I am somewhat perplexed at the behaviour of otherwise excellent news outlets like, say, Breitbart. In their desire to expose the fanaticism of the Liberals, they end up publishing endless articles containing their antics. Basically, they give them a huge resonance box.
Does it help?
My first instinct is to say “it doesn't”: the space and energy should be better used to publish articles of those who say the right things, rather than endlessly giving a stage to the bad guys. I must say I am at times so put off by that that I instantly leave the page, and go reading somewhere else.
However, and for the sake of honesty, I must admit that Trump won the election, and this tactic of constantly rubbing liberal thinking under the nose of sanely thinking voters might, actually, have had the desired effect in the end, mobilising many who would perhaps have stayed home without the constant aggravation.
Still, aggravation it is. It also engenders the impression that the world out there be full of liberals, almost monopolising both the public discourse and the individual thinking. I would say that the exact contrary is the truth, with the liberal nutcases a very tiny minority of the population, but gaining traction because their ideas are endlessly spread from both friend and foe.
I personally do not react well to this kind of journalism. When some Liberal states something retarded I want to read the reasoned criticism and condemnation of it, not only the liberal madness in itself. This way I am both informed and nurtured. But I have no desire to be subject to an endless litany of liberal nonsense and a long list of dumb tweets every day, merely to be told for the millionth time that these people are dumb.
What do you think?
What effect does the tactic of Drudge or Breitbart have on you?
There Is No Need For Dangerous Faggots: On Milo Yiannopoulos And The Liberace-Style Of Making Politics.
The very recent news of Milo Yiannopoulos’ “resignation” from Breitbart allows me to share with you a couple of reflections of – as is typical in Yiannopoulos himself – very politically incorrect nature.
I visit Breitbart every day, and in the last week or two I was peeved not a little at seeing those very disgusting pictures of Yiannopoulos on the site almost every day. My impression of the man was that, whilst he said a lot of things that were sensible and reasonable, he had a very basic, very fundamental flaw: like in most homos, his perversion was clearly his dominant character trait, the “feature” that defined who he is. Nor have I ever believed his repeated protestations of being a, so to speak, involuntary fag who would very much like to be straight, as everyone who really thought that way would avoid dressing and behaving like a flaming queen immediately afterwards. For this reason I have often read what the man wrote, but I could never stomach any video of his, nor have I ever given him any meaningful space on this blog. Basically, the man was like a well of fresh water in order to reach which you have to drill through thick strata of excrement. Thanks but no thanks, Mr Liberace. There will be other wells.
The specifics of Yiannopoulos – momentary, I think – fall are also less transparent that many would want you to believe. It is true that the man has not – literally – advocated sex with pre-pubescent boys. However, I think this is fairly irrelevant from our perspective. Like most homos, the man has clearly no problem with sex with very young boys, and be they grown up physically. The “growing process” crap with which homos tend to snare confused boys of questionable virility is obviously present in him, too and no, I don’t care a straw that he says he has been “abused”. Sodomy is always abuse. Homos tend to like very young, very thin boys. You wonder how deep behind the surface the paedo is lurking.
Most telling to me, though, is that Breitbart decided to ditch Yiannopoulos, which I think indicates a high probability that they know more than we do and have decided that they are better off without him. Everyone who knows Breitbart a little realises that, if they had had confidence that Yannopoulos is sound – at least on pedophilia -, a) they would have started a crusade and extermination war against the liberals clamoring for his scalp and b) they would have relished the fight. They can be such pitbulls that they surprise even yours truly, which in my eyes makes their decision to “resign” Yiannopoulos the more telling.
And what is the moral of the story? It is that you can never trust a homosexual, particularly one that has “outed” himself and thinks he is Liberace. The very fact that he is homosexual tells you that something is very wrong with him; and as a Catholic you know full well that when Satan has already made such inroads into a man’s conscience, chances are he will do further damage. Thinking that a homo will be a perfectly decent man besides the “detail” of his homosexuality is – particularly in the presence of openly effeminate behaviour and associated circus antics – as naive as to think that a fox can gain her way in the hen house and be happy with one victim or two. The high rate of suicides and psychosomatic diseases, and the high percentage of pedophiles who are homosexual, make it clear enough. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of matter-of-fact, sensible information you will ever read from the Buggers Broadcasting Communism.
Conservatives have tried to make excuses for him, because they liked what he had to say. “He uses his homosexuality as a weapon against the attacks of the liberals”, some said, or “this is only a vehicle used to spread the message among the young”.
Rubbish. No decent person can condone indecency in the name of turning an indecent generation away from it. Yiannopoulos’ antics could have never been justifiable, much less “good”, in the name of a higher good. You see how these people often end up anyway, because their own deep seated disorder is a constant menace to themselves.
Breitbart does not need Yiannopoulos, and Yiannopoulos needs to put his life where his mouth is and convert to decency, living the morality he preaches.
It always peeves me when libtard scalp hunters can claim a victory. But this wasn’t a very difficult target.
There is no need for dangerous faggots. There is, in fact, no need for faggots of any sort.
Faux News titles today the news of the appointment of Steve Bannon as main advisor of President Elect
Hillary Clinton (ha! Not! How sweet is that!?) Donald Trump with the big-lettered statement that it caused a massively negative reaction. You read the article and it turns out the negative reactions came exclusively from Democraps and Judases. So, no news here, but it's just another example of how the MSM will use every breath of every living being against Trump.
Meanwhile, the BBC has a Q & A session, and one of the questions is whether Trump will wage war against North Korea. Just like that. What Hitlery would have done with Russia does not seem to bother many at the Buggers Broadcasting Communism.
You see this everywhere. “Some say” that Bannon is Aryan Brotherood, or White Supremacist, or whatever helps to smear him. Who says it? What is his political orientation? What is his agenda? All this does not count. It is sufficient to hide behind the finger or “reporting” and nothing is off limits.
“Some say Hillary Clinton is involved in a paedophile ring”. This is fact, because some people do say so. You never hear it from the Libtard media, though…
Tv so-called pundits (with the right skin colour) call the electoral result a “Whitelash”: would they have called 2008 “Blacklash”?
How many “Some Say White Supremacists” have taken to the streets – blocking traffic, vandalising cars, and braking shop windows – to protest against Gay Mulatto's election in 2008? If they had done, how would the MSM have reacted?
This has become a parody of journalism, and it is clear by now these people have not learnt anything from their public humiliation. The MSM have dismissed Trump's victory as a kind of rare, barely believable natural phenomenon, and have proceeded to go back to full propaganda mode immediately afterwards.
Cut the MSM as source of information. Get your news from sensible places like Breitbart, Drudge Report, Gateway Pundit, Conservative Treehouse, Zerohedge, InfoWars, or American Thinker. Peep in the MSM only to spot the propaganda and expose it on your blog, your Twitter or Fagbook account, on Reddit, on fora, everywhere. Yes, this includes Glenn Beck.
At some point, money will talk and heads will fall. Perhaps we will, at that point, start to see something akin to “journalism” again. Until then, I encourage you to support sensible sources of information and completely discount whatever rubbish you see in the MSM.
By the bye: I am informed Kaepernick has apparently not even bothered to move his well-paid ass and vote.
We have the great advantage that our opponents are stupid.
Breitbart has excerpts from a book about to be published by a member of Hillary' security detail when she was Monica's First Rival.
It makes for rather entertaining reading.
First Bitch at the White House?
Read it here.
the journalists at breitbart seem to do their homework. The linked article also mentions the recent scandal in New York and the tougher predecessor in reprimanding of Monsignor Pope, Father Guranizo.
No word has come out of the Washington, DC, Chancery office if Pope will be punished beyond having his column taken down. They kicked one South African priest out of the Archdiocese and the Holy See Mission to the United Nations after he criticized Cardinal Dolan for allowing the proposed closing of a small parish which serves the Catholic traditionalist community in New York. And just last year a priest visiting from Moscow, Father Marcel Guarnizo, was tossed from the Diocese of Washington for refusing to give communion to a lesbian at her mother’s funeral.
It is good to know that the betrayal of Catholicism perpetrated by our stinking shepherds is slowly going out of the Catholic circles and finding a wider audience. I can imagine many Breitbard readers slowly becoming more interested in these people: the priest telling it .. straight to the dykes, the other so attached to the Latin Mass, a third criticising the Cardinal Archbishop of New York.
One blog post, one forum comment, one article at a time, we will one day manage to put many, many Catholics in front of the fundamental questions:
what the heck it’s happening? What kind of Catholics are these? And why have I not opened my mouth before?