We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

The NAPster • 1 month ago

"So they made a pact: they would never discuss politics in their home or allow guests to discuss politics. In her view politics was like sex and religion, a private matter."

-- I would love it if we could return to such an environment. However, because some level of government is now involved in every single aspect of our lives or, if not, is looked to each time there is a problem, it's almost impossible to have a regular conversation that doesn't touch on politics.

Brett • 1 month ago

Not talking about how psycopaths and sadists are hijacking society is the best way to make the job easier for said psychopaths and sadists.

The NAPster • 1 month ago

To be clear, I was lamenting that government is involved in every aspect of our lives, so that one cannot avoid talking about these things now.

Brett • 1 month ago

Before the sixties government didn't have a large impact on the GDP and only after the sixties did the government really become a rampant tumor that wouldn't stop growing, so basically the government was a non growing tumor until the sixties and after the sixties it was full blown cancer.

macsnafu • 1 month ago

It's bizarre how 'fascist' the alleged anti-fascists really are. When did the left stop believing in free speech and tolerance? Or was it really all just meaningless rhetoric?

Justin Murray • 1 month ago

Extremist movements always end up mirroring the elements of the devil they seek to destroy, particularly the behaviors that movement fabricated to smear their opponent. Hitler followed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the letter. The Soviet Union picked up all of what they considered were the worst elements of capitalism. The 1950s anti-Communist movement created secret police forces and demanded social uniformity. 60s anti-war groups turned to armed militantism.

There is a pervasive subconscious belief within extremist movements that to beat your opponent, you must become your opponent.

Prometheus1138 • 1 month ago

I was just saying something similar to this in the comments of another article regarding social media.

My eventual point was that when you use the tactics of your enemy, you validate them and eventually become them. Then it doesn't matter who "wins." I'd go on to say there can be no victory for anyone, once principles are compromised.

TheOriginalDaveH • 1 month ago

The latter of course.

Ron Fleming • 1 month ago

The left believes that only the left needs or wants free speech. People have always been free to say what their rulers want them to say ... which on its face is true ... but it's simply assumed that those rulers are always and everywhere fascists. This is because the left believes that power itself is inherently rightist; when leftists have power, that's not power at all, but freedom.

Dr. Weezil • 1 month ago

They never believed in those things.

James Fenton III • 1 month ago

Speak the truth, should you become targeted it's best to stand by your values.
Only when these idiots are exposed and forced back, will things become sane again.
Jordan outlined the results of socialism around the globe throughout history. It's not possible to defend socialism when the bodies pile up in the millions.

TheOriginalDaveH • 1 month ago

"The people attacking Chris Pratt, and even hoping to harm his career, reputation, and finances, hold no moral high ground".
But they think they do, and that annoys me to no end.

RB Z • 1 month ago

Great article. Only one thing stood out to me as potentially incorrect--and since I am a hyper critical jerk, here you go:

They use words in consciously dishonest ways.

Certainly many of them misuse these words consciously, but I think most of the rank-and-file "Imposers" (great term, by the way) are brainwashed enough to fully believe everything they are saying. As a product of the California public school system, I can easily see how this type of wording would sound like familiar patterns to them. This use of words like "hate" is constantly repeated to school kids from K through college graduation and beyond. Everyone you are supposed to look up to, teachers, principles, professors, the self-righteous kids, say that the bad people all have "hate" and it is the group they identify with rather than their mental state that defines hatred. Republicans hate X, Christians hate Y, and old white men hate everyone who isn't an old white man.

I went through something like 16 years of this. I never fell for it intellectually, but the language pattern has a familiar ring to it that still sounds to me like what the people-who-know-they-are-better-than-me think, even decades later. It's an earworm. Even now, my first gut reaction hearing it is always to try to prove why the person being accused is not a member of the group in which he is accused of being. That is, my first instinct is never to question whether the group in question is actually hateful. It disappears once I think about it for a second, but I imagine it is ear candy to people who bought into it all through their school years. It just sounds correct to them to speak and think in terms of groups hating other groups and hatred being failure to agree entirely with them.

And it seems like this kind of "earworm disinformation" is likely to spread well beyond schools, as Deist points out:

then social media voices join the chorus until the original reality becomes completely obscured:
Ektor • 1 month ago

The guy can do what he wants, think what he wants and say what he wants. Who he supports in an election or elsewhere is nobody's business...especially not that of the woke thugs or the putrid social media Gestapo. The media is a cowardly bunch of busy-bodies with no heart, mind or soul of their own. Poor, poor creatures. Ignore the media and live free!

RB Z • 1 month ago

After posting a comment below, it just now occurs to me that this is yet another example of "the left always projects." In this example, it explains why they tend to think other people always fall into groups, and why they can believe any group who doesn't agree with them is hateful.

First, as collectivists, their predisposition to thinking of people as groups is obvious. They tend to see everyone as existing within a clearly definable group and being defined by the group itself. So, if this is an example of the left projecting, it shouldn't surprise us that, whatever they believe is in the mindset of the group must also be in the mindset of the individual.

As to the mindset of hatred, they display convincing amounts of hatred toward people who do not agree with them, so again it shouldn't be surprising if they think everyone hates people who don't agree with them. And since the non-left, do not agree with the left, the non-left must hate the left like the left hate them. And, per the first point above about collectivism, since they identify every Imposed Upon person as a member of the Imposed Upon group and of the left in general, we shouldn't be surprised if they think every non-left group, and by extension every non-left person, hates every Imposed Upon person.

Maybe they don't actually hate these people, but I mean the actual definition of hate. But if their actual emotion is similar to what they accuse others of having, then it is what they call "hate," and my projection theory holds. The left aren't alone in engaging in projection, we all do it. I think the right projects in their own way, but mostly in mundane ways. "Everyone just wants everything to stay exactly as it is now, right?" But for the last couple years it has seemed to be very apparent on the left, and it has been far from mundane.

Justin Murray • 1 month ago

Check what they did to Zoe Saldana. The diversity squad literally threw racial slurs at her. You can't make this up.

rightintel • 1 month ago

That was the slam dunk on their stupidity: using a racial slur to attack someone, because she defended someone...whose church they think uses slurs.

Greg Morin • 1 month ago

I do wonder what Jordan Peterson would have to say about all this insofar as this is a form of compelled speech which he vehemently opposed in Canada. In programming one is permitted an undefined value (True, False, Undefined) but now with this crowd that option is off the table. This is just political nolo contendere.

Klerk • 1 month ago

These progressive should know better than to piss off Pratts father in law.


Dunno_Drumpf • 1 month ago

"Push back against these bullies."
Hey Jeff, why don't you push back first.
Why did you cuck out after the backlash from your blood and soil speech?

I remember in another speech from long ago, though I can't find the video anymore (censored?), where you talked about mass immigration being a violation of citizens' rights because these immigrants can freely travel on public property right up to people's front porch.

So Jeff, either you re-grow some balls or step down from your position as president of LVMI.

And no, Jeff, you can't censor me at all. Account bans don't work. IP bans don't work. Because I have a Cisco router and I can change my WAN port's MAC address and get a new IP any time I want. I also know how to use VPNs.


Dr. Weezil • 1 month ago

You need either a life or medical treatment or both.

“Cuck out.” What planet do you live on? His response has been, essentially, to laugh at critics.

jandr0 • 1 month ago

[...you can't censor me at all.]

No need to censor you. Letting you continually demonstrate your "style" is good enough.

LudwigvonRothbard • 1 month ago

Blocking you in all your incarnations works though.

See you soon troll-boy!

Don Wornock • 1 month ago

The left is no different than 90% of the people. Almost everyone gets angry and wants to fight those that don't agree with them. It was that way when someone didn't agree with FDR and all union people wanted to fight anyone that didn't agree with the union.

davegrille • 1 month ago

Any grouping of people the Democrats can support,the Democrats can turn against.

Dario Seventi • 1 month ago

Becoming a politician, should NEVER be allowed to become a career.

Politically incorrect • 1 month ago


Jorge Bueso • 1 month ago

I didn´n know what "Hate Has No Home Here" yard signs referred to. I've found this interesting article written by F.H.Buckley explaining its origin and effects: "Why 'No Hate' Signs Are Actually Pretty Hateful": https://www.foxnews.com/opi...

It's amazing how these stupid ideas (and paraphernalia) spread around the world almost instantly, as if it were the deadliest virus: https://mises.org/wire/stat... The multinational 'progressive' factory/lobby knows no borders (and find useful fools in every country... specially among state pundits).

Dr. Weezil • 1 month ago

This might sound harsh, but I believe that as a people we don't hate enough things. Too much slides and is tolerated.

Really?? • 1 month ago

Celebrities fighting with each other. Why should anyone care what an actor thinks? After all, an actor is someone who make a living pretending to be someone else. I guess it's just a facet of the "cult of personality" world we live in.

rightintel • 1 month ago

I don't think it was the actors fighting, actually. It was the actors defended the religious actor(the content of his character) that got Twitter outraged.

Klerk • 1 month ago

Actors are considered influencers due to their popularity.

Justin Murray • 1 month ago

You so sure about that? They consistently go for left wing political figures yet it seems that every 8 years, they fail to get their guy in office. 2020 is a watershed year for the celebrity community as it's exposing how little we care about their opinions. This isn't going to just hurt their political credibility but their pocketbooks when companies realize that, no, hiring them to pitch a phone plan isn't going to drive sales. Goodbye sponsorship deals.

The person attached to a film shows very little impact on the film's success. The second Robert Downey Jr. disconnected from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, his film failed. Nobody rushed out to watch Doolittle or The Judge and Love & Distrust couldn't even get a theater to show it. The content of the film was way more important, as is the product over whoever is hired to show up in the ads.

Klerk • 1 month ago

I don't know how successful they are but wouldn't you agree that if you believed in XYZ and had Robert Downey Jr tweet about it that your cause would get some press?

Roger Moore (RIP) was a big time supporter of UNICEF.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has a couple of things he supports.
Jerry Lewis used to do the MDA telethon for something like 12-24 hrs every year.

To your point there are plenty of actors who've had flops but are still considered heavyweights in the industry. Clint Eastwood for example. Continued success isn't as important as having had a run of great success.

Do you know anybody who actually changed their political views because of something an actor said?

Klerk • 1 month ago

Change? What about cementing a political view? For example would you disagree that then George HW Bush and the Republican party received a big bump in popularity when he tapped Arnold Schwarzenegger to be chair of President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports? This was during the height of Arnolds movie career.

I don’t know, maybe. It’s just that people’s political views tend to be pretty cemented as it is.

jandr0 • 1 month ago

[It’s just that people’s political views tend to be pretty cemented as it is.]

So the "cementers" are doing a good job then.

Seems Klerk got it right.

So the question we haven’t answered is, who are the original “cementers”?

Ron Fleming • 1 month ago

That's not their job. Their job is to validate this or that by echoing it.