpilled.

Comments are closed.