Politics

You Must Be Prepared To Die For The Fourth Amendment

596 Comments

We live in a digital age of mass surveillance.  This should come as no surprise to any of the red-pilled readership here at Return of Kings.  From Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency’s metadata gathering program to cameras on every street corner, it is very easy to lose sight of what is truly important in this national debate: All arguments, debates and discussions boil down to one question:

Are you prepared to die for the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted as a right to privacy, and has its origins in English Law whereas there were certain places that the King could not go.  “A man’s home is his castle” as was found in English legal texts dating to the 17th century.

In this age of the threat of terrorism, certain liberties are under siege by many well-meaning individuals and policymakers.  Many (if not most) have the usually-laudable goal of preventing people from dying in terrorist attacks.  Some (probably a minority) support mass surveillance to further dishonorable means.  I can respect those individuals who are truly well-meaning, even if they are wrong.

They are wrong because the Fourth Amendment is very important, and worth risking our lives for.  Sacrificing the Fourth Amendment upon the altar of saving our lives is the wrong choice: Benjamin Franklin put it perfectly when he said, “Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.”

South Park, Hypocrisy and the Great River

Americans, since their beginning in 1775, have always made lofty statements about their rights.  However, making lofty statements is easy: defending those rights is difficult, and men could die.  Although I am well-known for my theoretical support for Great Britain in the American Revolution (were I alive in 1775), I have the utmost respect for those Founding Fathers who not only made lofty statements about individual rights, but were also willing to sacrifice their lives to protect/preserve them.  I have little to no respect for any man who claims to believe in something, yet retreats as a coward when facing adversity in defending those beliefs.

There was a controversy a few years ago regarding an episode of South Park where an image of Mohammed was to be shown.  Although Trey Parker and Matt Stone fought hard to have the image of Mohammed included in the episode, Comedy Central censored the poorly-animated image of Mohammed out.  In a deliberate irony, Parker and Stone called out the cowardice of Comedy Central in the very same episode: The character Stephen Stoch (Butter’s father) gives a South Park soliloquy on the difference between believing in something and merely giving lip service.

For those that watch South Park, Butter’s dad had the unusual role of giving the episode’s political message.

In short, if you are willing to risk death for yourself and your children in a terrorist attack to preserve the Fourth Amendment, I laud you as an intellectually honest individual who truly believes in the concept of privacy.  I do this in a way similar to how Roosh respects all men who risk humiliation and actually attempt to have sex with attractive women.

But if you support dismantling the National Security Agency’s metadata program, but would re-instate it if your own life, or the lives of your children, were at stake then I must brand you a coward and hypocrite.  Supporting true civil liberties (not in the way SJW’s think of them) is hard: standing up for your rights can get you killed.  Horribly.  In a hail of rusty nails and ball bearings.

Is Nothing Worth Dying For?

In 1964, a man named Ronald Reagan gave a speech at the Republican National Convention titled “A Time for Choosing.”  Aptly named, future-President Reagan would put the following to the American people:

If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy (communism)? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain.

As a people, Americans must decide that it would be preferable to die on their feet as free men whose privacy rights have not been violated than to live as slaves whose lives have been laid bare to the government.  As Reagan said, the martyrs of history were not fools.  We have everything to lose when we allow the fear of physical violence to convince us to give up our rights.  In the Cold War, this was self-evident to the West when tens of millions were starving to death under Mao or being sent to survival courses in Siberia under the Soviet Union.

What This Means For Us Today

We must not allow the threat or fear of violence silence the truth.  Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopolis were wrong to cancel their speaking appearances at Berkeley under threat of violence from “antifa” and other SJW organizations.  I assume both Ann and Milo support the right to free speech: if they are truly dedicated, I would put it to them that they should stand up at the podium even if they know for sure that a left-wing terrorist will shoot them dead.  The moment we silence our voices to avoid violence from SJW’s is the moment we surrender our moral authority: we of the red pill are brave warriors, and the SJW’s the cowards.

Neither should have backed down in the face of SJW violence.

A Rendezvous With Destiny

Last month, I took a vacation to Hawaii while I was between jobs.  While enjoying the free booze served in first class I had the opportunity to really think about the issues of privacy and what was really worth risking one’s life.  I realized that if I am prepared to die for the Fourth Amendment, I cannot support the NSA’s metadata program even with the best of intentions (saving lives).

When a sudden jolt of fear hit me at the prospect of being blown to pieces by a suicide bomber, I remembered I had felt that same fear before: in Iraq and Afghanistan while serving in the United States Army.  As undesirable as the prospect is, to this day I am still willing to risk death or severe maiming in the name of the rights enumerated in the Constitution as was originally written and intended, not the perversions of subsequent Supreme Courts (excepting slavery).

“A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature…” -John Stuart Mill

Edward Snowden is no hero: heroes don’t run off to even more tyrannical nations than the ones they are ostensibly protesting.  Yet I am glad he leaked the information about the NSA’s metadata program and he was right to do so.  We, as red-pilled men, must decide that our freedom is more important than our lives, and that there are some things greater than our desire to go on living, banging beautiful women and improving ourselves.  We should fight like hell to annihilate those who wish us harm, we should secure our borders (which would reduce the chances of having to risk our lives in the name of the Fourth Amendment), but most importantly of all we should remain intellectually consistent with our beliefs and summon the courage to to stand up for them in the face of danger.

Read More: The Power Of Conscience: Oliver Stone’s “Snowden”

596 thoughts on “You Must Be Prepared To Die For The Fourth Amendment”

  1. Reagan??? Are you fucking serious!?! A globalist shill for the bleating “conservative” masses…

      1. I recall reading that Regan wanted to take on Jack Kemp as VP, but the GOP establishment would have none of it. GHWB was not particularly warm with Reagan, but not sure about how went during his presidency.

      1. Nope! He was in instrumental in the Perestroika Deception and helped usher in globalism. He was a puppet stooge, essentially no different than Trump…

  2. The chances of being killed by a terrorist are 1 in 350,000 compared to being killed in a road traffic accident. So why are so many measures being made to prevent terrorism and so few actions taken to stop traffic accidents. Wouldn’t it be a more effective use of resources having all the TSA agents standing near bar car parks checking for drunks, instead of wasting their time at airports?
    (Chance of death by terrorist act 1 in 3.6 billion, Chance of death by RTA 1 in 120)

      1. Aircraft and cars are both forms of transport (last time I looked).
        And the TSA hassle white folk (who clearly aren’t Muslims).
        If you’re that worried about niggers on planes, don’t let them fly, or have white only flights.
        I could also debate ‘transport is necessary’, why is it necessary and to whom? Let’s separate goods transport and people transport. The world got by just fine before aircraft, that foreign holiday is needless, and one could argue damages the environment (if you believe that shit).
        Transport all goods by road, rail and ships. People too.

        1. I saw a pic posted on social media a few days ago, a white, 70-something grandma was getting a pat down. total waste of $$

        2. The Communists did that from 1919 to the mid 1950s. From freedom to the Gulag. By the millions.

        5. Frisking nuns is dangerous. It can become habit forming.

        9. seriously, fuck the internet. fuck it hard and throw it into the drink

    2. TSA still hasnt thwarted any plots. how many years around? 14? 15? not a great track record

        1. That’s the beauty of government “anti-terruh” crap, they can claim anything that they wish as far as “thwarting potential attacks” and there’s literally no way for us to know one way or the other if they’re being truthful.
          The one thing that TSA *has* thwarted, however, is the 4th Amendment. How that crap hasn’t made it to SCOTUS yet is anybody’s guess. They are government agents demanding an un warranted search without any probable cause.

    3. Life=Time=Money. Death toll percentages or not, a big enough terrorist incident crashes markets, slows a city’s, state’s or nation’s progress down like molasses.. and fear of course. If people lose $ in the markets, etc due to a single terrorist incident. its theft of their lives, literally incrementally killing them. Overall quality of life is affected by this. Most traffic accidents are 1sie 2sie deaths.. with the occasional 5-15 death incident involving a bus or something. Moreover, traffic accidents – inebriated or not – have become a normalized societal risk accepted by all, albeit unfortunate. Try to see the “bigger, bigger” picture here.

      1. Your government rules you by exaggerating your fear, not any reason in the world to have terror acts crashing markets, give them the same news value as a local car accident, and they wouldn’t even be reported.
        My quality of life is not affected at all by terrorists, but it is affected by the minimum wage niggers employed by the TSA, I’d rather risk being blown up than dealing with those cunts at airports.

        1. End user perception is what effects us all in our lives. We all know the government is corrupt and has been for decades, it doesn’t matter how it personally affects me, its how it effects the masses, how the masses react, effects everyone unfortunately. Don’t hate the player. And yes, another 9/11 would definitely crash the markets. Then again, I’m fairly certain the gov’t played a hand in causing 9/11… conspiracies from 10 years ago are almost all true now. Funny how that works,.. like a reverse-time self-fulfilling prophecy.

        2. The reason that your life isn’t affected by terrorists is BECAUSE of TSA, stupid. You sound like an idiot anti-vaccer: “Why do I need to get my kid a measles shot? We don’t have a problem with measles in this country!” Guess what, Professor Genius…..

        3. And yet it is laughably easy to smuggle weapons on board a jet plane, and this is demonstrated rather regularly by undercover journalists. TSA ain’t protecting shit, home fries.

        4. no reason not to try….
          granted there’s got to be a better way without trampling peoples rights.

        5. Sure it is. All they’re doing is wasting government money and blatantly violating the 4th Amendment. They literally have no right or power to do what they’re doing right now, except that people just shrug and say “not my problem” and go with the flow. I’m really confused at how this hasn’t made it to SCOTUS by this point in time, to be honest.

        6. The only other way would be to leave it in the hands of the airlines (cuz it’s THEIR plane). But then you’d have inconsistencies and weak spots all over the shop, planes getting missled into buildings left and right!

        9. I love the garbage that comes from your asshole. My dog wants to stick his dick in there. I promised him I would hold you down while he does his business. I am a man of my word.

        10. That might be the single filthiest thing I have read on ROK to date.
          Well DONE!!!!!!!

        11. TSA is an employment program for bottom feeders. Not even a GED required and the their incompetence is duly noted by everyone. It’s main purpose is simply another public unionized entity for the democrat party base.

        12. Which can happen just as easily right now. In fact, I’d think it was easier since people are lulled into a false sense of security.

        13. Protip: Next time, try, “Everyone is terrible at their job but ME and you.” Singles you out as one of the good ones and can lead to advancement. Fellatio can also work.

        14. As always, you remain a very special kind of stupid. The comment was about TSA, but you can’t refute it and know that it’s true because it hits the news fairly regularly, so you go ad hominem. What a waste of time you are.

        16. I tend to agree with you in terms of their ineffectiveness. This is based on one simple metric: drugs are just as easily acquire now as they were pre-9/11.
          And I don’t believe they’re ‘going Amtrak’
          STILL – I’d like to see some effort taken to keep mayhem-shit off of planes.

        17. Any future air terror bullshit will be stamped out exactly the way it happened on Flight 93. People will fight. If somebody is gonna save my life, it is going to be my neighbor. Not some bored-out-of-her-mind TSA wage slave.

        18. I believed you all the way till that part at the end when you claimed you were a man. Not credible, Doris.

        20. You can save a lot of time, keyboard wear and future carpel tunnel syndrome by simply limiting your posts to “derp”. It’s quick, concise and displays the vast breadth of your intellect.

        21. Yeah, I’m stupid – I thought there was a connection between air travel security measures added after 9/11, and the fact that we haven’t had another airliner hijacked since then. Not you, though. You saw through that bullshit.

        22. Regular security worked just fine. The 9/11 thing could not have been prevented. Anybody sufficiently determined to crash an airliner into a building, will crash an airliner into a building. Losing so many fundamental rights AND dignity to try and “prevent” a one in a billion thing seems myopic.

        23. There isn’t.Because, again, you can smuggle anything you want onto an aircraft still if you have even the slightest amount of determination. It can and does happen.
          Thinking that some government goons give you security is extremely naive.

        24. why the cartels dont just strap some weed to jackrabbits, and unless them north, I have no idea.

        25. Really! That’s fascinating. Why is it then, would you say, that jihadists aren’t just smuggling bombs and guns onto planes every day to bring America to its knees? Surely, they have even the slightest amount of determination, no?

        26. Dirty, filthy, subhuman troll. Tell me where you live so I can do the right thing.
          And, by the way, I can smell your cunt.

        27. Because generally they don’t do that. That’s why. Plus we’ve razed a lot of their organizational hierarchy (al queda) and the leading jihadis these days are losing their nuts over in Syria. They’ve had since the beginning of flight to do this, and didn’t until 9/11.
          It is shocking to me that anybody who has seen the clown show called TSA up close and in person thinks that somehow he’s protected.
          Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go light a candle on the back patio, because if I don’t, the moon will disappear. The reason the moon is still here, is because I do this ritual, and as proof, well, see, the moon is still here. Without this ritual, all would be lost.

        28. Then administer fellatio. That is all you are good for.
          Kneel and suck, human refuse.

        29. Oh, because “they don’t do that!” Brilliant, dipshit, but the question was WHY don’t they do it? Surely there is the will – we’ve seen periodic Islamic terror attacks on the U.S. since 9/11. Why didn’t the San Bernardino terrorists hijack a plane? Running away only shows you’re a shitty debater, Phyllis…

        30. On weekend evenings, I can be found outside your mom’s bedroom door – collecting the quarters from all comers.

        31. Because it’s simpler to cause mayhem in public is why, and has almost no overhead outside of the 600 bucks or so it costs to buy an AK-47. They too, just like you, take the path of least resistance.
          You’re quite an angry little elf aren’t you?

        32. Brilliant. Worldwide terror inc. hasn’t been able to scrape up the cost of a plane ticket in the last 15 years. Now we know!

        33. You are either a faggot or a woman. Either way, undeserving of attention.

        37. Here’s the deal. You have become a target. I want to feed your cunt to my livestock.

        38. Sure, planes just blew up all the time before the US Gov got into airline security, And passengers just went along with it.
          I remember 2 or 3 jets per week getting whacked back in the ’70s. Happened so often most folks didn’t even care.
          About on par with the weather report.

        39. Eye rolls and a bored sigh is basically where you’re leading this conversation.
          I’ll make it simple for you cupcake, even though you don’t rate the time it takes for me to do this. Hijacking like occurred on 9/11 wasn’t just some Hadjis screaming and then the plane magically went into buildings. A sane pilot would ground the plane into the earth if his choice was death by Hadji in the cockpit or death by crashing the plane. There is no alternative that wouldn’t result in his death, ergo, there’s no motivation for him to ram it into a building. None. What Hadji had to do was get several layers of pilot licenses, up to and including PPL, IFR and then corporate aircraft simulation, after obtaining the previous levels of licensing. You can’t walk into Delta and say “Hey, never flew before, let’s skip out on all the other licensing and just jump straight to Boeing 737’s mmkay”. So….(follow along here, move your lips if you need to while reading to make it easier), that means that you need a whole mess of time and money and resources to make what happened on 9/11 happen. Ergo (that’s a scary foreign word, it means “therefor” or “thus”), its simply easier on a cost effectiveness ratio to grab an AR-15 and some gunpowder and get your nightclub game going on the cheap.
          Please, don’t bother answering, you’ve quickly proven that you are absolutely asleep at the wheel here. Instead of hitting “Post” take some time to think about how I might well be right here.

        41. That seems about right. The slavish, submissive feminine belief in “authority protects me” really sets off a lot of bells.

        42. How do you fit cattle in Mom’s basement? Is it a cavern or something?

        43. “Please don’t bother answering.” = “Please stop pointing out how stupid I am.”
          You think Al-qaeda wouldn’t repeat an attack like 9/11 if they could? You think ISIS wouldn’t? They resort to lone wolf attacks with small arms because we limit them to such tactics – not because they prefer them. You are truly a dumbass making such a ludicrous argument. This is certainly not your subject.

        44. Ok, eye roll. Bored sigh.
          We’re done Princess. Run along.

        46. Yeah, that kind of logic baffles me a bit. If “security now stops terruh!” then using that logic, security prior to 9/11 also “stops terruh” because, hey, no planes crashing.

        47. If your eyes are rolling back, it’s because you just got fucked, son.

        48. I usually scroll over, but she is flinging her sloppy logic
          everywhere today. If you read a few of her posts, it maintains a pattern – snarling insults, faulty premises, passive-aggressive
          half replies, goal shifting. Repeat.
          Tiring, but I understand why some will entertain her.

        49. Yeah, I’m done with her now. You can only talk to a wall for so long before you get tired of doing so. That pattern you picked up is spot on. I’m betting she’s a chick too.

        50. Indeed. I have had cop friends openly tell people “we cannot protect you” and yet people still dismiss it (mostly women). There is no reaching them.

        54. It is funny, but I have never once had an issue with TSA. I don’t fly much. At most, at this stage in my life, I take 4 round trip flights a year and usually it is more like 2-3 so guys who fly for work and are on a plane much more often might be better to consult, but I have never been hamstrung by the TSA.
          I arrive early, am courteous and usually treated well and have a short wait on line. My most recent flight I got told I needed to have a thorough pat down random and they could do it out in the open or in a private room. I told him “do it right here” and then made a joke saying “unless she is doing it (pointing to a female agent) then I might want a private room” Took all of 2 minutes and I was on my way.
          I have never waited an exorbitant amount of time in line and never really felt uncomfortable. Take of your shoes, put your stuff in this basket, put on the little conveyer belt, walk in this little thing an put your arms in the air, ok, go ahead sir and that’s it.

        55. I think you are missing the bigger fact….that a Boeing 737 IS an ar-15

        56. It is an inconvenience, costs more and fails in it’s intent.
          After 911 the asked some Israeli security advisors to review how the US was going to roll out airport security and their review was not positive. Profiling is what ensures safety (eg. stop-and-frisk policies), not searching everyone and installing another bureaucratic organization. Also the TSA employee pool also seems to have a lot of degenerates who commit crimes, but then again when there are no requirements to be a TSA agent you get-what-you-get.

        57. I get that it increases cost and in the end is just a simulation of security which doesn’t accomplish much if anything. That said, my personal experiences just haven’t borne it out to be so inconvenient. In my life I have never had reason to complain about my treatment at an airport.
          Do I wish it were massively different? Yes. I wish it was like in the early 60’s when all the gentlemen in the airport wore a jacket and tie, everyone was clean shaven, etc. etc. etc But I just haven’t found air travel to be bothersome. Again, I know some people fly every week or even multiple times a week and logging that many hours they probably have a much different experience than me, but my experiences have all, 100% of them, been positive

        59. agreed which is why I leave room for myself as an exception because I don’t fly so often.

        60. I am against vaccinations. Pointless profits for big pharma.
          The weak should be allowed to die, and the strong to survive naturally.

      2. The thing about this is that somewhere, someone who is cool under pressure and puts the superfluous bullshit aside to concentrate on what is really important gets very wealthy at this time. 9-11 was proof of that. While all the ding bats were running around like chickens with their heads cut off everyone else remembered that Alan Greenspan’s doctrine of Irrational Exuberance was true and multiplied their net worth many times over. USA USA USA

        1. If you were in a position to short, the gains must have been incredible. I unfortunately was not, and too many fixed capital investments made right before 9-11 occurred which royally fucked me. It also disallowed me to take advantage of shorting the market in the subsequent housing, and financial bubbles because I was still in recovery mode. Story of my life, shitty timing I swear.
          I specifically remember trying to pony up funds to invest in the First Solar IPO, and couldn’t achieve my goal in 2006 due to the fall out of 9-11. Fucker ran 1000% after that, and would have probably had me financially retired by now. I had the right idea anyways.

        2. Yes, I won’t say I was lucky because I worked my ass off, but timing wise i was lucky and was able to short big 4 digit percentage returns on real money in very short periods of time

    4. Yeah, there’s nothing being done at all for road safety. It sucks because at one time there were traffic lights, stop signs, roundabouts, guardrails, road shoulders and safe speed warnings on roads, but they were all taken down and/or destroyed by these know nothing idiots who want us all to die on the roads.

  3. The violence of the left is only now just starting to be met with violent opposition. The Berkeley riot showed the fear the left has when it awakens such a bear however they will be back, and in greater numbers. I am convinced that the one thing the left does not have that the right does: the realization that violence can result in death. The left are cowards, pure and simple. They rely on greater odds because their mouths are all they’ve got.
    Those on the right who are defending these freedoms have so much more to lose than the fascist faggots they battle and that makes this particular animal a very dangerous one indeed.

  4. I listen to the full “A Time for Choosing” speech he did for Goldwater about once a year. Miss that guy.

  5. My new favorite thing: Mossberg 590 Shockwave.
    That’ll enforce all yer fucken amendments.

    2. I’ve all of my shotgun needs met by my KSG. What’s not to love about 15 rounds of 2 3/4″ slugs in one small bullpup package?

        1. No, not Street Sweeper, that was a drum fed shotgun. KSG is new (ish) and yes, you can buy them at the gun store. Used to run $1400, but now it runs around $800. Great shotgun. Check them out on YouTube when you get a chance, they’re fantastic.

      2. The 12-gauge shotgun is the finest weapon ever devised. I am enchanted by the idea of doing the Mad Max and wearing a short one in a hip holster while riding my motorcycle.
        No need to niggle over the particulars.

  6. I guess you are not in prison as you write this….so you didn’t go to prison for refusing to co-operate with the TSA.
    If you’re not willing to die for the right to not be sexually assaulted for traveling, I don’t know what you are willing to die for. Ann Coulter may or may not be a coward for choosing to withdraw from Berkeley, but choosing certain death is not smart. If you die, you lose. Except in certain circumstances where a death would be a martyrdom, dying for an ideal is a personal decision. Dying for the rights of others is a whole different ball game, especially now, when millions of Americans just don’t care.
    If you are advocating dying for strangers rights, there are plenty of opportunities. I think a better strategy is to work hard for ideals. Staying alive is smart.

  7. At this point what can we really do about it? We know voting doesn’t do a dam thing, protesting does nothing, even sowden thought he was going to change things but nothing changed maybe even now its worse. Guess only thing left to do is leave. The government does whatever it wants to do taking inch by inch for the last 100 years.

  8. The only amendment that I will ever truly go to the mat for, violence wise, is the 2nd Amendment, and even then it has to get to pretty damned stupid levels before I consider taking the rifle off of the mantle and getting into politics. The rest of them I’ll fight for, but with legal means.

    1. in the meantime I have some troops which need quartering.

      1. Sounds profitable. I take it you don’t have rent controls in your neighborhood?

        1. no, no rent controls near me with the exception of some of the hold out geezers that refuse to die in the name of progress…but time keeps on ticking on those fuckers.

      2. Say what you will, but the 3rd Amendment has been iron clad since the day it was written. British troops show up demanding quartering in my home and I pull out the 3rd and then they can do nothing but gnash their teeth in frustration as they walk away.

        1. that’s what you say now, but you cannot trust that queen! Despite its unblemished record I would suggest having some tea on hand….

        5. What the hell do you think police are? And a permanent standing military? 3rd Amendment was written before income tax. Using tax money to pay for soldiers is a violation of the Constitution, since its a demand for quartering in the modern sense of demanding resources.
          I’d like to give quartering of politicians a shot again, as in drawing and quartering.

        6. That’s stretching the point far beyond credulity. As the Founders DID enable a Navy in the Constitution, which is paid for by taxes, it seems that your logic would be lost on them as well.

      4. you are aware there are people in our govt, right now, who would like to force us to house a refugee or two if they decide you have “extra” room in your home, right? That spare bedroom, its not yours

        1. yeah well, I already used my best eye roll jerk off sarcasm gif.

        2. There are currently elected officials who believe the rapture will occur within their lifetime, literally word for word per the book of Revelations too….
          Hopefully the non-loon voting block keeps all these extremist blocks in check.

        3. save your eyeroll for the brownshirt with the clipboard

        4. I will. He is scheduled to come by right after Elvis, aliens, big foot and all the other pretend stuff come

    2. In the words of the venerable Moe Syslak – “it keeps the King of England out of your face”

    3. No one is asking anyone to start a violent revolt over the NSA’s metadata program.
      However, we should be willing to take the one in a billion risk of dying in a terrorist attack to honor privacy rights.
      If we are going to compromise the Constitution at all, it should be for something a lot more likely to happen than a one in a billion chance of a single death.

      1. Agreed. Way too many people willing to take the path of least resistance though. Frankly they deserve the way that they get treated.

  9. sorry to say this but anyone who is willing to die for a constitutional amendment probably belongs in a hospital with padded walls. Quality of life is the only thing worth fighting for and if you aren’t getting it, moving is a better option.

    1. The Founders seemed pretty committed to the idea of fighting (and possibly dying) for individual rights.

        2. He says, living in the lap of luxury created only through the ideals and freedoms that the Founders fought for.

        4. History is history.
          Founding fathers got handed their cards and played their hand as they played it no different than the rest of us. Truthfully, not impressed.

        5. History may be history, but LEGACY is the issue here. They set up a pretty good system, that, while it hasn’t directly provided any specific quality of life, has certainly ALLOWED for plenty, with a minimum of bloodshed.

        6. It’s easy to cast aspersions when living in the world that their actions enabled, is all I’m saying. Without enlightenment ideals guiding the way since the 18th century, the best life you could hope for would resemble London in the 1600’s, tops.
          In any event, it’s too early for me to get too seriously trolled right now and my coffee really needs refilled, heh.

        7. without the enlightenment ideals life would be different. Ok. SO we take a day off and bbq for the founding fathers. Without everything life would be different. If I didn’t have a decent BM this morning my day would be different.

        9. ok terrific. That’s great. SO? People do things. The world changes. Life moves. Great. They did a good job. We have presidents day and a bunch of cool pictures on placemats in diners….that’s enough.

        10. A-right, pal – but when a joint Russian/Central American force invades Colorado I ‘spect you to do the right thing….

        12. lol. The Russians are already in Vail (the only part of Colorado I actually give a shit about). They are great. They spend a fortune, their women are beautiful and they drink well

        19. hes got the nihilism thing turned up to 11 lately, doesnt he?

        25. speaking of Swayze, the Roadhouse remake starring Rousey got its funding pulled

        27. Please tell me that you’re just cracking wise that such a remake was ever actually in the works.

        29. nope. didnt she lose her comeback bout? I think the funding got pulled after she got her ass kicked a second time

        30. It WAS a thing. what IS a thing is the oceans 11 reboot starring 8 women

        32. wow that is awful. To be fair, I think the modern Ocean’s 11 movies should never have been made and the original Sinatra, Martin, Lawford, Davis one should just have been re-released. I saw the first one and didn’t bother watching any of the sequels. I certainly will not be watching this one.

        33. about 6 outta the 8 are over 40. one is over 50. Rhiannon the singer is the only young one(probably the genius hacker role)

        35. first one was cool. second one when they stole EVERY DOLLAR IN VEGAS was pretty bad

        36. I saw the ‘new’ Oceans 11 first and thought the old one was kinda weak in comparison. Especially the way it ended.

        38. really, you liked the Pitt/Clooney better than the original rat pack one

        39. First one was ok….I just wish they used an original premise instead of piggy backing the rat pack original.

        40. I do. More character variety and development, better motivations, infinitely more complex caper.

        44. What in the hell is with this freaking fetish out of Hollywood these days? This is beyond self cucked, it’s turned into some kind of mental disorder.

        45. I think a better rat pack movie was about gangsters in 1930s Chicago. Peter Falk also in it. I challenge you to find another movie where two stars have only one eye

        46. Oh good God man, please stop exposing me to this madness!

        47. a comedian was talking about what he has to deal with these days in order to just get a pilot, he has to pitch a
          straight jewish guy
          gay guy
          straight jewish woman
          token minority(probably female)
          lesbian
          Doesnt really reflect the population at large, ya know?

        48. oh I didn’t say that oceans 11 was the best rat pack movie only that the inclusion of Dean Martin in a movie along with the song E-O Eleven sung by Sammy Davis Junior automatically makes it better than anything Bernie Mac is in. If the gangster movie you are talking about is Robin and the 7 Hoods then it is, indeed, my personal favorite of all the ones they made as well.

        49. the porn parody will make more money than the film itself.
          And will probably star the same ‘actors’ to boot

        50. he was pitching an old skool cop show a la Barney Miller, and everytime the response was “you need to make this female character stronger” or “add a strong female character”- he refused to do it

        55. ahhh my favorite argument “everything I don’t like is jewish” it is literally (hitler) the exact same argument the liberals have when they say “everything I don’t like is hitler”
          You do get that people making this kind of statement are acting no different than the triggly poof liberals and really don’t deserve any more accord don’t you?

        56. Fuck your mother. Respectfully of course.
          Please, continue with your latte sipping nihilism, its so constructive.

        57. Im not saying everything i dont like is jewish. Just that you are a troll. Most likely jewish.
          Definitely espousing anti-america, anti-freedom, bs for a long time now.

        58. Honest question (not ad hominem): if you could (not obligation, free will choice) choose between a flat in central park west, a seven figures job forever, and an endless supply of hot woman and saving the Weaver family:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
          What would you choose?

        59. mmmhmmmm….
          You keep jerking off your echo chamber friends and talk all about how you are totally going to have a revolution. I’ll just be over here in the real world

        60. Without doubt, without hesitation, without even a moment to think about it I would take the condo, seven figure job and the women. Fuck, for a studio apartment in a much shittier part of town, my current salary without having to work for it and I am on my own finding women I would still not save that family. Even further, if I could save that family and all it would take is some minor inconvenience I wouldn’t bother. I couldn’t care less about the weaver family. This isn’t to say I think what happened to them is great. I really just don’t care at all.

        62. Oh I am definitely a troll. I am not jewish. Further, it isn’t anti-American to suggest that one ought to put their own desires first. Nothing could be more American. I am a big believe in America being the greatest country in the world as far as opportunity to lift oneself up and create ones own life.
          ANti-fredom? That is just a catch term like ramalamadingdong. I am not anti American, I just think that the little cosplay game of revolutionary or patriot that goes on here is laughable at best and would be dangerous if the people participating actually had any real brains or power.

        64. the fact that you liked the leave it to beaver wiki shows a commitment to the bit that I really appreciate.

        65. Without meaning it as a troll, but as a serious question…why does this surprise you? Why does it surprise you that if saving the weaver family meant not going out to dinner one single Friday night that I wouldn’t do it. Who are the weaver family to me? Why should I care about them? Some jackbooted fed gun down a bunch of hicks in Idaho and I am supposed to care enough to miss the appetizer course of my Friday night dinner? Why?

        67. not at all. I love my mother. If the choice was between saving my mothers life and getting some material goods I would absolutely save my mother. Saving strangers at the expense of oneself is for suckers. You extrapolating that my desire for personal gain over saving a bunch of criminals who got into a gun fight with a bunch of other criminals in some state that I wouldn’t visit on a dare to me being callous to my own family is a poor leap of logic that is beneath you.

        68. “I used to fuck guys like you in the ass, in prison.”
          So there.

        69. She sucked up a few fist shots from Chris Brown so that’s something.

        70. Is not about saving strangers, is about Principles and Values. Right and wrong, good and evil. You can enjoy your moralrelativism/nihilism/whatever all you want but that does not mean it is objectively true. Now, my comment was more deep than a sarcastic comment, it means that because of your positions you are willing to exchange anything and everything that’s not you for money and pleasure, and sincerely that position both amazes and makes me sick.

        71. Nothing is objectively true, but we can do that one another day. The day I put the interests of some idiots in a cabin in Idaho over my own interests will never come and anyone who does is a fool.

        72. I don’t think it’s so much “your interests” in any real way as “even a minor inconvenience” that is where the incredulity is coming from. If it meant that I had to do something that really didn’t impact me in any real meaningful way (miss dinner that night) and it meant that I could legitimately save four people’s lives in doing so (and I knew it explicitly of course) then sure, I would. I wouldn’t go out of my way to look for that situation or circumstance, but if presented it by some (obviously) supernatural entity that laid the choice out before me, sure, why not? I’m no altruist, but a minor “means nothing” thing on my part saving 4 human beings from death, eh, doesn’t bug me at all to help them out.

        73. so back to Curwen’s (who I respect despite ideological differences) original question rephrased for the differences you and I have. Would you save this family if not saving them means you would be given, quite literally, everything you have ever dreamt of in a material sense. For me it was a CPW Condo, a job that pays 7 figures a year and access to all the women I want.

        74. Now see, that’s a whole lot of self interest being sacrificed, to the point of being utterly unrealistic. Nobody would ever chose to save that family if the choices were that vastly different I wouldn’t think. I think a lot of people might believe that they’d save the Weavers, but being offered basically life for free with everything you’ve ever wanted in the world, I doubt that this belief would pan out in reality for 99.9% of human beings. Really the question seems to me to be a kind of lead in to virtue signaling. Not condemning Curwen, I’ve seen lots of this kind of question as I’m sure you have.
          But if it meant that I had to, I dunno, donate a USB cable or miss a meal or something? Sure, absolutely, I’d do it. Because it’s really not asking anything untoward or even challenging from me and it also has an actual real life payoff that can be measured.

        75. Yes, his question offered everything…I am the one who doubled down first to a more realistic win for not saving the family then to the idea that I wouldn’t bother if it was inconvenient. The last, of course, was hyperbole meant for effect but the second wasn’t. Even if it wasn’t my dream home, dream job and dream life being handed to me on a silver platter just to ignore the weaver family but was, rather, a nice home, my current salary without having to go to work for it and I am on my own (as always) to look for women again, fuck the weavers. Yeah, if it was a matter of making a phone call and being late to dinner to save some lives I probably would but wanted to put a bit of English on the point.

        76. How many mood enhancing drugs does it take to get to the center of a nihilist? Is it exhausting not caring about anything but your own sense of faux intellectualism?
          You’re cattle.

        77. I don’t care about my faux intellectualism either. There are two things in this world….the stuff that makes my life better and everything else. As for cattle…it is odd that a person who is willing to sacrifice their own self interest for a bunch of slogans would call a person who openly admits to being self interested cattle….it would seem you have it backwards. Your response to my saying that what is in my personal best interests is more important than abstract ideas and some family I never heard of in a state I would never visit was to tell me I ought to fuck my mother and then accuse me of a) latte sipping without knowing my preference for caffeinated beverages b) nihilism which I readily admit and which you don’t fully understand and then (sarcastically) insinuate that I am not constructive member of society which you have no way of knowing and are actually very much incorrect about. You then follow this up by suggesting I use psychotropic drugs which is not just totally wrong (as I am very much anti drug and don’t even touch pot let alone the poison that shrinks and corporations are pushing) and finally end up calling me “cattle” which, again, is ironic since this whole line of insults comes from me triggering you by saying that the abstract values that you hold and strangers from nowhere are meaningless in general and comically meaningless when compared to self interest which makes you.,…well…..cattle.
          I guess what I am wondering is whether or not you realize just what an ass you are making of yourself?

        78. The abstract values that you deem meaningless demonstrate your lack of understanding how humans require social parameters and ideas larger than themselves to function in a cohesive unit to further science and knowledge that is passed on to the next generation in order to advance ones species, race, religion and ideology. Strangers working across the nation, with one goal of the abstract were able to send men to the moon.
          Slogans, as you label it, is disingenuous at best. The cattle insult was to suggest that you’re chewing on your own cud, without care to the slaughter that awaits you from other peoples who do hold “abstract values” higher than your personal pleasure. When warped twisted souls strap bombs on their chest and detonate themselves at your favorite coffee shop maybe then you’ll understand the power of values, and how those values motivate people for good or bad, against or for society. Nihilism is akin to fence sitting, you hold nothing in regard except your own smug existence.
          So to repeat: Go fuck your mother.

        79. wow, tons of wrong here. Way to go. You missed so many points I dare say you would be good at being one of those circus chicks that people throw knives at.
          The fact that humans require ideas larger than themselves is true, sure, it doesn’t mean those ideas aren’t just made up and meaningless. The larger point here is that you get triggered when someone gets too close to yours. I am going to venture a guess that you have done exactly dick to further science and knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong.
          Strangers worked to send someone to the moon, yes. They were paid. They did it for ego, because they could.
          As for your abstract beliefs, it is far from disingenuous to call them slogans — that is quite literally all they are. You like some of them and don’t like others and you judge the ones you like “good” and the ones you don’t “bad” and anyone who doesn’t want to play your adolescent game you label as cattle. You think I am without care? Why? Because I think your value system is laughable and childish? The “Warped twisted souls who strap bombs to their chest” are people like you….people who believe they are doing something for their slogans and don’t like your slogans. I don’t see you as any different…just more benign since you are clearly too cowardly to do anything about your beliefs other than get triggered and tell people to fornicate with their mothers which really isn’t so bad.
          I understand full well the power of values. So did PT Barnum. Idiots will buy anything, kill themselves and others so long as you tickle them just right. Sorry, not interested in playing.
          You have also, again, failed to understand what nihilism is. Here it is, free of charge, the condensed readers digest version…ill use small words for ya.
          In the absence of any kind of objective value system forced down upon us from on high and recognizing that will live devoid of any real meaning the human being is forced to create, for themselves, the values and meanings and morals that have traditionally just been given from churches or government. In a nutshell, if you want to buy pre fab that is fine by me, but don’t put me down just because I take the DIY route. I get that not everyone has the courage for DIY and for them prefab works fine…its tried and true, tested and all ready to go….no thinking necessary.
          I will skip on fucking my mother but I do question your obsession with sexual relations between son and mother. Is this something you have fantasized about?

        80. Nihilism is a reaction to overwhelming, complex stimuli that a weak mind can’t compartmentalize or process. So the brain shuts down, withdraws and calls it nihilism. Soon after, you receive a black turtleneck, skinny jeans and a Starbucks reward card in the mail.
          A nihilist describes a person who believes life is meaningless, but is to weak to kill themselves in the face of their own belief.
          I was once 18 years old too and also read Nietzsche, then I grew up.
          “You like some of them and don’t like others and you judge the ones you like “good” and the ones you don’t “bad” and anyone who doesn’t want to play your adolescent game you label as cattle.”
          Let me impart on you an ugly life lesson: Might makes right. It has always been that way and always will be that way. So you can live under my slogans that allow you to spout your nihilistic bullshit, or you can live under the Islam slogans that would force you to pray to a god you don’t believe. That is natural truth, pure and clear. You’re living in the mind to much and fail to understand the immutable laws of nature; humans are tribal, tribes hold beliefs, tribes wage war for said beliefs, Might makes right.
          To deny this or turn away from it is whistling past the graveyard. Enjoy your philosophy books.

        81. Might does make right which, oddly enough, invalidates your entire argument regarding objective value systems but I assume by your 16 year old understanding of the world you haven’t really fully grasped how to understand what your dick is for much less high minded concepts. That said….it would appear to me that I am mighty, you are not and by your logic (even though it is silly, childish and contradictory) that makes me right. I will take this as you conceding the argument to a superior man and thank you for giving me the chance to hone my abilities to have frank discussions with morons.

        82. Mental masturbation is hardly mighty, or invokes the “Might is right” concept of power. You can be correct all you want in your philosophical pandering. But if I beat the shit out of you long enough and force you to accept that water is dry…well then…water is dry…and it is right. That is the world we live in, and that is the direction we are headed.
          It hardly invalidates my argument as I have clearly stated that values are based on collective peoples ideology. In no way did I suggest it was objective. Objective values are unicorns for philosophers to masturbate to.
          Glad I could help you with your argumentative skills. I’m sure they will be helpful when someone without “high minded concepts” beats your ass for your iphone.

        83. I have a hard time believing you could beat the shit out of me. More than likely you wouldn’t be able to figure out which leg to piss down quickly enough. By the way, you never did tell me what you have contributed to science, society or anything other than the semen count in socks lol. Good luck dude. I wish ya the best.

        84. I contribute to society everyday I punch in for work. I sacrifice my safety and imperil myself for the safety of my community. Because I have the belief that they will contribute the same or more than I did in the future.
          I do this because it has meaning, and I believe in the values that my “slogans” provide. My life, my time on this globe, in this nation and in my community has meaning.
          I don’t sit in coffee shops pontificating on the merits of meaningless and in-actionable philosophical narratives that only serve to fill the prescribing individual’s misguided sense of worth.

        85. so you are a wage slave that believes that in someway you are important and not just another farm animal? Ok. Gotcha. As for your hard on about coffee shops…what’s wrong with coffee shops. Did a coffee shop rape your sister? I don’t sit around in coffee shops either but they generally are good places to go and get coffee. As for pontificating, you do plenty of it — most of which about what a great guy you are. Anyway, like I said before, good luck with everything. You keep on punching in, avoiding coffee shops and telling yourself that you are making a difference.

        86. In short:
          1. Yes I am more than just another farm animal, stop projecting.
          2. Coffee shops are group therapy for failed artists pretending to be important.
          3. Yes, I am a great guy, unwavering belligerent confidence got me ahead in life.
          4. Yes I make a difference, I know because of the people that thank me and my co-workers everyday.
          What have you done today besides comment on a forum projecting black clouds and demoralizing a group of like minded men seeking answers and offering hope?

        87. Lolknee just curiously reading this discussion here. League of Shadows has said that the nihilist is too weak to kill himself in the face of his own belief. Just wondering your thoughts on that. I’m thinking about it, and isn’t it true that a nihilist really shouldn’t care one way or another if they die this very moment?

      1. are you saying “boooooo” or “booooourns”

      1. nah won’t be that good. I know some people here are really passionate about caring about shit that doesn’t matter and that they can’t control. It’s ok. Some people like tennis too. I have no quarrel with them

        3. That’s there idea of “mano a mano”
          ‘course I find it works at cocktail parties too.

        4. but “what you can’t control” begins in a feeling doesn’t it. it’s about (the sense of) locus of control rather than just an objective reality

        5. ok then…go on caring about abstract and high minded principles. I think the root psychological cause of that is narcissism, self-aggrandizement and feelings of impotence, but whatevs

        6. probably not far from the truth, but that’s just psychologising. If you can account for all that and still believe in something then it would have survived at least one part of the nihilist assault. I read Karen Horney ages ago on ‘the quest for glory’ and it made a lot of sense. But do you really thing a quest for ‘the good’, or other ideals are nothing but a function of a compromised ego? A sense of justice is ingrained into most people I would say, but then most people at least have a concept of empathy, however gay that may be

        7. I do believe just so. As for concept of empathy I am not so sure. I am about 90% in the “all empathy is self interested” camp

        8. Like Kohlberg I would say a sense of justice is inherent to, or at least characteristic of the masculine. If that’s a character flaw I can’t see it’s any worse than the freudian / nietzschean, crowleyian attempt to situate the id and the blind lusts and appetites at the core of our being. As for all empathy being self-interested, even if you’re right, that doesn’t necessarily make it hypocritical. Most christian ethics after all amounts to show restraint now (in indulgence, sex, vengeance etc) and you’ll be rewarded later. Only occasionally does it go beyond that, but even then does it really claim to go beyond the notion of a reward system?

        10. Christian ethics still dates back to a root of impotence and unrequited, frustrated anger.
          As for Kohlberg, his whole bit on the masculine always seems like one huge no true scotsman argument framed as a move from practical to pure concerns along with moral, spiritual and civilized growth. Unfortunately for Kohlberg’s money shot, as it turns out history bears out the exact opposite of his findings and it is the less civilized, more brutish and less sophisticated man who has appealed to the universal consistently through human history.

        12. unrequited? lol
          I imagine there is projection in every direction. Christian’s have often been hypocritical, and have often been very good at talking about love and practising the exact opposite but I don’t really get the accusation of impotence. Christianity was the dominant religion on the planet for two millenia, or did you not notice? It’s flaws in practice are manifold, as are those of the other abrahamic religions, but I’m not sure you’ve identified them correctly (yeah I know …the genealogy…slave thinking bla bla)
          Re. Kohlberg I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to the brutish and less sophisticated man appealing to the universal …. you mean the warrior, the hero? If so, I’d say most heroes are variations on the christian knight more than the nietzscheian barbarian (although there may well be some overlap)

        14. Everyone has often been hypocritical so I really don’t fault Christians so much.
          The impotence factor I mention was specifically about its underlying principles which arose from their formative years….jewish impotence in the face of roman aggression. Obviously that impotence has given way to power which has been considerable for a very long period of them.
          Again, I don’t fault Christianity for flaws in practice. In fact, Christianity is quite brilliant in allowing for them. THe standard Christianity sets is perfection (be perfect as my father in heaven is perfect) putting everyone in a situation of always-already having transgressed moral principles and being in hot water while, at the same time, have given us the son of man with an infinite capacity for forgiveness (under the right circumstances of course)
          I didn’t mean the warrior at all when I suggested brute and less sophisticated. I specifically was thinking about primitive sun worshiping societies.

        15. well if the jews felt impotent in the face of roman aggression then arguably the response was somewhat ‘split’ if christianity is considered to be one of those responses – after all on one of the traditional jewish objections to christianity was that the messiah was supposed to be a military leader like bar kohba as well as a spiritual one. Also I’m not quite sure we have enough information to go on to say the jewish to christian response – meekness, turning the other cheek for example – stems from any kind of meekness. Maybe everything is adaptation of some sort, but to say that smacks of the reductive.
          As for the power issue, while the christian church is still widespread it is far from as influential as it once was. It will be interesting to see how it responds to reduced circumstances in the absence of the kind of institutional support it could once rely upon.
          I would say that for all it’s faults….our faults….christianity as a religion grew into it’s role quite well. It has long abandoned jingoism and crude evangelism of the sort that permitted the worst departures from it’s own principles and in many ways that might be seen as reflecting humanity’s wider evolution from ‘primitive sun worship’ etc (notwithstanding the ‘comparative religion’ argument that christianity may in part be primitive sun worship) towards the kind of universalist kantian ethics that kohlberg saw in masculinity …. i.e. there may have been both a cultural and masculine / biological aspect to that universal sense of justice.

        16. “well if the jews felt impotent in the face of roman aggression then arguably the response was somewhat ‘split’ if christianity is considered to be one of those responses – after all on one of the traditional jewish objections to christianity was that the messiah was supposed to be a military leader like bar kohba as well as a spiritual one.”
          I have no problem with that. Different people/ingroups with different responses to similar circumstances.
          “It will be interesting to see how it responds to reduced circumstances in the absence of the kind of institutional support it could once rely upon.”
          FOr what it is worth I think that watching the next 20 years of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, and where it will move with the circumstances presented by the 21st century will be WAY more interesting than all the sports ball combined.
          As for growth into a role, you couldn’t be more correct. There is a certain brilliance in Christianity such that it is hard to see whether Christianity is a map of the human mind or the human mind has adapted to become a map of Christianity.
          Kantian universal ethics are, themselves, subjective…a very fine distinction that many people (kantians especially) including Kohlberg have missed mostly, I think at least, due to the fact that Kant spent about 100 years being the blood type O, universal donor, of the philosophy world. Kantians from as early back as Fichte in the late 18th century have been piggy backing the great professor’s prestige and impregnating his body of work with their own ideas not much different than the way that Plato, in the later dialogues, basically just was using Socrates as a vessel.

        17. “FOr what it is worth I think that watching the next 20 years of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, and where it will move with the circumstances presented by the 21st century will be WAY more interesting than all the sports ball combined.”
          Well it has it’s work cut out for it. The stumbling block of gay marriage, rainbow identity and of course women is an interesting one. The identity of the church has been under attack for a long time, and to the extent it appeases it may lose that identity completely, but to the extent it digs it’s heels in it risks looking antidiluvean and irrelevant. As Francis is something of a globalist progressive he will probably takes things away from the traditional. I actually think the question is how much of a globalist is he? The answer to that question may determine the response to everything else.
          Re. Kantian ethics being subjective, I think the ‘contentlessness’ of universal maxims isn’t the problem it used to be because people don’t think in terms of some kind of universal rational in the way they used to. We don’t aspire to be as smart and logical as kant, to be creatures of pure thought, but we still aspire to the sense of the universal however much of a failed project it is likely to be. For me that just means pulling away from any kind of reification – decapitalising words like Justice. Moreover Kohlberg is looking at the psychology of justice as requiring the ability to abstract from one’s particular and ego-bound circumstances. That kind of abstraction only fails if you become forgetful that you are necessarily rooted in the ego. In the case you gave earlier of feeling impotent say and then rationalising that impotence into a quest for some higher kind of justice – say you’re right about that at some level, would it even matter, if one were not deceived about it? Justice as an ideal (and I only capitalise the word because it is at the beginning of the sentence) is likely to be flawed but when one understands it as such it is also likely to be approached pragmatically rather than dogmatically

        18. Well it has it’s work cut out for it. The stumbling block of gay marriage, rainbow identity and of course women is an interesting one. The identity of the church has been under attack for a long time, and to the extent it appeases it may lose that identity completely, but to the extent it digs it’s heels in it risks looking antidiluvean and irrelevant. As Francis is something of a globalist progressive he will probably takes things away from the traditional. I actually think the question is how much of a globalist is he? The answer to that question may determine the response to everything else.
          It does indeed and will react interestingly. As for the question of just how much of a globalist Francis is, that is, indeed, a good question. I work with a gentleman who is about as concervative a catholic as you can get and is very much ideologically opposed to Francis. Yet even he says that Francis is incredibly liberal by catholic pope standards…that doesn’t make him actually liberal, just liberal for a pope. I tend to respect this guy both in terms of intelligence, perception and fairness and in lieu of having better information at my disposal tend to take his word for it.

        19. oh btw “Karen Horney” snigger snigger.
          Man, just outside the queens-midtown tunnel is the Karen Horney Clinic. I have been sniggering at that since I was a kid.

        20. yeah it should be interesting. This is an old institution that has resisted most attempts to update it with the major exception of vatican II. A lot of those opposed to the latter – I forget what the movement is called – consider the whole church has gone the way of satan anyhow – so I”m not sure how Francis could please them even if he was so inclined, which I doubt. As for how conservative or liberal he is in absolute terms – i.e. beyond the constraints of his function – I’m not sure. Probably a lot more so than Benedict / Ratzinger

        21. that’s probably why she became so resentful against the male dominant psychoanalytic establishment. Lot of sniggering goes on at those psychoanalytic conferences.

        22. I think the movement you are talking about who thinks that all popes after Vat II are anti-popes and that the church is in the hands of satan is called Sedevacantism. I am fairly sure this means “sour grapes” in latin. It is an extremist movement for people who are unhappy with decisions made at Vatican II. You can’t please those people any more than you can talk sense to people who simply and blindly blame the CIA or Jews or The Elite or The Illuminati or whatever for anything. Any time there are large and sweeping changes there is bound to be a group of people who are unhappy with them and in that group there is always bound to be a small percentage of lunatics. Francis is the Vicar of Christ for the time being. He is the 266th person to hold that office and he is 80 years old. He took the name Francis for Francis of Assisi and has conducted himself pretty much in the way one would expect a Franciscan to. The church will go on, but it will change (albeit slowly…and rightfully so) to meet the questions and the requirements of its day. The 11thCentury Church simply isn’t relevant in the 21st century any more than the original church founded by the apostles was relevant in the 11th century. Technology and its effects on all aspects of the world as well as the psychology of its subjects can’t simply be ignored. If the church decides to act in a way consistent with a world hundreds of years gone then the church, like those years, will vanish in the wind and they know it.

        24. According to (((lolknee))) caring about principles is really about naecissism and feeling impotent.
          …
          Yep.
          (((psychology)))

        25. Yes that is the word / movement I was thinking of. I don’t know that much about vatican II, but I do know there aren’t a few who consider the freemasons, communists, jews, gays, or whatever etc. had a hand in bringing it about. Can’t comment on that although I think I’ve seen a good few pictures of Francis making Angela Merkel hand signs….or do I mean masonic. Again I absent myself from such speculation. A great many things in this world are decided behind closed doors and in ways that may not reflect the outwards explanations or official accounts. In a situation where transparency is lacking then conspiracy theories and paranoia are going to flourish. The catholic church has always decided things behind closed doors, but prior to vatican II it hadn’t made any considerable concession to modernity or fashion or whatever. I am not a catholic so I really don’t have strong opinions on the manner, but I actually think the juggernaut of “progress” is somewhat out of control, so while I appreciate your argument about the catholic church being hidebound (whether with regard to women or gays or whatever) if it’s purpose is survival it’s not clear necessarily whether any kind of concessions can be other than appeasement. Since it is not leading, but merely grudgingly ‘getting with the programme’, a programme moreover that is secular rather than religiously led – modernisation is unlikely to make it stronger. To be honest I’m glad I’m not a catholic but I will watch with interest. Personally I think it should stay as it is but adapt it’s relations with women gays and the rest of the world to be more constructive. The Church of England for instance – struggling as it is – no longer condemns gay relationships and considers they may have virtue as relationships but neither does it admit clergy within gay relationships (there has been some controversy as a gay vicar in a relationship resigned). Progress is just a word, and whether it is or isn’t progress the fact remains that by and large it is not being driven by the grass roots but by the forces of secularism, corporatism, and identity politics. None of that is inexorable

        27. “The 11thCentury Church simply isn’t relevant in the 21st century any
          more than the original church founded by the apostles was relevant in
          the 11th century.”
          FALSE.
          But by all means, let the Papists keep bending over backward and twisting things around to remain ‘relevant’. You make a copy of a copy of a revision of a fax of a copy and before you know it you have nothing left.

        28. I think you are 100% right about the juggernaut of modernity being out of control. Where the church seems to get it closest to right imo is that they don’t have the immediate reaction of “modernity is a juggernaut which is out of control so lets not move forward at all in any way whatsoever” but rather has acknowledged that the world moves forward and that some amount of movement has to go with it….at a pace glacially slow compared to the rest of the world by far to fast for the most conservative adherents. Not everything that made the cut in Vatican II do I think is a good thing but I am not a practicing catholic, let alone a catholic biship. The catholic church has 1.2 billion members — that some are going to be unhappy no matter what happens is a given…How does a body like the catholic church maintain relevance for 1.2 billion people in however many countries while maintaining its own doxy? This is a question that is absolutely impossible to get right for anyone….but I do think the church has done as good a job as can be expected.

        29. On the larger point you are right but the idea that any one period of time in the churches history they governed their subjects with such perfection that it would withstand thousands of years of change is bad mojo. Religious doctor in absolute, but it is interpreted by man. Man is a product of his age. Current church doctrine is no more or less wrong than prior church doctrine. Hell, even in Christ’s own life he was frustrated that the apostles got it wrong and he was like right there to help him through. Jesus had a level of frustration with the lack of understanding shown by the apostles that it is worthy of a comedy sketch. It is a fools game that the papists are playing saying that every shit that francis takes smells like roses, but I do believe that his flaws and failures are ones he comes by honestly and that there isn’t papal malice or some kind of attempt to fuck things up….Like I said below, the church has 1.2 billion people it needs to be a spiritual beacon for and those people range from the most poverty striken to the wealthiest, spread into every country in this world, are lal different ages and all have different needs. Remaining true to the absolutes in the religion while remaining relevant to modern day catholics is a struggle that every pope will face and in one way or another and to some degree fuck up.

        30. In a world that seems as out of control as sandra bullock’s bus in ‘speed’ then the fact that the catholic church moves at a glacially slow pace – as slow perhaps as father ted when he was stuck on that milkfloat in the catholic church parody of the former movie – is probably a unique selling point that the papacy should be loathe to readily yield. I would say many people are quite literally car sick – nauseous at the pace of change, and in such a situation a hidebound church isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s like when ROK says ‘women shouldn’t have the vote’. Well I actually believe they should have the vote, but the mere fact that the idea can be entertained……it’s like a slap in the face to remind us of the fact that all of what passes for progress might not have very deep roots. Could be rolled back. And of course that goes for everything, fundamental rights that we too enjoy. Indeed when things get to the stage where nobody recognises the scenery any more then it may well be the case that applying the breaks may be the only thing that saves us from wholesale atavism down the line. Of course like you I accept the world is in motion, and that a reactionary position may well be ill-suited to any kind of constructive adaptation to new realities, but as a non-catholic and someone who was brought up in a more liberal church tradition (if not necessarily liberal church tradition) I actually think the hideboundness of the church is something rather attractive. I’d actually like to see pope francis turn up to some of those globalist conferences with a big fire-hose. Unlikely though

        31. “- as slow perhaps as father ted when he was stuck on that milkfloat in the catholic church parody of the former movie – is probably a unique selling point that the papacy should be loathe to readily yield. ”
          Absolutely. However, refusal to yield a glacially slow movement is different from halting all movement whatsoever. To put full stop on and not move is a mistake, while moving with the world only exponentially slower is actually quite brilliant.
          One thing I will say about Francis’s globalism…I think it is often forgotten…nationalism is impossible for the church. It is not question that an American should be for America and a Chinaman should be for China and a Frenchman for France but Catholicism is in every country of the world and to the church a Guyanese Catholic, American Catholic, Irish Catholic or Tanzanian Catholic all fall under the category of catholic. I am not saying pushing or promoting an agenda of globalism is the right thing to do, but the church has an international viewpoint to consider. Nearly every country in the world has a catholic church and the VAST majority have their own diocese so the church is forced to look at its boundaries as religious not as national. This isn’t meant to say that everything Francis does is right, but merely to point out the difficulties when dealing with questions regarding globalism and the church. If an American Politician says America first and no globalism it is the same as the Catholic Church saying Catholics first…not the catholic church saying, say, Rome first.

        32. The Roman Church, true to its name, dabbles in earthly governance a little to deeply in my view. They could teach far more scripture if they weren’t constantly broadcasting rules and regulations.

        33. yup and they have been doing it for quite some time now. Their “dabblings” in the earthly realm aside, I can see why as a body which oversees a large number of people in a large number of countries that they might lean towards certain globalist tendencies.

        34. “Absolutely. However, refusal to yield a glacially slow movement is different from halting all movement whatsoever. To put full stop on and not move is a mistake, while moving with the world only exponentially slower is actually quite brilliant.”
          Sure fine, but that does presume that the necessary relationship of the church to the world it functions in is one in which it follows rather than leads. The paradigm here is always that progress just ‘is’ and that’s how it is whether we like it or not. That’s what we’ve had since Marx, who of course portrayed ‘progress’ as historical materialism, something impersonal and inexorable, that could be sped up and assisted (as though there were a teleological end that was it’s own justification) yet could not be altered or stopped. Now what is the relationship of the church to such titanic productive forces underlying such changes, or if such categories no longer apply, to progress etc. Why is the church following not leading? Why is it adapting to something rather than the thing adapted to? Well of course we know the answer to that: the church is a hidebound institution that vatican II aside sometimes seems little changed since the counter-reformation. I’m not actually saying the catholic church is in a fit state to set to the pace so to speak but that it might not be wrong to question the assumption that it should follow forces and trends external to itself particularly as those forces and trends would appear antithetical to much of its dogma.
          Your point about the church’s inherent globalism or internationalism is a fair one, although traditionally the papacy has tended to be highly italian or at least european I think. That has made it Rome first historically, so the question to ask would be: if it now seeks to be global and international rather than merely a roman empire then is that genuinely about making it more representative of it’s constituent and far-flung parts or is it about the same forces of globalisation, liberalisation and progressive thinking that characterises globalism more generally? I would have thought that it was at least to some extent a question of the latter

        35. “but that does presume that the necessary relationship of the church to the world it functions in is one in which it follows rather than leads”
          While this is correct, I do believe it is an antinomy which begs resolution from a third option. The church ought not follow the trends of modernity for the obvious reasons. But neither should it lead the world into modernity. What is the third option? I don’t know. Prudent proctor of progress has the advantage of alliteration. If somehow the church could neither lead nor follow the inevitable movement of the world into modernity but rather act as a referee of sorts to add context and structure I feel it would be doing the best possible job with the least amount of risk to fall into either losing its soul by chasing modernity or becoming tyrants by controlling it.
          Your point about the church’s inherent globalism or internationalism is a fair one, although traditionally the papacy has tended to be highly italian or at least european I think. That has made it Rome first historically, so the question to ask would be: if it now seeks to be global and international rather than merely a roman empire then is that genuinely about making it more representative of it’s constituent and far-flung parts or is it about the same forces of globalisation, liberalisation and progressive thinking that characterises globalism more generally? I would have thought that it was at least to some extent a question of the latter
          This question is THE question here and it is one I do not have an answer to. I do wonder whether or not this is a question that is actively debated by the college of cardinals. In the end, if it is to be consistent with its own doctrine, the catholic church should be a catholics first and not a Rome first church. If we lived in a much more religious time I would suggest thinking about making all catholics citizens of the Vatican and adding that unless they conflict with official church doctrine that local laws must be held. The Vatican could allow for dual citizenship and then treat catholics truly as part of a larger catholic empire than as the spiritual guide of people who all fall under the political jurisdiction of everything from democracies to communist dictatorships. Obviously this is problematic, but like I said…while I recognize that your question is the right question to ask I simply don’t have an answer for it.

        36. Some interesting suggestions there. Regarding the proper function of the catholic church in relation to progress, your prudent proctor of progress function might work, and probably describes the church pretty well with regard to say bio-ethics related issues, where the congregation for the doctrine of faith people might decide upon whether something was conscionable or not (usually the latter), but that doesn’t really resolve the problem that in a rapidly moving world, and in particular where that movement is primarily secular / cultural / scientific rather than spiritual the church is inevitably playing a reactive role. In the past the church has carefully guarded and sometimes hampered scientific advance something which has led some commentators like Bonhoeffer to consider the church to be always playing defensive, and confined to belief in a ‘god of the gaps’. There are I think theologians trying to address such issues, but clearly the high speed bullet train type progress we are currently experiencing exacerbates the problem. I think there is an additional problem compared to judaism which is that for Catholics God ‘is not a verb’ at least notinsofar as the church represents God. If God actually is a verb then the church is the object of the verb not the subject, the bride to God’s groom, passively receptive to God’s will – or what in the more remote picture painted by the kabbalah would be God’s emanations. So in a sense the question becomes how should the Church respond to God’s will insofar as it manifests in history, and – should the distinction be made – how should it differentiate God’s will from man’s? Indeed is there such a distinction to be made?
          In a sense man within the church is something of a dual citizen in this sense too. Insofar as God’s will, should it not be a figment of imagination, is also necessarily the will of history, it both is and is not co-terminous with the will of those of God’s creatures who act freely – for either good or evil – but also according to the design of God’s pre- / post determination. It has a difficult role, the Catholic church but it is not at all clear to me that it is merely to rubberstamp the forward march of history. It is clear that it is precisely the human capacity for freedom that prevents man’s every action from being right. Thus the church’s function must be to distinguish between good and evil surely?
          As for your suggestion that catholics could become dual citizens, and vatican-firsters, there is some pleasing whimsy in the idea, but I’m not sure what a Catholic empire in that sense would achieve. I suppose the medieval church was not unlike that, but there was a clearer distinction between temporal and spiritual authority, even if it was often called into question, even prior to the reformation. Today it is not clear that the church has any kind of ‘territorial’ ambitions of the kind that might create massive conflicts of interest. Back in the day though, it was clear that Rome had precedence in spiritual matters, and secular authorities needed to respect that (whether or not they did in practice). Formally, it was a fairly clear situation. Conflicts of interest are not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes they can be.

        37. You being a Nietzche scholar, I’m curious as to what your thoughts are on the National Socialists.
          From what I’ve understood, Hitler was well aware of the geneology of morals and wanted to create a life-affirming ethic for the Germans. So he created National Socialism which centers around laws of nature and the high importance of family/bloodline. I’m aware that they lost the war, but do you think their ideas had any merit? Do you think Nietzche would have approved of it?

        38. Nietzsche was vehemently anti nationalist and hitler was vehemently anti intellectual. The redaction and shoe horn job that the Nazis did to make Nietzsche seem relevant to their idiotic ideology was criminal

        39. Aye fair enough.
          Why would Nietzche be anti-nationalist though? Weren’t the Romans that he admired nationalistic?

        40. Nietzsche didn’t admire the Romans so much as he admired Julius Caesar. Nietzsche believed that nationalism was herd mentality and that only the individual has merit. He also suggested having all anti-semites shot which might have sat poorly with hitler.
          Group think, identification by religion or nationality or prejudice, attempts to see oneself as great because of blood lines aren’t all things Nietzsche abhorred

        41. Thanks Prof Knee.
          I’m not sure if I completely buy into such radical individualism personally, as not everyone can be an ubermensch.
          But I wont say I have the solution to post-modernism either.
          Anways Gnite.

        42. Remember, Nietzsche doesn’t think it’s for everyone either. In fact it’s not for almost no one.

  10. Comedy Central has the right to censor their own content however they please. The 4th amendment is about the relationship between government and citizen. The government didn’t tell South Park that they couldn’t have Muhammad on television – the broadcaster did.

    1. Yes, they have the right to censor thier IP as they wish. But they also had (and still have) the responsibility to stand in defense of the free speech system that gave rise to thier network in the first place.
      They caved in deeply craven fashion. They didn’t cave becasue they feared violence at thier network– they caved becasue they feared thier advertisers would be cowards about it, too. They caved to remain a nonthreatening corporate cypher, lacking individuality, accountability, and identifiable characteristics other than as a vector to sell deodorant and beer to the young male demographic.
      There is a direct line from Comedy Central’s cowardice in that decisive moment to the “demonetization” crisis that will soon reduce YouTube into just another organ of the MSM.

      1. Negative. A television network has zero responsibility towards “free speech.” It’s like saying that if ROK doesn’t publish my article advocating a matriarchy, they’re supressing free speech. Obviously, ROK is free to publish what they please – they don’t owe me anything. It’s not a free speech issue.

        1. Wrong. A television network (which operates under FFC license, at the behest of public representatives) *is* tasked with being a good corporate citizen and social watchdog.
          Media is protected by the 1st Amendment (not the 2nd, or 3rd, or 10th) for the express purpose of acting as the “Fourth Estate” of government, raising awareness of critical social issues on behalf of the public and the public’s interest. The *entire* rationale for freedom of the press/media is so they can exercise that responsibility. It is not to be a platform for advertising. That business model barely even existed for newspapers and magazines at the time of the founding of the country– let alone for a medium that operates under a public license as TV does.

        2. Absolutely false. Can I demand Comedy Central broadcast a television show I made? Obviously not. That alone demonstrates the folly of you claim.

        3. I think that cable television is exempt from the public service stuff though, aren’t they?

        4. If they weren’t you would still be able to switch channels back and forth really fast on the boobies channel and get 30 seconds of viewing

        5. Not the question I’m asking, I’m just offering a technical point that he may be missing.

        6. that was so frustrating….
          “These kids today” have NO IDEA how hard porn was to come by once upon a time…

        8. oh yeah. A solid 10 minutes of going from nudie channel to another channel would often allow for a few solid seconds of nudie channel viewing.

        9. There should be a special name for the carpal tunnel syndrome people our age have which started from switching back and forth to and from the nudie channel

        10. yeah I know, but I never miss an opportunity to remind these young bucks the amount of work that a few seconds of boobs required back in the stone age.

        12. We had 2 vcr’s and I spent hours splicing this one tape of the nudie scenes from “Revenge of the Nerds”, “Batchelor Party, Porky’s, and any other rank comedy I could find.

        15. I tried that but the insurance paperwork was just too much

        17. It is not an issue of your own demands for your own private speech on somebody else’s network. It is an issue of someone who already has a network using their public reach in prosocial fashion, as visualized and established for the system in which it operates. A network electing not to play your content is not the same category as the network choosing to crush their existing content slate– especially since South Park was something that was always driven by ideals.
          What do you think freedom of speech is for? Dick and fart jokes? No. The reason that we have it at all is as a matter of public trust. Media institutions have a political responsibility to the system that sustains them to safeguard the principles that allow the system to exist in the first place. If their shareholders are so distracted by fear of quarterly earnings, they can go eat a hot bowl of dicks, because they invested in the wrong kind of business. For the sake of three months income stability, they threaten the integrity of the system itself.

        21. You say “geoducks” and I immediately picture ducks with little mining helmets studying the earth…

        22. they are delicious….but look funny. hit up a google image for them.

      2. “But they also had (and still have) the responsibility to stand in defense of the free speech system that gave rise to thier network in the first place.”
        Bzzzz. Uncorrect,
        The one and only responsibility that a television network has to is to make money for it’s shareholders.
        Money talks, bullshit (and high minded ideals) walk.

        1. That’s actually incorrect if we’re talking about licensed public television (the normal networks we grew up with, that you can still receive if you have a set of rabbit ears to throw on the tele). The FCC does in fact require those (and only those, again, I believe cable is exempt) to provide a certain level of public responsibility and community service, although the exact limits I’m not entirely certain about. That may be wrong (it is, in fact, wrong) but I believe that unless that got repealed and I didn’t hear about it, it is the actual law/regulations that guide the licensing of broadcast television and radio.

        2. yes for licensed public television which is not what CC is. Comedy Central has only one responsibility….to make it’s shareholders as much money as possible inside the confines of legal business practices. Everything else is bull honkey

        3. You kind of grouped everything under network television. CC can do whatever they want, I just think that COF may not know that cable is exempt.

        4. yeah, like most people I forgot about network television.

  11. We’ve not fought hard for the right to life itself for 40 years. If you are under 40, your mother could have a doctor murder you – in the womb before it could be visible. 1 million every year. And how could this happen?
    Privacy. Emanations and penumbras of the right to privacy. We can’t be secure in our papers or property (see civil forfeiture), but we can kill babies.
    Not willing to die to save lives? But you escaped. And won’t have to pay child support. Besides, it isn’t really a holocaust of murder…
    And the NSA isn’t really… Besides, Terrorists! And Amazon and Google are just too convenient to give up.

  12. if the system is unjust one has to do what one can to fuck it up, but there’s no point in going all jihadi. There’s probably a narcissistic element to martyrdom even if you don’t believe you’re getting those virgins. If you’ve accounted for that, and the cause is still worth it, and you still think it necessary in good conscience to do what’s necessary, then I guess be prepared to fight the good fight. But not for the sake of it.
    As the author is an ex-soldier he would presumably have a clearer idea of what it might mean to sacrifice one’s life for a greater cause

      1. err… whatever you decide to believe in when you wake up of a morning ::::)
        sorry that was low

        4. I feel like the karate kid on his first day at Mr Miyage’s house

        11. Nah. I don’t think any of the guys here do karate. Go learn some krav maga or “systema” and you’ll be ok.

        14. I think of all learning as happening in an 80’s movie montage where one goes from being a novice to being an expert while music plays in 3 minutes.

        15. you mean education, building restoration, race-car construction, business development, etc doesn’t REALLY happen that way?

        19. I never understood what putting corrugated iron over the windows of a car was other than to make it harder to see and thus invoking the cartoon physics of “if it is not visible it is not a threat”

        21. Rocky 3 is my favorite of the bunch. It was more about getting into a mental state than anything.

  13. Alright, 2 things:
    One, there is no such thing as safety. No amount of blanket surveilance is going to catch a terrorist. What our spying agencies provide is an illusion of security from the threat of religious violence. Nothing more than an illusion.
    Two, our authorities are well aware of this. Indeed, every time a terror attack goes down, government uses it as rationale for *more power and reach,* rather than treating as evidence of the shortcomings of the programs.
    Why? Becasue these spying programs are directed against the public, not for their protection.
    There is no political will to enforce the laws associated with our 4th Amendment rights. If there were, the heads of the NSA and CIA would be facing a jury of thier peers today for domesting spying and lying under oath to congress about it. Vault 7 landed to the sound of crickets. Susan Rice’s political eavsdropping on Trump is landing to the sound of crickets.

    1. It really is shocking how blatant they’ve become. Rice should be in chains in prison right now, just like her boss who ordered it, Obama. And Hillary Clinton walks free as a bird too, with a huge trail of bodies behind her. They are more or less done with even trying to give us a facade of rule of law.

    2. Well until most Americans read their constitution and decided to be against unconstitutional big gov programs in general this stuff will keep on going.

    3. every terrorist recently had been on some watchlist yet it didnt stop the attacks.
      So you are right, no amount of blanket surveilance will catch/ stop a terrorist.

  14. If we were willing to die for the fourth amendment, we better start dying fairly quickly because we are getting our electronic information looked through and stored consistently.

    1. I think many old fashioned forms of communication from smoke signals to err. talking to people in person might be about to make a come back

        2. I think the NSA would have difficulty with that one.
          I don’t know. How about farting in morse code? You can start right now if you’re inclined

      2. Talking face to face in a public place actually provides huge levels of privacy, since I doubt that the spooks will take the time, money and effort to assign a real time human to watch and listen to you, unless you’re already on some list. I suspect that 99% of their surveillance these days is electronic based alone.

        1. yeah I agree. Although if you do fit the latter category it might be worth watching Gene Hackman in the Conversation – even back then they had long distance listening devices if they hadn’t already bugged you. Not to mention nowadays of course you need a kratom lined pouch for your phone or something.

        4. Sure but that requires an actual real person manning the equipment is my point. None of us are that special, I’d hope. The NSA shouldn’t be doing the bullshit that they’re doing, but a lot of what they monitor and scam is thrown right out into the public voluntarily by a whole mess of fools, so really, they don’t even technically need a warrant for most of it. People give up so much today that 30 years ago would have required a warrant to find out.

        5. Joe Everyman here has never been to north Korea. He told me that like 83 times the first day I met him

        6. that’s true, but then back then you only had to suspect your friends, children and spouse of being spies. You didn’t have to worry that your fridge or Samsung telly was working for the CIA. I get what you’re saying, but if you consider that a telephone conversation may become flagged simply because a particular word was used in conversation – say ‘bomb’ or ‘allahu ackbar’ or whatever – then it doesn’t necessarily matter if you’re specifically on some kind of watchlist or something
          Oh, I actually just remembered that the CIA cut open and bugged a cat back in Gene Wilders day, so next to that a fridge connected to the internet isn’t that bad

        7. Sure, but again, that’s all electronic. Me sitting in the park talking to a friend is about as much privacy as a person can get these days, simply because of it being almost all passive electronic snooping, that was my only point.

        8. fair enough. I think the most sinister thing is that you never know any more. They want you to be uncertain and to inhibit your behaviour accordingly, and they don’t actually have to be watching you the whole time, or even any time at all, to achieve that affect

        9. Never stopped me from doing anything. I figure fuck it, they want me, they can come get me. Until then I live and speak as I see fit, to the extent that I have the power to make that decision in any event.

        11. An appropriate attitude and policy, but observation does affect behaviour. That’s true for sub-atomic particles and humans alike

        12. Eh, I don’t know. It probably does for most people. I figure I had a TS clearance and that they’re going to watch me regardless, so I can either choose to shut down and be a hermit, or I can give them the middle finger and be as obnoxiously blatantly “fuck them” as possible. I chose the later. Most people with no kind of thing hanging over them though, sure, they would like want to keep more quiet than not.

        13. Good philosophy, problem is not with you or me speaking their mind and having the gestapo kick in the door. It is with the future politician who will have dirt dragged up about them, but not the politicians who are already in the “in” crowd.

        14. TS? I just hope the ‘S’ stands for ‘security’. No, I agree that that is the correct response, only that they mere fact of universal panoptik surveillance force you to make such a choice. It’s like a more sinister version of the ‘looking glass self’ – except the mirror in this case is the security services, or the government or the CPSU or whoever runs things these days. That’s not a healthy state of affairs even if one can respond healthily to the situation

        16. I wonder if Caitlyn Jenner’s drawers have the the initials TS embroidered on to them

    2. All that work to make herself hideous, for no reason other than a poisoned mind filled with mush. Based on her face shape, thinness and symmetry I’d wager that if she took off the clown makeup and wig that she is likely attractive. Leftism is a real cancer on society.

      1. Agreed. And I’ll bet she truly believes that she thinks for herself…which might be even scarier.

        4. “She…can talk brilliantly upon any subject provided she knows nothing about it.”
          ― Oscar Wilde

      2. Take a closer look. If she took all that make-up off, she might qualify as a bland, vanilla sort of “attractive” but she would be plain. Pretty, but not beautiful, and certainly not stunning or remarkable.
        In other words, her natural level of attractiveness does not award her the level of attention and notice that she believes she deserves.

        1. It’s so hard to tell what a woman’s face really looks like when it’s buried beneath all that makeup. Those before-and-after photos of female celebrities can really puke a goat off a gut wagon, for example. I don’t know how many times I got drunk and banged what I thought was a 7 or an 8, and saw them the next morning with their makeup off, and ran screaming…

        2. Good thing I didn’t claim that she’d be beautiful, stunning or remarkable then, eh? Heh.
          Attractive. Even a 6 can be middle of the road “not bad”. In this day and age just being thin and middle of the road attractive should be garnering a lot of attention for a girl, given the circumstances out in public.

        3. If we’re talking Sport-Fukking, the ‘costume’ is half the fun (make-up, clothes, fake hair, fake tits, fake orgasms….)

        5. Was that before or after you had to chew off your left arm. The jackal quality of a woman. At 10 she’s a 2, at 2 she’s a 10.

        6. For fun you can always do a reverse fake orgasm to a girl you suspect of faking.
          Nothing like the look she’ll give you when you splat a spoonful of Miracle Whip in her mouth…or devil some eggs…

        8. That’s the issue, a woman’s goal shouldn’t be to get as much attention as humanly possible. It should be to find a quality male to marry and take care of her after her looks fade. This girl would have no problem attracting a suitable mate but her priorities have been corrupted.

        9. “Just skinny” is highly acceptable compared to the disgusting PIGS I see driving their minivans and looking foul as fuck

      3. To be honest bitch looks hot in that clown makeup. She’s just no wife material or anything of that sort.

        3. The whole clown thing just puts me off when otherwise attractive girls do it. I think it has to do with my instant judgement that any attractive girl who does it is instantly 50 points dumber than the average girl, and not in the “I’m dumb but happy and bubbly” kind of way which would at least be somewhat charming.

        4. I think it’s an overt sign of the masochism of the modern female (the kind you find most readily in big cities)…

        6. Actually some of these hoes have much higher IQs than plain Janes and you can occasionally have high quality philosophical talks with them, almost on the same level as us here. Just like cuckolds who have ususally higher than average IQs , they are just really fucked up in the head. That clown thing is the expression of an extreme desire for submission to a worthy man , which I find really attractive. With that being sad I avoid these types in the real life , as no matter what you do , you can’t keep them attracted to you for more than a couple of weeks at best and they always end up damaging you.

        8. Part of my being A Terrible Person ™ is that I really could care less what girls think about things like politics. They’ll still tell me, but I never solicit the information.
          I think that you’re right about the desire for submission of course, that’s the entire reason the entirety of feminism is little more than a society wide shit test that men are, sadly, failing miserably.

        9. Lol talking with women about politics is the most boring thing I can imagine. I meant other things.
          Yeah it’s hilarious how all women deep inside still dream about submitting to a worthy man. They can’t go against their genetics.

        10. I am always amazed when guys say they would never date (date, not marry) a girl with liberal views…it’s like “how the fuck do you know what her views are” I have girls that have been in regular rotation for over a year….a few weeks on, not speaking for a few months, random bang, another month no speaking a week of dating there…..and I couldn’t fucking imagine what they think about politics or society…fuck, I rarely even know their last names.

        11. It’s become a selling point around these parts. They’ll let you know right up front that they are “pick your favorite wing of clown politics”. Some even kinda advertise it, like wearing a necklace with a pistol pendant or a Trump shirt or whatever. I think that being “right wing” has become edgy or something “counter culture” so they think it’s fun to play act at politics? Dunno. What I do know is that if you talk to a chick here for more than 5 minutes, you’ll know her politics if you ask for it or not. I never ask, but I always come away knowing.

        12. I had a friend that predicted conservatism as counter culture years ago but thought it would come in the form of being religious not political. I wonder if he remembers. Meanwhile, that might be a cultural thing. Girls here wear brand names as their signal. I could not see ever talking to a girl who was wearing a pLOLotics shirt trump or Hilary or anyone. I like my women focusing on name brand fashion not name brand politics. Both are equally meaningless, I just find the focus on one over the other to be more feminine.

        13. Being a liberal is more about her lifestyle than political views. You can tell if a woman is liberal or somewhat conservative (very rare) just by chatting her up for 10 mins or hell even just by looking at the way she dresses or handles herself.

        14. I actually mean more than wearing a slogan shirt, I mean usually just some obvious “tell” that appeals to right wing guys. Of course, yes, MAGA shirts, but that handgun jewelry I’m seeing more and more of and that’s basically her saying “I want some right wing guy to stick his cock in me while pinning me up against his pick’em up truck”. High heels are back in vogue as well, which while not political in and of itself, has been correlated to society when it takes a turn to the right, just like sensible shoes (on women) come back in vogue when we lean to the left. Just all kinds of little tells. But the biggest tell is when they up front tell you how much they really, gosh, hate taxes and really admire men who shoot guns, blah blah blah unsolicited. It’s really probably a regional thing, us right wing guys are in the scope right now in these parts I guess.

        15. I live in one of the most liberal cities in the country. I currently have a few girls I am dating and over the last few years have dated loads of women. I can tell you their taste in handbags, I can tell you what music, food, wine, shoe brand is. I could tell you their preferred neighborhood and what that means locally. I could tell you about all of these women what they enjoy doing and for many of them what social scenes they like. I can not think of a single woman who I dated who I could tell you about their politics. Maybe you are right about dressing and handling themselves and it is just a style I don’t like.
          How does a liberal dress
          My date on Friday night was wearing a purple channel mini dress with an oversized channel scarf. She had betsy Johnson 5 inch heels on. She was carrying a hermes crocodile clutch handbag. She had la perla panties on. Her earings were mikimoto pearls and she was wearing a chopard watch. She likes Madison Avenue restaurants. Hangs out at the Harvard Club went to Duke law. She hates starbucks but loves Nespresso shops. She treats music like background sound and doesn’t have big preferences. I know where she gets her manicure and pedicure, I know what kind of car she drives, I know where she likes to vacation, I know what kind of art she likes. However, I have NO idea who she voted for in the last election or if she voted at all. I have no idea what she thinks about politics. ANd I have been out with this girl maybe 8-10 times in the last 6 months.

        16. When did high heels stop being in vogue…..lol. My favorite is when I told the girl who was taller than me that if she thinks being taller than her date is going to get her out of wearing heels then she is fucking crazy. Unless I have asked a girl to the park or the gym or a yoga class if she isn’t wearing heels the date will end. I’ve never heard a girl talk about taxes or guns in either a positive or negative way but if a girl started to chat with me about the tax code on a date I would be looking for a check and, more likely than not, the waitresses phone number

        17. Oh, it’s never in depth “tax codes”. They just throw out how they hate taxes and let it hang. It’s right wing virtue signaling, they’re basically doing a mating call. Kind of like how Southern girls will do their mating call with “Well ah declare, ah do believe that ahm tipsy”. Same sort of deal.

        18. lol. “tipsy” really is a southern mating call. Man, I have known that one for ever. Maybe I don’t see the right wing (or left wing) virtual signaling because women tend to be socially intelligent and I give off a strong enough “political and social values, especially yours, don’t mean dick to me” and they just move on to the next club in their bag. I have never taken out a 3 wood on a putt putt course, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t one in my bag. Maybe these girls would act differently around someone who they felt valued that kind of stuff. However, it might be otherwise. I might just be picking girls who value different things because that is what I like. Hard to say.

        19. And of course a liberal will make you aware of their views almost immediately.
          Anyone belonging to the list below will make it know to you within 15 minutes:
          Atheist
          Vegetarian
          Artist
          Doctor
          Jew
          Have no TV

        20. I hate fucking taxes and I want to bomb Revenue Canada. I hate paying taxes to support crack whores and their infected spawn including the diseased addict who banged them. I do not want to support illegal refugees. When I hear “illegal refugee” services/healthcare/drop in centre/employment support, legal support……. I go completely insane.
          That’s how my date goes!!

        22. There, that was almost perfectly like what I was talking about, omitting parts about Canada. It’s not that we don’t want to bomb Canada, mind you, but it’s kind of an unspoken assumption for everybody here.

        23. Crossfit
          Gay/Lesbian (if it’s not immediately obvious)

        24. Don’t drink coffee/tea/caffeine
          Loves Transjenners, gay and any alphabet people
          on a diet all the time
          loud mouth married woman
          loud mouth unmarried woman

        27. I guess all women are libs where you live. As a general rule if she dresses and talks in slutty way , likes to travel a lot , describes herself as a “free spirit” , posts pics of dying syrian children or starving african kids on social media, than she more likely than not voted for Hillary. If she is somewhat reserved and talks about her parents than she may have voted for Trump. This is the logic I use at least.

        29. I wish Balkan that you could see what just happened. As I was reading your post when I read the words “free spirit” I actually rolled my eyes.
          I haven’t met any girls who give a fuck about African children and the ones I meet who travel a lot do so for work. The “talks in a slutty way” is odd. Most of the girls I go out with talk in a quite civilized manner and then turn to little sluts in the bedroom. I don’t have any social media to know what they are up to on the facebooks.
          To be honest, a woman who voted for trump is just as bad as a woman who voted for Hilary to me and god knows I don’t want to hear about some twats cunty parents. Like I said, I care about what brands women like not which politicians they vote for. Politics in general is a joke and even worse when women talk about it. I don’t think all women are libs where I live. I think that the vast majority of women who give a shit about politics where I live are libs but women that give a shit about politics is the minority of women. I like women who care about things more important that politics, like clothes, the gym, good massages, good food, wine and which restaurants are worth going to.

        30. ewwwwwww pantiliner. people actually use those. I figure most of these girls are stuck up cunts so their sanitary napkins ought to be too. I have never actually seen a panti-liner and didn’t know people actually used them. The girl from the weekend wasn’t using either, I can vouch for it…

        32. Yeah it’s so typical.
          I might be an exception since I don’t have a TV and I don’t bother bringing it on (I actually did but it’s for the sake of the argument).
          But than again I rarely talk with people.

        33. I guess you date in some elitary exclusive sircle man. Good for you.
          Women I see around really like to brag about “goodpolitcs” , especially the college types. And in my experience , the more a woman posts about syrian kids in social media , the more likely she is to spread her legs to multiple men. Simple lessons life has taught me.

        34. I remember the plague of manly shoes for women in the early 90s and what it portended, politically…..Dark Times indeed.

        35. On this list
          I don’t care if someone is an atheist but if She mentions it we are through
          Vegetarian: if she is not a 9 this is a hard no
          Artist: if she makes enough of a living selling her art that she can afford a decontrolled manhattan apartment then I am fine with it other than that, unless she is under 25 and a 9 it will not be tolerated
          I have actually used the line “hey, there is a stranger over there who doesn’t know that you are a doctor” will and have dated doctors but will mock incessantly
          Jew: goes by same attractiveness standards. An 8 is an 8 whether she is worshipping Muhammad or Jewhammed. That said, if she wants to talk about it she is out
          I am ok with having no television service as long as there is Hulu or Netflix supplementation. Television is kind of expensive and there really isn’t much on

        36. God people who do crossfit are so fucking odious. Crossfit girls are on the “if she is a 9 i will put up with it for a bit otherwise forget it” list

        37. Yeah, I tend to totally avoid women who care about anything not directly related to money

        38. “I figure most of these girls are stuck up cunts so their sanitary napkins ought to be too.”
          LOL

        39. “A man loses his sense of direction after four drinks; a woman loses hers after four kisses.”
          ― H.L. Mencken

        41. Cable bill? Cost to value? Sure it is especially if you are living in New York and just starting out ansnsealing with the high rents and other expenses

        42. Almost any of these things is acceptable IN AND OF ITSELF. But the announcements, declarations, conversation hijacks….
          I just can’t have it.

        43. agreed 100%.
          It’s like having an apple computer. My office buys powerbooks for us. I am not about to go buy another computer when I already have one for free so I use apple and have got used to it to the point where using windows is a pain because I am fairly computer illiterate so once I get used to something that is as good as it gets for me.
          I never even realized that apple v windows wasn’t just a preference game but rather had a whole politics tied into it. Do I give a shit what kind of computer a person uses? Lord no! But if I have to listen to some apple bitch tell me about her apple 300 times or some Windows dick pontificate on how apple is for jerks it makes me go a big rubbery one (thank you fight club).
          Why can’t people just have their beliefs, their things they like, their hobbies and let it fucking be?
          One day I hope to make a ship in a bottle. I have always wanted to do it and really get involved in the process. Rest assured I will not be talking about all the non-shippy-bottle people being evil when it finally happens. Holy cow people are such dicks
          Ok rant over.

        44. I had the same epiphany while hiking the Appalachian trail which everyone HAS to do and if you don’t you’re Hitler. Just FUKKKIN HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        45. “That clown thing is the expression of an extreme desire for submission to a worthy man”
          That’s what you take from it? I think it’s a desperate, futile attempt at uniqueness and individualism. A way to say “I’m different from everyone else, look at me!” even though there are millions “rebelling” just like her. It is a sign of a very immature, insecure mind, low self esteem, no sense of self/identity, etc. I agree that she’s hot though and these chicks are fun in bed but lets call a spade a spade. They’re fucked in the head.

        46. “I think it’s a desperate, futile attempt at uniqueness and individualism. A way to say “I’m different from everyone else, look at me!” even though there are millions “rebelling” just like her.” That’s another reason. Some of these types are just young dumb bitches who think it’s cool to clown themselves like that. Not worth wasting your time with them , as they probably suck in bed too.
          However a small portion of these broads are BPD and do it as a form of self mutilation. They hurt themselves and trash their lives in hopes meeting a saviour (the worthy man they wish to totally submitt to) who will save them from their misery. The lucky dude who tricks them into believing he is “the saviour” will be treated like a God King for the first few weeks and have his darkest sexual fantasies come true. The downside is they will shortly lose interest in you totally and you can’t have normal sex with normal women anymore after that.

        47. Yeah I’ve been there. The BPD I knew had over 20 piercings. Only one tattoo on her foot back then but several more years later. It certainly is self mutilation. I was that savior too, blue pill as hell but I caught her at a time when she was trying to hop off the carousel. Wild sex 2-3 times a day, everyday.

        49. Its not hard to spot someone not worth your time, I dont know what the fuck he is talking about.

        50. YOU can tell because you arent an idiot, lolknee on the other hand is an idiot AND a blowhard.
          Everytjing he says sounds like bs.

        51. Wait, “I have no tv” is bad?
          I have one, but its for my ps4 and movies, NOT for cable.

        52. “Fucking odious” reminds me of you and your endless prattle.
          I would have assumed you loved self absorbed crossfit hags who love to talk of themselves since you share many common traits.

        53. Oh you would had incorrectly assumed something. Shocking. Just shocking. Lol

        54. Lol hahahaha
          I really have to thank you. If it wasn’t for low intelligence, weak, cowardly and important men like you I might only be a top 10% rather than top 1% when it comes to SMV

        57. You know what I love most about you. You know nothing about me. Literally. You don’t know a thing about me except for what I say.
          You have left me nearly 100 comments violently calling me a liar. Why? This is where it gets cool. You are such an incredibly loser that you can’t even imagine the possibility of a person like me. You are so down at the bottom of every single metric in this world, such a pathetic little shit, that seeing someone like me is like seeing a unicorn to you. This stuff I take as normal is like Magic to you. It would be like an astronaut telling an African in 1300 AD that he flew to outer space
          Your passion on this really underscores how great my life is and how horrible your life is which is why I don’t block you. Every time you come crying like a little bitch it just serves to remind me that I should always be happy because I am so much better than other people and fuckinh light years better than you.
          If I had the address of whatever trailer park you live in I’d send you a Christmas present. Send me a mail address and tell me what you need. Some canned food maybe?

        58. YOU TALK ABOUT YOURSELF CONSTANTLY.
          Just sayin
          Did you also go back and count how many times I called you a cocksucker, too?
          You proving you are anal as fuck makes me smile.

        59. I am quite OCD so yes you have me there and if you get a smile you should enjoy it. You have so little. I’m a little grossed out that the first time you mentione being happy had the word “anal” in the sentence but live and let live

        60. You know what I mean…..the pseudo-intellectual jackass that has to work it into the conversation to try to prove how well read he is…

        62. The first time I met one of those Dr Friedman clones he stated smugly that they “Dont believe in television”
          I was still under 20 years old at that time, but I could spot a cunt already.
          I jerked his chain and acted like he just told me that he doesnt believe tvs are real.
          I was an annoying little bastard, to be sure.
          I did the same thing when told “we dont believe in leftovers” from someone else.
          They couldnt just say, we dont keep leftover, they wanted to sound pompous instead.

        64. Exactly, the delusional crap HAS to be challenged everytime.
          If we had done a better job, there would be a lot.less to worry about currently.

      4. Everyone who embraces Leftist ideas – embraces ugliness, physical and behavioural ugliness. Because beauty requires sacrifice in form of self-discipline, self-restrain and so on.
        One Russian classic said that “Beauty will save the world”. I know what he meant now.

        1. You must suffer to be beautiful. I was taught that from an early age. Hair stacked on top of your head with hundreds of bobby pins sticking in your skull? Suffer. Feet hurt wearing high heels? Suffer.
          Any woman whose hair was dyed a weird colour was considered mentally unstable.

        2. If you decide to open a university that teaches only this let me know and I will donate money

        3. It use to be called “Charm School”. Walk with a book on your head, sit in a chair and cross at the ankles, know how to properly do an introduction and greet someone, how to set a place setting and pour tea.

        7. You really are absolutely clueless about nearly everything. You have got to be some 18 year old type.

        8. Looking good is not parasitic. Read my comment again minus the douche nozzle setting.

        9. Doubling down instead of admitting your hamster flew off the rails … typical female
          Re-read my comment, i said women wear clown makeup in order to hide their uselessness … a useless woman is a parasite
          Learn to read, cunt

        10. Wow. Sooo mad. Why don’t you bend over and pull that hamster out of your ass. You know, the one your friend put there.

        11. Just piss off.
          None of the guys here troll cosmo because that would be a pathetic waste of time.

        12. Charm school for all would be a blessing. Sometimes calling a person out on their behavior helps them. Men can use it too. After two generations of little princes no wonder they are such a pain.

        14. I yelled “shit,” but I will just say … overcomb or something.

        15. Shame and a good stare down done right always worked. I’m not talking humiliation.
          It is just an expectation of behaviour. I didn’t really get it in child hood, but quickly learned what was expected of me if you didn’t want to be on the bottom rung.

      1. Was listening to this song just yesterday (some Rolling Stones documentary on Showtime). Mick said that all he did was play roles like an actor. The Stones were supposed to be the bad boys, to the Beatles’ good boys. Mick said each new album would give him a new stage persona, and his management set it all up that way. My childhood idols have been outed, OMG, what’s a guy to do…

        5. You do know Mick got a degree in management from the London School of Economics.

    4. I can work with that action. I like making black mascara tears.

      2. make her deepthroat for that purpose is a fine choice for every connoisseur imo

    5. They are not doing it to to defend their constitutional rights, it is to fit into their little niche. You see skaters with their baggy pants hang out and tear up picnic tables or loiter in front of the 7-11. There is little difference.

        1. It’s just shameful how somebody can be convinced to utterly destroy her own natural beauty in the name of letting fat ugly butch pigs have access to men they do not deserve.

        5. It’s a shame they do that to themselves. Your second picture is far better without the clown face.

        9. too skinny of cheekbones…..I will spare you the Bruce Jenner picture comparison.

        10. there are some that have the strung out druggie look. The actual healthy looking ones are rare.

        11. See, she’s not awful. Nothing to write home about, nobody is going to claim that she’s a 9 or a 10, but she’s easily passable.
          EDIT: Actually, she is at least an HB8 now that I examine the rest of her portfolio, maybe borderline higher.

        13. Never and always – two words that never fail to always bite a person in the ass…

        14. Idl. Some dude have skinny faces.
          Big chin.
          Jawline and neck concealed.
          Tons of makeup.
          Could be a dude.

        16. you have a pic of her cleaned up, I am curious?

        18. Damn I would marry her if I could keep her on the middle of the jungle or in an inhabited island 1000 kms away from the nearest human male.

        20. not a bad looking girl. Dressher up nicely and fix her makeup and she might be quite attractive.

        21. Yep. She definitely has bonable qualities.

        24. Now that is what I am talking about. Definitely bangable like this. Why do they ruin themselves?

        25. Maybe it was for a one time shoot for a specific purpose or something?


        27. “It’s so hard to tell what a woman’s face really looks like when it’s buried beneath all that makeup.” – Bob Smith

        31. So long as she doesn’t get tattooed up, fat or anything else permanently disfiguring……..

        32. Check out the link Bob provided, she’s got quite a portfolio and some really sharp pictures. And a few clown ones too, but….eh…

        35. This girl describes herself as a “gothic artist” Probably not far off from Elvira in the 80’s. Not the same as a true gothic. She looks like she takes care of herself. The Goths you see hanging out at the park, smoking dope do not take care of themselves. No tattoos, not fat, not a strung out druggie….she is taking care of herself, and has a fetish with makeup.

        37. Dudeface. That one I’ll skip. I can smell moth balls coming off the picture.

        42. I think you are right. This girl isn’t really “ruined” the way @disqus_68anDuoclq:disqus said. She has no visible tattoos or even any wacky piercings. Her hair is long. The worst you can say about her is that her make up look terrible. Grab her by that hair and drag her into that water and the make up is gone. If this is a phase she is going through it is quite benign considering that many people her age going through a phase are getting tattoos everywhere that are simply never going to go away or getting piercings all over their face or shaving heads which will take a long time to grow back etc. If it is not a phase and she is just getting paid as a modeling gig then whatever…again, if soap and water can fix it then it really isn’t that big of a deal.

        44. 112% of the girls I fucked in college called themselves photo artists.

        46. Agreed, after looking at the pictures, looks like she takes care of herself, but has a fetish with makeup. Hair coloring probably isn’t even dye. That is why this girl is so peculiar.

        47. No fucking shit. Photographers who are studying psychology. (While actually having a full-time career in suckology.)

        49. Wow Elvira…haven’t thought of her in a coons age

        50. In her heyday….eh, I’da tapped that.

        52. The thing about Elvira in her heyday is that I was 13 in her heyday and would have (and might have) tapped a hole in some dry wall at the time so yeah, I can remember thinking she was hot (around the same time I thought some heavy metal chick in the 80’s was super hot though I can’t really remember her name right now) but I was basically a walking hard on. Now that I look at pics of her in her prime she blips WB but not particularly special.

        54. true, probably the best going for elvira was her uncanny ability to show cleavage. Not bad, but like you said, nothing special

        56. silicone was a new thing back then. There was most girls, then there was her, Dolly Pardon, and Lonnie Anderson.

        57. about right. Ha, I had a math teacher that called “improper fractions” “Dolly Pardon Fractions”

        58. Don’t know who she is. But I’d like to.

        60. She was the closest thing to live porn we had back in the days before the interwebs. And yes, walking around as a teen male at the time basically meant being able to get a hard on by staring at vinyl flooring.

        61. Give her a thorough course of enemas and she’ll be ready for her date with me.

        63. I recently saw a makeup/no make up side by side pictures of her in her hay day. The makeup is huge. She looks ok in no makeup and street clothes, but was the bomb in her stage get up. It is all illusion. Lust; the illusion that one woman is different from another (they all have perfect legs, feet at one end and pussy at the other.)

        64. I liked the look, it is fun to see a woman play dress up on occasion (not every day. Keeps things interesting for us married guys who don’t get the variety.

        1. I know Bob I know we gotta stick to business…but still it’s hilerious.

  17. Cue (((lolknee))) saying he wont fight for anything other than hotel bars.

      1. Yep. Busy business man who goes to the gym 3 hours every day(ha!), who posts more than anyone.
        His post count and post length must be astronomical.

        1. so is my dick size.
          I sit at a desk for work bored out of my mind taxing all of 15% of my abilities…..ROK is a god send. As for the gym, just because you can’t hack it don’t make it not so.
          You don’t know me buddy. The thing is, by assuming all this stuff about me in order to put me in a near little category you are able to look the other way when I very clearly explain that the things that give meaning to your life and the bubble gum I stepped in in the park the other day have roughly the same value.
          But if it makes you happy to call me literally hitler because I see things differently than you and have a different sort of life then do go on. If nothing else it is worth a good laugh.

      2. I had to block him, after he pathetically lost his shit like an autistic retard, after i gave him free elite pua advice …
        Like a true jew, he loses his shit, in the presence of a superior race, & an elite pua …
        The jew butthurt is real … in the presence of da elite pua …

      1. You owe me a buck.
        He has all the traits.
        On his salad thing he pretty much gave it away. I asked him about it and he totally deflected.
        …
        Just look at all the things he says are worth caring about vs thw things he says stupid people care about.
        It becomes clear.

        1. “i said things you care about aren’t of any value therefore jew” is the exact same argument as “you disagree with the pay wage you are literally hitler” Welcome to being part of THAT group

        2. Weird. He looks like a butched up New York Eye-talian with a charmingly fascist haircut, to me.

        4. actually no, Chip, it is an identical 1:1 equivalency. You are no different than every single person in black lives matter yelling that every police officer is literally hitler because one guy who was told to put his hands up and didn’t is not longer alive. You merely drop “jew” based on an opinion which contradicts your own. Oddly enough, it is my unabashed and unashamed deification of self interest that makes me most unlike jews who seek to push an agenda. I don’t care about you or what you believe or do. I only care about me. The fear you have deep within and the feelings of inadequacy you harbor require you to strike out against anything which threatens the world view you have constructed around yourself to hide from the fact that life is meaningless and that you are meaningless and as such you need to do whatever you can to try to push aside these contradictory ideas.
          For what its worth I am not offended or put off at all. The whole thing is laughably obvious.

        5. lol, I do go slightly fascist when it comes to hair.

        8. I believe you need to phrase that as “Straight Outta Kabbalah”
          I couldn’t find the video where mort says that insurance fraud is covered in the torah right near writing complaint letters

        9. Granted, you do have a doo that would make Hitler smile in joy, but you have, and I as well, the freedom to truly decide our own hairstyles. Say what you will, but the ability to control your own styling choices is truly a satisfying and masculine trait, to be certain. It’s the “men” who let their wives decide their haircuts that I feel really bad for. It’s so tragic to have that little power over one’s life.

        11. “Oddly enough, it is my unabashed and unashamed deification of self interest that makes me most unlike jews who seek to push an agenda. I don’t care about you or what you believe or do. I only care about me.”
          And he seriously thinks he can convince people he isn’t a shill on this website

        12. a Shill for what?!?!?
          he’s many things, our @lolknee:disqus, but a salesman he aint!

        13. hey now slow down. I don’t want the people hiring shills to see this! If someone is paying I am totally for sale. I don’t come cheap but hey….ya get what you pay for.

    1. Fortunately, I still use the time-tested Soap Box upon which to pontificate – they’ll never see me coming!

        1. I have always scoffed at that “stays in Vegas” crap. That place is one of the most monitored places on earth; perfect blackmail-factory -!

        2. Hell yes. They make it seem safe and geared toward a person’s privacy…bwahaha, etc.

  20. Edward Snowden is indeed a hero. The only reason he fled to Russia is because it’s the only nation the US government wasn’t able to cajole into rejecting him or turning him over. Snowden wanted Ecuador. Although I can easily envision a creep like Putin sending him back to Uncle Sam for a good enough reason. As for Milo (a degenerate) and Adam’s Apple Annie (a tosser of verbal pipe bombs who doesn’t believe in evolution) it was wrong for a heckler’s veto to prevail here. Sunlight is the best disenfectant. Doubt they’d have changed many minds at Berkeley though.

    1. googled this. it is real. Holy guacamole this is beautiful.

        2. Sunny and swimsuit weather one minute, a front comes in, and time to drag the heavy coats out again. We were scheduled to do a Boy Scout camp this weekend. Postponed.

        3. Yep. Last week I went snowboarding in fresh stuff all morning and then worked on my tan in the park in Denver the same day. Mind blown

    2. The irony is too much. Just had one of the best powder days of my life, and these pussies are standing around with their thumbs up their asses having what looks like exactly zero fun.

    2. I just hope he is taking precautions to keep his cholesterol and blood pressure in check.

    3. Are we talking free-range terrorists here. I really would want a controlled diet on a terrorist before I ate their liver. The lack of alcohol that Islamic terrorists have coupled with a Mediterranean diet of fatty meats, whole grains and vegitables probably make for a good liver if we make sure they aren’t living in some Palestinian shit hole eating garbage. That said, adding vinegar and salt to these livers really seems like it would up the salt content to an uncomfortable level. Now that Vidalia onions are in season I would suggest the liver to be cooked with them after sautéed down and the natural sugars brought out.

  23. Thanks for the education. I now understand that the expression “stupid cunt” is redundant.

  24. DISCLAIMER:
    Popcorn won’t do it for this comment section. Better pour yourself a stiff drink before diving in….

  25. Maybe the right should stop trying to hide behind the skirts of a blonde bimbo and a fag.

    1. Who the hell is hiding? The right showed up at Berkley and put the beat down on those antifa Leftists. Seems to me, that’s direct action.

    2. If the message doesn’t get delivered by a non-heterosexual white male, it doesn’t get delivered at all.

      1. There’s a bit of a whine (and exaggeration) in that post. Most unmasculine. And Donald Trump (hetero white guy) got his point across! More to the point, what exactly is Milo’s message? That he’s an alt.righter who likes taking black dick in his pooper? Helluva message.

  27. Caroline?!? Caroline J Miller?! Holy cow, how are you baby girl? Man, I can’t remember the last time I saw you, what was it, five years ago I think? It was at that frat party right? Or bachelor party, I really can’t remember the exact one, but wow girl, you put on a strip show like nobody’s business. It was actually a surprise, it just really caught all of us guys off guard, when you started making your rounds to all of the guys in the room and fucking them raw for cash. No holding back, nope, not my little Caroline, you took it in all holes for a solid seven hours of spunk spunk spunktacular performance. That was just bold as heck, you were so empowered that night!
    So how you doing now sweety? Your mom still going to church regularly? That would be nice. Really nice. Tell your dad I said “hi”.
    Well hey, great talkin’ to ya’, you take care now!

  28. Not just for that.
    What we are serious about, is what we are ready to kill and to die for.
    God, Nation, Family.

  29. Why I’m always late for the comments? I need to move to East Coast I guess…

  30. “Edward Snowden is no hero: heroes don’t run off to even more tyrannical nations…”
    Why the hate towards Putin’s Russia?
    Also, what did you expect Snowden to do? Stay in the US and go to jail for the rest of his life? What would be the point of that? What would he be accomplishing by surrendering himself to US authorities rather than fleeing the country?
    I agree with you about fighting and not being a coward, but only when you have a realistic chance to win the fight. For example, if cops pull you over and demand to search your car for no reason (a violation of the 4th amendment), I certainly wouldn’t recommend you pull a gun on them and start shooting. There’s a difference between being a coward and knowing when to surrender.
    In Snowden’s case, his only two options were to surrender to US authorities or flee the country. Attempting to fight back (with physical force) against the US government would just be plain stupid. He made the right decision in my opinion.
    I do believe Snowden is a hero. He DID risk his life in order to leak that information. He could have kept his comfy job at the NSA and kept his mouth shut, but instead he chose to leak the information, risking a long jail sentence. And now you’re calling him a coward because he didn’t voluntarily allow himself to be put in jail for the rest of his life? Come on, man.

  31. Can’t protect anything without the 2nd amendment. That’s what they’ll come for first. They’re actively trying as we speak.

  33. You should be prepared to die for the Second Amendment. Without it, all other Amendments are worth absolutely nothing. If the insidious Left has their way, you can die for any one of the others if you want. There won’t be anything stopping them from trampling all over the other Amendments.

  34. Ironically, the author seems to have spent a significant part of his youth actually _increasing_ the terror threat by fighting mindless and criminal wars in the middle east on behalf of the petrol oligarchs.

    1. No, Milo is a fag. You keep saying “Tranny” but more and more I’m coming to realize that you may not entirely grasp the actual meaning of the word. Like when you said some people are “born tranny”. That makes no sense on any level.

  36. “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
    We have to protect our rights by living; by winning the fight. Let the other side die trying to push their agenda.

  37. As one wag put it, “In a mere three years after the hologram known as the Constitution was signed, the founders passed the Alien and Sedition Acts restricting free speech and the father of the country commanded a military force to suppress a tax rebellion (with many Revolutionary War veterans) in Western Pennsylvania. It was directly down hill from there. “

  38. Men don’t fight for their own freedoms. They fight for their children’s freedom. This doesn’t bode well in an age where men are increasingly foregoing marriage and fatherhood, and where those who do have kids have a decent chance of not even seeing them as the child support check clears to pay for their ex’s new boyfriend’s condoms and booze.

  39. I’m disappointed that ROK would publish this kind of collectivist Marxism. Your quote-unquote “rights” are worthless if you are dead. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, and it’s been compromised countless times by government; you cannot rely on it for your freedom. If you do, you’re not truly free. You’re in a massive Group Trap, giving up something valuable while gaining nothing.

  42. “We should fight like hell to annihilate those who wish us harm”
    Truer words were never spoken. Wake up, gents.

Comments are closed.