Neel Kolhatkar strikes again.
Award winning moment: The portrayal of the main stream media. Perfect.
But out of chaos comes opportunity, and if we are smart and decisive then we can use this moment to challenge the left’s historical deception that the Nazis were on the right.
Remember, SJWs always project. Why is everyone who disagrees with them a Nazi these days? Why are they so quick to use that label?
The answer is that they are in fact Nazis themselves. Their ideology is one and the same. We need to give them back their own dirty history. And we can start that process by correctly identifying why we do not want Nazis in our midst. They are socialists which means they are progressive leftists. Nazis are ANTIFA. Nazis are BLM. Nazis are SJWs.
Start labeling them with it and watch their heads explode.
Both sides are backed by big-government statists. As usual, both the left and the right are wrong, and do not really want freedom.
. . . . .
For the third time, and I’m not repeating myself again, I wasn’t talking about their views when I was asking about whether or not my readers supported them in my article. I was asking about their initiation of violence against others. (Perhaps I should have been more clear.)
I don’t side with either side. You seem to side with antifa, Jack seems to side with the Nazis. In both cases, you’re both casually glossing over the fact that both sides, yours included, initiated violence against people who weren’t engaged in violence themselves. I think that’s wrong, period. I also think that undermines any political points if you had them to begin with.
If you think the initiation of violence justified, then we strongly disagree and we’ll have to leave it at that. If you keep changing the subject to not talk about the fact those communists initiated force against those Nazis, then that’s a strong indication that you think initiation violence is justified.
China’s rise to the status of global economic power has invited enormous interest in its cultural and political heritage. Historians tend to be fascinated by China’s erratic economic progress and rich history of innovation, each of which have, at different times, both outpaced and lagged behind developments in Western Europe. In particular, many questions surround the reasons for China’s “great divergence”—why Western Europe industrialized and China did not.
Numerous explanations have been suggested, and the key issues remain controversial, but the most plausible answers tend to point out problems in Chinese political institutions.
Simply put, the ruling classes in many eras of Chinese history have been hostile to commercial activity, at best treating it as a necessary evil to be tolerated to increase state wealth.
This interpretation has been advanced by economists like William Baumol, for instance, who argued that Chinese rulers drove talented individuals out of the marketplace and into service to the state bureaucracy. That is, by providing rewards for government advisers and punishments for merchants, rulers largely destroyed interest in entrepreneurship and innovation outside the state apparatus. Of course, this did not eliminate commerce in China. In fact, the title of this article risks being unfair: throughout history Chinese entrepreneurs have often been exceptionally skilled. The trouble is that their skills were rarely acknowledged as socially beneficial, and have even been subject to outright oppression.
This wisdom, unfortunately, is rarely embraced by modern pundits arguing about the causes of the American Civil War. A typical example can be found in this article at the Huffington Post in which the author opines: “This discussion [over the causes of the war] has led some people to question if the Confederacy, and therefore the Civil War, was truly motivated by slavery.”
Did you notice the huge logical mistake the author makes? It’s right here: “…the Confederacy, and therefore the Civil War….”
The author acts as if the mere existence of the Confederacy inexorably caused the war that the North initiated in response to it. That is, the author merely assumes that if a state secedes from the United States, then war is an inevitable result. Moreover, she also wrongly assumes that the motivations behind secession were necessarily the same as the motivations behind the war.
But this does not follow logically at all. If California, for example, were to secede, is war therefore a certainty? Obviously not. The US government could elect to simply not invade California in response.
A fantasist who made up bogus rape and sex assault claims against 15 men in three years for ‘attention’ has been jailed for 10 years.
Jemma Beale claimed to be a lesbian with ‘no desire’ to sleep with men, and lodged deceitful complaints to police that led to one of her victims, Mahad Cassim, serving two years in jail.
Beale, from west London, was even awarded £11,000 in compensation while Mr Cassim languished behind bars.
She told police Mr Cassim raped her after offering to give her a lift home – but in fact she got out of the car and told him: ‘Get your pants down.’
The 25-year-old would injure herself and use self-inflicted cuts and bruises against the 15 victims she falsely accused of sex attacks – including one who fled the country with his life in tatters.
Fahs interviewed 20 random females for the article, asking them questions about their current weight and what they thought of the prospect of gaining 100 pounds.
Not surprisingly, not a single one of the women she surveyed was enthused about the idea, leading Fahs to remark with dismay that “no participants described gaining 100 pounds as a positive thing to imagine” [emphasis in original].
During the survey, in fact, four women “shrieked in disgust” or “started laughing uncontrollably” in response to Fahs’ questions, thinking the professor was joking.
No doubt this will be used as evidence that fat-phobia (a term Farce actually uses in what passes for scholarly research) has reached epidemic proportions and must be addressed through legislation.
Maybe there are statues of thin people she would like to tear down.