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?
So, let us see some of the things Dems are for:
How many of the first three are shared by Mohammedns, yours truly wonders? I would say: zero.
Now, Islam is such an inherently hypocritical religion that a number of Muslims will always – fully in line with the Child Rapist's “teaching” – openly proclaim anything and everything that furthers their cause. However, the Religion of Beheading is also inherently violent, and there will always be a number of people among them who are ready to use it in the name of their religion, which is absolutely in conformity with said religion.
Therefore, it can come to pass – and in fact it did come to pass – that a registered Democrat voter – that is: a bona fide progressive – shoots 50 homos dead.
Libtards will have to deal with it at some point; because when enough perverts have been massacred by orthodox Mohammedans, the perverts will start to question the wisdom of Hillary & Co.'s unlimited power lust. Nor can the Puppetmasters think that all Mohammedand will indefinitely play their game: Mohammedans are fiercely against all values of Libtard-ism, and violence will become more and more frequent as their number increases. You can try to cover up as much you want (“homophobia”), but fifty homo asses have been, actually, taken down on Sunday, and there can be no doubt more and more of that “demographic” will stop and think for a change.
The Puppetmasters will not be able to have their cake and eat it. To say it in Marxist terms, the inherent contradictions of their strategy will cause its demise and total implosion in time, albeit only when enough homo blood has flown.
What happens after that – with an awful lot of angry Mohammedans in the Country – will be interesting to watch.
And it came to pass an actor appropriately called Depp (ask the Germans) and his perverted civil concubine, married not two years ago, are now divorcing. Not, however, before getting involved in a story of falsification of documents to allow their pets (probably the smartest members of the family) to be introduced in Australia. An abject video apologies followed (“see? We do not think we are above the law! Don’t do as we did! You could end up in real trouble!), and now we have the renewed insults to the Australian government official, because before the launch of a movie a bit of publicity can’t really be bad.
It will be noted that the very publicly emancipated, very publicly “bi” wife of the Depp, a fairly well-known actress making an Obamaload of money herself, did not feel being an emancipated lesbian prevents one from trying to extract money from her husband of, erm, several months.
I reflect that these semi-retarded nincompoops move more votes than most journalists; that they are asked about the most important issues of our times and seldom fail to say the wrongest possible things about them; that they are considered something between very smart and absolutely superior minds by millions of people who could be taught by the (ex) couple’s dogs.
They aren’t. They are children with too much money, and they show it day in and day out. They have no morals, no brains, no shame, and no clue. Some of them can act, but this is no proof of intelligence. A Libtard doesn’t lose the “tard” part just because he becomes rich.
Democracy is overrated. It can work very well in a people solidly anchored in the right moral values; it sends said people to the dogs when it become an immense exercise of blind leading the blind.
The idiots of the Caribbeans are among us.
And they shape the way we think.
This astonishing piece of journalistic excrement does not come from a rabid, drunken libtard blogger, but from a big news outlet; evidently made from the same libtards who write the drunken, rabid bloggers mentioned above. Of course, someone considered a genius by Libtard standard must have looked at it and spit his coffee on his desk, and the rubbish was removed. But the tragedy is that it was posted in the first place.
I am not saying here that the man who wrote the title should be fired. I am saying that everyone involved with this should be fired. This is a level of stupidity and childishness astonishing even for Libtard standards. To think that this very same outlets “informs” millions about serious world matters, and millions are ready to believe what they write, is simply mind-boggling.
No wonder the readers of such outlets dwindle, as less traditional but more informed sources become the place where people with a brain go to get their news.
The sad thing is that, in the end, Libtard is who Libtard reads. Therefore, shops like MSNBC can be sure that as the mother of the idiot is always pregnant, so there will always be libtards in great numbers willing to read this rubbish and think it's professional journalism.
Whether it's enough to make good money remains to be seen. But I think it will be enough to allow countless reprobates to go to hell with the high speed train.
I seem to notice a new turn of phrase around: “men who have sex with men”, short: MSM.
Whilst it is always difficult to know what moves libtards to always new stupid expressions – I struggle to follow the ever-expanding series of initials for faggots, dykes, trannies and assorted pervs – in this case it seems to me the reason for this Neo-libtardism is evident:
1. To suggest that a man might have sex with another man and not be a faggot.
2. To avoid the use of the word “gay”, thankfully now commonly used as mockery.
All those libtards are either practicing perverts, or think there's nothing like “perversion” even if they “happen” to be straight. Therefore, they must try to create the legend that a man might be “bi”, or – as they also say, hilariously – “curious”.
Erm, no. Men like women. Not dykes, nor faggots, nor strange surgeon freaks. Women.
I truly wonder whether the people who use words like “MSM” would mount their dog (MMD), or sleep with their sister (MSS) or their mother (MSMo), or their aunt (MSA) out of “curiosity”. I do not want to know the answer.
These bunch of perverts or aspiring such are trying to sell perversion as another form of normality, and to persuade you it is even compatible with being normal. Their aim is to persuade the mainstream idiot that a “gay person” is not even “different” in any perceivable way from the “normality”.
I truly wonder how many of these perverted retards produce faggots and dykes, or whatever might be in the middle. I mean, what has remained of masculinity in a man even thinking in this way? How can he raise a normal boy, or a sane girl? Is not a man who cannot find anything wrong in a pervert the very epitome of one, though he might not be practicing his perversion? Which sane person would want to have such a father? And this is supposed to be the generally accepted thinking?
Beware of words. They are very dangerous.
One of the funniest traits of liberals is their love for Sunday Psychology and fake wisdom.
To make an example, they seem to think people who tend to talk a lot about homosexuality (generally because they have been raised properly, in a proper Christian country, and feel as if bestiality had become the latest fashion modern society has to “celebrate”) get a lot of accusations of being, at some level, latent homosexuals.
The reasoning is: if you really hate something, at some level you like it. Smart, isn’t it? Let us think this to the end: the entire world is secretly in love with Adolf Hitler; the Holocaust is approved at some latent level by the entire world population; incest, bestiality and pedophilia are he most popular latent passions known to mankind; particularly to Liberals, who scream all the time about pedophile priests.
I always enjoy giving the usual wannabe Freud a smiling, very relaxed answer: first I let them express the concept that what one hates he at some level loves, and then I proceed to explain to them that they are telling me themselves (so they must know rather well) that they would love to screw their dog, their parents, and their children or nephews (if any)… Make sure to mention the children, if any. No, seriously.
Here is where the one or other generally get seriously offended (they can accuse you of an abomination, but you can’t do the same with them; hey, they’re the tolerant ones…), and this is the time to tell them very clearly in their face what you think of those like them, of their wannabe psychology and of the state of their brain cells in general.
This, you do in a very commanding and virile tone which says “the jokes end here, you moron”, in case they should think you aren’t masculine enough (which, by the way, liberals often aren’t themselves; which is why you see them dressed like fags even when they happen not to be), so that the air is clear from any possible misunderstanding.
I have already had three or four of these neat exchanges, and I assure you it is great fun and not only ends the debate, but takes care that the above mentioned Liberal expunges the theory from his little collection of platitudes, at least in the presence of those who were there.
I have already written in the past that these liberals are very often people of mediocre intelligence with a great desire of making themselves beautiful with some easily digestible common place; being rather slow, they will not see their shallowness, but this will not fail to impress other people moving in the same IQ regions; that is: other liberals. When many follow the same platitudes it will be called Obamania (and the money helps there a lot), or Global Warming, but it works on a much smaller scale, too.
So, my dear liberal cretin, how is your reaction to incest?