Wuzzums

>Chemical attack took place more than a day before Trump launched the strike. >Battleships were moved into position way before the MSM started yelling "Chemical attack! DUH CHILDRUN OMG!" (confirmed my Mike Cernovich during his livestream). >Trump offers no response (no tweets, no "prayers for the victims", silence) while partaking in diplomatic activities with commie leader Xi. >Media narrative on the false flag grows to a climax. >The opposition is fully backing Trump. >Trump orders the attack while having dinner with Xi right next to him. >The opposition applauds Trump. >Scott Adams says that the only way to respond to a false flag is through a false attack. Which is what Trump did. No confirmed casualties. And are we supposed to think that he can "start a war" willy nilly yet has trouble getting his people through congress? The media is suddenly forgetting the whole Russian interference narrative at the same time Trey Gowdy is put in charge of the investigation. Trey Gowdy, the guy that hates Clinton's guts and never bought into the Russia spin in the first place. The media is backing Trump now and at the same time it's revealed Clinton sold sarin gas to the syrians. Last year the US accidentally attacked Assad's forces killing DOZENS but media silence. Sure, Assad declared war with the US but Russia calmed him down. Nothing came of that. Why are we supposed to think that launching 50 missiles and killing at the very most 7 people (UNCONFIRMED) is now suddenly an act of war? Trump tweets at least once a day, more if the media is trying to put an unfair spin on what he's doing. Trump hasn't tweeted yet in more than 24h which means (a) the dominoes are still falling and he's timing it and (b) the media is putting the exact type of spin he wants them to put out. Gentlemen, I think Trump out-played us all. Here's what I think is going to happen. Syria has been so fractured it's barely a country. Assad winning doesn't mean Syria will remain Syria, chances are it's gonna get divided into different states. Prior to the false flag attack Trump has been constantly spinning a yarn on how great Jordan is. Assad wants war with the US. Assad is allied with the Russians. Russia doesn't want a war with the US. It's in the best interest for everyone for Assad to be removed. The Russians working with the Syrian forces means things will run just the same with or without Assad there. Russia could offer Assad and his family political asylum for stepping down. They take over officially speaking, they've been running things since this whole mess started anyway. Trump forges good ties with Jordan. Jordan annexes a chunk of Syria. Thus both the US and Russia gain control of that region. The end effect of them taking control of that region is Turkey losing it's "gonna release muh refugees" trump card over the EU. Syria is stabilized, the EU is saved, and war with Russia is completely averted. Praise Kek.

If Trump comes out on top again after all of this... I'm going to church because the supernatural is at play here.

I'm impulsive when it comes to judging people which is why I never trust my first impressions.

Firstly, Gabe will stop this madness. Secondly, each STEM field has a very clear definition, art has yet to have one. It's just another marxist trick to add to the erosion of reality. Because the term "art" is all-encompassing its end effect is to put socialist indoctrination on par with mathematics. Noam Chomsky, of all people, has a great video on this phenomenon:

...but "intelligence" already has a definition.

Propaganda succeeds only if no one dares to tell the truth. Things do not get better if we lie, they'll get worse and worse and worse and worse until everyone is dead.

People adapt. They will use any strategy they can think of to see if it's advantageous. If lying yields no rewards or if telling the truth yields a greater reward then they will avoid lying.

A "sense" is defined as the ability to detect a stimulus. The receptors of the body are numerous. The ability to feel pain is not the same as the ability to touch for example. You can feel pain without touching and can touch without feeling pain. Color, movement, shape and distance are all perceived through the eyes. Difference neural pathways are produced for each and each is being perceived by different parts of the brain.

Humans have 20+ senses. Pressure, pain, pleasure, thirst, hunger, warm, wet, cold, and so on are all senses. We have the required amount of senses that allowed us to become the dominant species, an extra sense would be pointless and an overall negative because it will occupy a part of the brain that could be used by a more useful sense.

She's great. If she'll be on it's gonna be like battle of the tangents.

Jordan Peterson explained that whenever you meet someone that's part of a cult you'll always be able to predict word for word what they're gonna say next. The people who are calling you racist are not people. They have forgone their own mind and personal responsibility to the group. They chose this way of living so in my mind I owe it to actual people to not to treat the sjw's as full persons.

Like how to run away after getting punched by a literal crap-eating cuck?

Hey guys, remember that time when we were discussing the alt-right and I dismissed it as another idiotic fringe movement that would eventually degenerate into socialism/communism and got criticized for it? Who's laughing now?? I am. I am laughing now.

A fight between a bow-tie guy and an ex-bow-tie guy always ends in tears.

If you make statements that might have real-life influence then you have to back them up with facts. Of course. If you don't have any facts and you're still a proponent of those views then you're pushing forth a hidden agenda. If you put forth facts that turn out to be inaccurate but still push forth those views then you have a hidden agenda. I think Milo thought he had some facts (his own personal experience) from which he extrapolated a rationale for pederasty. If he's given counter evidence and then changes his rationale then I don't see how you can say he's an advocate of child rape. If you have the knowledge you have the responsibility. Milo views child rape and pederasty as separate. You view them as the same thing. Don't you think you're being disingenuous when you're equating the 2 perspectives? I agree with you, I don't think there's much of a difference between the two but question is: does Milo realize this? Given his history I don't think he does which is why I can't attack him. You think he does which is why you're on the offensive. He gave an apology, not perfect but he does seem to be adjusting his views on the matter. He has not doubled down on his statements so why is he being treated as if he has? Yes, it's an argument from effect. The videos were years old, seen/listened to by millions and nobody batted an eye at the time. A lot of people said they were behind Milo because he was effective against the radical left. Fair enough, I'll take this as a principle. Is he still effective? Yes. Why are some people that stood behind Milo for being effective now jumping ship? They were singing Milo's praise after he made his statements, they just didn't know about it or cared about it. You can either hold the "let's back anyone that's effective against the left" principle or condemn Milo along with a ton of other people. You can't have both. Like I've said, winning is the most important thing. After we're safe from all this madness we can start talking about the nuances of things. I don't recall the civil rights activists castigating MLK Jr. over his questionable lifestyle or bad parenting. Trump said some bad words once upon a time. Milo said some bad words once upon a time. Trump apologized. Milo apologized. Trump said he does not hold those past views anymore. Milo said he does not hold those past views anymore. People backed Trump saying the past is the past. People are not backing Milo saying he's guilty of the crime. We are literally treating these 2 instances as different because Milo was molested several times as a child and has a twisted view on sexuality. I never once mentioned "alt-right". I have my own reservations on the alt-right and I criticized them repeatedly, even on this board, over their unsavory agenda. Again, I'm applying the effectiveness principle. The alt-right is ineffective, they only gained ground by attributing more effective people's success (such as Milo) as their own. The alt-right hates Milo. They don't have a "protect the children" principle, they have a "screw Milo" principle. I have considered this but I still don't know how this will play out. Milo's apology was a step in the right direction but not exactly satisfactory for me. Most alt-media figureheads are backing Milo and his facebook followers seem to have grown a little. I'm just fearful of losing. I don't see any reason in changing our tactics when we've been gaining ground this whole time.

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that words trump actions? You can say whatever dark thing you want, it's called free speech. We can arrest people for doing things but we can't arrest them for saying things. Is this clear to you? Milo has broken no law. His was a crime of aesthetics not ethics. He's not advocating child rape. He made his case very clearly that he's strongly against it. He is a pederasty apologist. Don't choose to change definitions because it suits your biases. Milo used very clear definitions, if you have a contention with those say it outright and don't try to pull some sleight of hand trick on us. Let me make an analogy. Let's say this random guy Olim says spanking is ok. Olim was himself beaten as a child and he came out just fine in his view and therefore he sees nothing wrong with spanking some children. Olim never had any kids. Olim never plans on having any kids. Olim has never spanked a child. Olim never encourages people to spank their kids. Olim just made his spanking comment in passing maybe once or twice. Is Olim a child abuse advocate?

This is where I think you're mistaken. The media's attack worked because of our blindspot. Time and time again we fail to realize they're using our own standards against us to great effect. What happened to the principle of "we cannot hold higher standards than our enemy"? Milo has words, the enemy has actions. Karen Straughan has been raped. She chose not to let it define her and play the victim. Should be cast her out too for not playing the victim card and not naming names? Milo has been raped too and also chose not to let the moment(s) define him. Why is he being criticized for not naming names? Why is he being criticized for knowing about high-profile pedo-rings and not raising a fire about them? Is this the standard, that a victim has to name their abusers otherwise they're bad? Ok, so how about the victims at those parties? Should we reprimand them too for not naming their abusers? I'm sure some of them are of age by now, surely the burden of their abuse falls on their shoulders completely. This is my critique of Stefan's view on this. Does Milo's words and success have a deterministic effect on other victims' outlook on their abuse? If it does, and we abandoned free will completely, then surely we can make an iron clad argument for taking away Milo's freedom of speech. If speech breaks the NAP and censorship stops speech then it's within our duty as principled libertarians/ancaps to censor speech. Andrew Breitbart has spoken out against these people by naming names and got a heart attack afterwards. Milo has never names names and has to walk everywhere with a security detail because they are literally trying to lynch him for stating an opinion. What's the argument here? That Milo should further put his life on the line than he already has because he was molested and a witness to some vile things? Our priorities are reversed here. First we make the abusers pay for their crimes then we get to decide what sort of reprimand the victims of said abusers should get, NOT the other way around.

One of the things that has gotten a lot of people to rally against the establishment even before the election is pizzagate. Alex Jones was under constant attack for not covering it and not focusing his whole attention on it, even though he's been warning people about child trafficking elites for decades. Cernovich has acknowledged pizzagate himself. Milo was rumored to have been advised to stay off the pizzagate topic for the time being. Joe Rogan himself acknowledged it and his podcast reaches literally millions of people. Pizzagate is a topic that if you denied it you would instantly get attacked with a barrage of evidence that's far too convincing for comfort. People haven't inferred it, they just stayed off topic because the rabbit hole is way too deep and way too dark. Ever since Trump took office HUNDREDS of arrests were made (and are made) regarding child trafficking rings and THOUSANDS of children have been saved. The point I'm trying to make is that our side has been the one championing the rights of kids whilst the opposition have actively been promoting pedophilia for years. Now I want you to keep in mind these bulletpoints from Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals with regarding to subversion: >>Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. >>Make the enemy live up to its own rules. The liberal outlets that have been promoting pedophilia have now wiped the record clean, I'm talking about Salon here specifically. Stefan is the ONLY ONE and I mean the ONLY ONE that criticized Milo's views, and rightfully so, regarding underage sex. Everyone else however have attacked Milo not because they stand for the rights of children but because they have always hated Milo. All you hear from the Milo detractors is that Milo's an attention whore, narcissist, opportunistic, dumb, a typical homosexual, and so on. Not one stood on principle saying his comments were inappropriate. They jumped at the first occasion to cast him out REGARDLESS of accusations. So if you take all of the points I made into account, where are we now? There us one group of people that distanced themselves from Milo because they have been made to live up to their own rules. Then there's another group that has always been against Milo which have been given the ammunition to take him down. The third group is treating this as nothing more than another hit-piece on Milo, of which there have been literally dozens. The movement has been polarized. These three groups will turn on each other if we don't stop it. The way I see it now is that we either >> Cast Milo out, taking a huge blow within our ranks. The pedophile agenda will start to get pushed again by the radical left but now against a significantly weaker opposition. >> Stand behind Milo, because they were just words, and continue fighting back against the radical left, which promotes and engages in pedophilia, no less weaker than before. Yes, it is an argument from effect but in a war the most important thing is not principles, ideology, or honor, the most important thing is winning and if we lose this fight we'll have to deal with a lot worse than some guy's psychological pathology. They're actively making toddlers take sex-ed courses for crissake ! What kind of future are we willing to risk in so we can enjoy the luxury in the present of standing for our principles? We saw what the left wants to do to us. We saw how they infiltrated our ranks. We saw how they use our own principles against us. We saw the kind of muscle they have. They took a shot at Flynn and got him fired. They took a shot at InfoWars and they lost millions of dollars in revenue. They took a shot at Milo and he was falsely branded as a pedophile, cancelled the most anticipated book of the year, and got him fired from Breitbart. They are going after everyone in the alt-media so now it's not the time to waver. Ask yourselves, how comforting the thought of ostracizing Milo and sticking to your holy standards will be in a future where NAMBLA decides your toddler's curriculum?

Factually false. We ALL gained from Milo's work. Furthermore you seem to conflate "personal gain" to "bad". Don't be absurd. If there is one good thing that I can take away from all of this it's that there are rats hiding within every movement. It's only a matter of time till the vermin start pushing forth socialism/communism and the "useful idiots" are, and have always been, the first to go. You have been put on notice.

The guy that puts his career, livelihood, and life on the line does not care about free speech?

Riddle me this, then: If being anxious around a woman is such a honest compliment that she can't help but marry you then why is the OP not on a date with her instead of posting a topic about how he's having trouble going on a date with her?

I think the word "commitment" is too strong. What's been going on the the west is the exact opposite of white tribalism, as in the commitment of doing the exact opposite of one's instincts. If a white behaves like any other race they're accused of being racist. A white's behavior is deemed acceptable only if it's to promote any other race except their own. You're not allowed to marry whites, be friends with whites, watch movies with whites, enjoy white singers, hire whites, talk about being white, have white kids, and so on. I wouldn't call any deviation from this low, low, low standard for group preference as being committed. We must set "I don't have to constantly castigate myself for being white" as a bare minimum and see where that takes us.

I agree. Tribalism is something that evolved over billions of years, it's biology and you can never win a fight against biology. Our best bet is to work with it or around it and not against it.